Sixth-Generation Fighter Design and Speculations

[FlyGuy369]

Hello everyone!

I felt it necessary to create a thread dedicated not-so-much to the news of 6th gen fighters like NGAD, F/A-XX, and so on.

I've spent some time dabbling around the web and what not, researching patents from the companies involved in the competitions. From what I have gathered from the data and other sources is this:

1. Any 6th-Gen fighter is designed for a notional mission profile of supercruise at M2.2 at FL600 with periods at M0.8 for loitering (refueling).

2. Most designs featured are Tailless and use split controls or thrust vectoring for control.

3. The 3-stream engine plays a significant role beyond speed for control ability and raw performance.

4. Most companies involved appear to use some form DSI.

5. Deployable wing sets seem to be needed for low speed flight

I'm going to image dump everything I have here for your viewing. If you want patent numbers, let me know.

 

[VTOLicious]

From what I have gathered from the data and other sources is this:
1. Any 6th-Gen fighter is designed for a notional mission profile of supercruise at M2.2 at FL600 with periods at M0.8 for loitering (refueling).

Any 6th gen? How did you come to this conclusion?

 

[FlyGuy369]

Any 6th gen? How did you come to this conclusion?

That is a direct quote from the Northrop Grumman SERN patent that discusses how to use a three stream engine to create a non-moving supersonic capable exhaust. Reference patent number

US9009966B2​

I say this is a sixth gen fighter technology patent given the engine usage, mission profile described therein, and the date coincides around the time that the demonstrators for NGAD were being produced. This profile indicates a government solicitation for an aircraft to fit that flight profile.

 

[VTOLicious]

That is a direct quote from the Northrop Grumman SERN patent that discusses how to use a three stream engine to create a non-moving supersonic capable exhaust. Reference patent number

US9009966B2​

I say this is a sixth gen fighter technology patent given the engine usage, mission profile described therein, and the date coincides around the time that the demonstrators for NGAD were being produced. This profile indicates a government solicitation for an aircraft to fit that flight profile.

I see... But I think it is a little bit far fetched to conclude that this notional mission profile is true for ANY 6th gen design. Maybe USAF NGAD, but even that is a uncertain assumption. Especially in the context of recent statements of Airforce Secretary...

 

[FlyGuy369]

I see... But I think it is a little bit far fetched to conclude that this notional mission profile is true for ANY 6th gen design. Maybe USAF NGAD, but even that is a uncertain assumption. Especially in the context of recent statements of Airforce Secretary...View attachment 749272

Well then I redact my any sixth generation comment, perhaps NGAD exclusively. Uncertain for sure sadly. However it is atleast a crumb of I formation given to very broad lack of available details that eludes to what the NGAD manned component was supposed to have. Do you feel that mission requirement may be actually on the chopping block now?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

The key word you seem to be missing is "notional".

existing as or based on a suggestion, estimate, or theory; not existing in reality.

 

[FlyGuy369]

The key word you seem to be missing is "notional".

Heck, maybe I am. I'd still like to use it as something to work off of, don't you think?

 

[VTOLicious]

Heck, maybe I am. I'd still like to use it as something to work off of, don't you think?

Of course you can use this mission profile as a baseline assumption. You may end up with something like this ...

 

[FlyGuy369]

Of course you can use this mission profile as a baseline assumption. You may end up with something like this ...

you definitely have a point there! So could ESAV be considered a 6th gen fighter?

 

[paralay]

We can go straight to the "seventh generation fighter" without wasting time on intermediate stops! I do not know what he has, but I know exactly what he does not have.:
- it doesn't have stabilizers.
- it has no keels
- he does not have a cockpit or it is not visible
- it doesn't have missiles, bombs or external tanks outside
- its nozzles and air intakes are not visible

 

[FlyGuy369]

We can go straight to the "seventh generation fighter" without wasting time on intermediate stops! I do not know what he has, but I know exactly what he does not have.:
- it doesn't have stabilizers.
- it has no keels
- he does not have a cockpit or it is not visible
- it doesn't have missiles, bombs or external tanks outside
- its nozzles and air intakes are not visible

And it has frickin' lazers man!

 

[4decaa]

I don't really get the NG canopy design. What's the benefit of doing extra work to get serration on the windscreen (adding more cuts to an otherwise smooth surface), especially as LO canopy/bubble/whatever design now seems to work quite well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it

 

[FlyGuy369]

I don't really get the NG canopy design. What's the benefit of doing extra work to get serration on the windscreen (adding more cuts to an otherwise smooth surface), especially as LO canopy/bubble/whatever design now seems to work quite well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it

Imagine if that edge presented a significant reduction in RCS, but who knows (Northrop does).

 

[Scott Kenny]

My assumptions for NGAD is sustained cruise at supersonic speeds, such that best range is supersonic not subsonic. Probably supercruising faster than F-22, but the important part is the range. 3000nmi+ combat radius, so that you can fly from outside the Chinese A2AD bubble, outside the First and even Second Island Chains, and fight over the mainland. This means a really dang big airframe. If it's under 100klbs MTOW I will be surprised.

FAXX is likely similar, but will have less range and is designed more around air to ground work than the F-22 was. I'm expecting FAXX to be the weight of the F111B: MTOW of ~85klbs, landing weight of about 55klbs (so an empty weight of about 45klbs). Both of those are limited by the catapults and arresting gear on the Nimitz class carriers.

Both NGAD and FAXX would have about twice the air to air loadout of an F15 or F22, on the order of 10-12x BVRAAMs and 2-4x AIM9Xs. Air to air payload of about 4000lbs, maybe 5k if the AIM260s are closer to Sparrow-weight than AMRAAM-weight.

I'm expecting the FAXX to have roughly the same bay size as the A-12 Avenger II, bays big enough to hold at least 4x 2000lb class weapons or 4x AGM-84s, plus 4x AMRAAM-sized missiles (doubled AAM load from the A-12). The total load of an A-12 was supposed to be over 12klbs if carrying 500 or 1000lb bombs (4x6 500lb, 4x3 1000lb), so I'd expect that an FAXX could be loaded up like that as well. But it'd have to take off with a light fuel load from a carrier and then tank up to full internal fuel for the range.

NGAD may or may not be designed with bay volumes for serious mud-moving, it's tough to tell right now. I mean, B-21 has the range and 24k-30klbs of capacity, so unless there is a need for a fast replacement for the Strike Eagle (as Strike NGAD), I suspect that the NGAD will be capable of hauling 1000lb class weapons but not 2000lb bombs, just like F-22. Under that concept, Strike Eagles would get replaced by B-21s.

===============

I'm also expecting the 6th Gen CONOPS to be roughly 1 manned plane per entire strike package, with CCAs filling in for Fighter Escort, pre-strike recon, post-strike damage assessment, EW support, and even dropping the bombs. Especially if the 6th Gen planes have a WSO in back as two-seat planes. Back Seater plays quarterback for the drones, while the pilot flies and fights the aircraft.

FAXX may not do so as quickly, since there's no easy way to put lots of CCAs on a flight deck without running out of room. But I expect NGAD to pretty quickly fly with at least 3x flying missile magazines, plus recon and EW CCAs, as standard.

 

[jsport]

My assumptions for NGAD is sustained cruise at supersonic speeds, such that best range is supersonic not subsonic.

Supersonic standoff and potentially as highest altitude as practical while still controlling the unammned.

Probably supercruising faster than F-22, but the important part is the range. 3000nmi+ combat radius, so that you can fly from outside the Chinese A2AD bubble, outside the First and even Second Island Chains, and fight over the mainland. This means a really dang big airframe. If it's under 100klbs MTOW I will be surprised.

An expensive large basket when later on you state CCAs should carry all the eggs.

FAXX is likely similar, but will have less range and is designed more around air to ground work than the F-22 was. I'm expecting FAXX to be the weight of the F111B: MTOW of ~85klbs, landing weight of about 55klbs (so an empty weight of about 45klbs). Both of those are limited by the catapults and arresting gear on the Nimitz class carriers.

Both NGAD and FAXX would have about twice the air to air loadout of an F15 or F22, on the order of 10-12x BVRAAMs and 2-4x AIM9Xs. Air to air payload of about 4000lbs, maybe 5k if the AIM260s are closer to Sparrow-weight than AMRAAM-weight.

Manned craft's main concern is local self protection likely w/ DEW and maybe a few 9Xs all else as you later state is on unmanned.

I'm expecting the FAXX to have roughly the same bay size as the A-12 Avenger II, bays big enough to hold at least 4x 2000lb class weapons or 4x AGM-84s, plus 4x AMRAAM-sized missiles (doubled AAM load from the A-12). The total load of an A-12 was supposed to be over 12klbs if carrying 500 or 1000lb bombs (4x6 500lb, 4x3 1000lb), so I'd expect that an FAXX could be loaded up like that as well. But it'd have to take off with a light fuel load from a carrier and then tank up to full internal fuel for the range.

Avenger II payloads sounds right but so does crowding the deck w/ CCAs as the number addressed DMPIs is the mission. The issue remains will one's munitions/missiles survive terminal given the proliferation of counter-munition guns protecting the most desired, Desired Mean point of Impact (DMPI)s.

NGAD may or may not be designed with bay volumes for serious mud-moving,

All your previous suppositions are potentially contradictory then.

it's tough to tell right now. I mean, B-21 has the range and 24k-30klbs of capacity, so unless there is a need for a fast replacement for the Strike Eagle (as Strike NGAD), I suspect that the NGAD will be capable of hauling 1000lb class weapons but not 2000lb bombs, just like F-22. Under that concept, Strike Eagles would get replaced by B-21s.

There would appear to be no derivatives fundable given the current budgetary environment despite what some of stated, especially if there are competing concepts and technologies.
B-21 is already mission overcommitted and would not be used for CAS or BAI.

===============

I'm also expecting the 6th Gen CONOPS to be roughly 1 manned plane per entire strike package, with CCAs filling in for Fighter Escort, pre-strike recon, post-strike damage assessment, EW support, and even dropping the bombs. Especially if the 6th Gen planes have a WSO in back as two-seat planes. Back Seater plays quarterback for the drones, while the pilot flies and fights the aircraft.

WSO quarterback sounds right but a main issue is the right distance and altitude of the control craft away from the sub genius CCAs.

FAXX may not do so as quickly, since there's no easy way to put lots of CCAs on a flight deck without running out of room. But I expect NGAD to pretty quickly fly with at least 3x flying missile magazines, plus recon and EW CCAs, as standard.

Crowding the CNVs w/ CCAs would seem to be the best means of addressing the desired DMPIs ie max sortie rate + all the other CCAs required thus very few manned craft on a CVN.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Supersonic standoff and potentially as highest altitude as practical while still controlling the unammned.

An expensive large basket when later on you state CCAs should carry all the eggs.

Still needs the range and speed to make those long round trips in a reasonable length of time. It's a sorties per day issue, if you can't fly there supersonic you can only make one sortie per day. B-21s have this problem, because they're talking about 12-hr missions at 500 knots and 6000nmi round trip. Fighters need to be able to make more sorties to be effective, or they need to be able to loiter for a while till the bad guys show up, or both.

All your previous suppositions are potentially contradictory then.

No, because I'm talking about two separate aircraft and programs.

NGAD, the USAF plane, is likely to be a highly pure air-to-air monster that eventually gets some air-to-ground capabilities later on. Just like the F-15 and F-22 had "not a pound for air to ground" early on in their development.

FAXX, the USN plane, is likely going to be the second coming of A/F-X, the stealthy A-6/A-12/Tomcat replacement program that was dropped in favor of the Super Hornet. Multirole from the start, because you need every possible airframe able to both move mud and shoot down planes when you're on a space-limited carrier deck.

​

You have ~12x manned aircraft flying as your BARCAP 24/7, and that's in pairs. You have about a dozen helicopters doing ASW spread across the carrier group, plus another 8 helos and 4x Ospreys playing cargo haulers. You have 4-6 Hawkeyes. That's all the self-protection and basic functional bits of the air wing, now you can add planes and CCAs to do offensive operations.​

B-21 is already mission overcommitted and would not be used for CAS or BAI.

Probably, but I'm expecting the Army to take over CAS via a gunship V280 controlling a bunch of drones. And F-35s should be doing most of the BAI.

The question is who does the deeper interdiction inside the A2AD zone. The old F-111 and Strike Eagle mission.

1. B-21s are designed to go there already. Building more would be an option.
2. Another option is building a Strike NGAD, which ideally needs to be decided on when designing the NGAD so your bays are already big enough to hold a useful number of bombs. See the F22, which cannot carry a 2000lb bomb internally because the bay is too small. An F-22 loaded for mixed work can carry 8x SDB, 2x AMRAAM, and 2x AIM9; and that's only 2x AIM9 more than an F35 carries. While each bay of the F35 can carry 4x SDB and 1x AMRAAM. The F-22 cannot carry the AARGM or AARGM-ER internally at all, so unless the AIM260 also has some A2G/ARM capabilities the Strike NGAD bays need to at least be big enough to take an AARGM-ER.
3. Or you design a whole new plane for deep interdiction, separate from either B-21 or NGAD airframes. That'll be expensive, so that is the least good option.

Those are your 3 choices. Well, I guess you could have a fourth option, doing nothing for deep interdiction, but I don't see that happening.

Crowding the CNVs w/ CCAs would seem to be the best means of addressing the desired DMPIs ie max sortie rate + all the other CCAs required thus very few manned craft on a CVN.

Probably, but you still need the maintenance, fueling, ordnance, etc people as if those were manned planes. So it ends up that going to CCAs on a carrier doesn't save a whole lot of manning, it just reduces the number of pilot officers to deal with.

Remember, you are space limited on a carrier, and the Navy is less sold on drones than the USAF is. So early on the plan appears to be lots of manned planes and few CCAs, probably 1-3 per plane and only the "spear carrier" types that pack a couple of AAMs for your manned plane to use. Not like the probable USAF usage with only one manned plane per strike package.

 

[_Del_]

Think of a WWII battle group built around the battleship(s). The battleship is the main investment of resources, manpower, and the like. It's also the one with the power to really reach out and touch someone. It's the raison d'etre of the SAG. Right now, our battleships can strike farther than the enemy can see. That's good.
You want to keep things away from the battleship to let it do it's job of whacking things at a distance in relative safety.

So you have a number of smaller ships and boats (and even float planes) attached to screen your battleships -- to better enable your battleship to see and hit targets at a distance and to deny or delay the enemy forces trying to engage your battleship or ascertain it's position.

Ideally the bad guy is so busy playing whack-a-mole he does not have time to locate and attack the battleship. Steel rains from the heavens while he tries to figure out where the battleships are. The destroyers and cruisers don't have to actually sink enemy battleships (though it'd be nice). They just have to see the bad guy before the bad guy sees our battleships. Delay or deny the engagement Our battleship can engage on favourable terms or bug out and fight another day.

NGAD won't be a battleship. I'm not even convinced it's going to be a cruiser. I'm not sure NGAD will even exist in the same sense that it was originally planned. For interdiction, I'm not convinced anyone is going "downtown" to drop 2000 lb bombs anymore. Interdiction will be from beyond the horizon, and if you absolutely have to send something, it can be unmanned.
For A2A do we need a large number of more capable aircraft than a networked F-35 provides? Does the air superiority 6th gen being enough to the table to justify the price tag? How can I get the value proposition to out value what the F-35 does, and will no doubt continue to do because it is such a large international program.


Keep your investments as far away from the line of battle as you can while still being able to do your job. Let the cheap stuff and sensors get close and be your eyeballs. Unmanned systems will be brave enough to uphold even the standards of traditional British destroyer captains.

The answer to 6th gen air combat will quickly divide between longer ranged missiles, better stealth/payload/endurance at the top end, and a number of smaller, cheaper, mass-produced "they were expendable" eyeballs. Some with teeth, some not. We already have a platform near-service to rain steel from beyond the horizon. Now it needs other platforms to be the eyeballs and harass or otherwise generally deny the enemy the freedom of operation to go find and engage them.

 

[jsport]

Still needs the range and speed to make those long round trips in a reasonable length of time. It's a sorties per day issue, if you can't fly there supersonic you can only make one sortie per day. B-21s have this problem, because they're talking about 12-hr missions at 500 knots and 6000nmi round trip. Fighters need to be able to make more sorties to be effective, or they need to be able to loiter for a while till the bad guys show up, or both.

Thank u for the numbers.. thought then that a large section of the Pacific and ability to go deep enough at supersonic into the mainland to matter and even loiter (A2AD) would seem to argue for radical solutions. ..have not a clue what is the answer but would appear to be nothing on the immediate docket especially if it is going work w/o a stealth tanker.

No, because I'm talking about two separate aircraft and programs.

NGAD, the USAF plane, is likely to be a highly pure air-to-air monster that eventually gets some air-to-ground capabilities later on. Just like the F-15 and F-22 had "not a pound for air to ground" early on in their development.

Programmatically, and operationally this would be a corporate welfare program not a capability beyond F-22. Pure Air Sup or any single role advocate needs to be run out of USG svc altogether and will be given the current context.

FAXX, the USN plane, is likely going to be the second coming of A/F-X, the stealthy A-6/A-12/Tomcat replacement program that was dropped in favor of the Super Hornet. Multirole from the start, because you need every possible airframe able to both move mud and shoot down planes when you're on a space-limited carrier deck.

​

One can only pray for a reversal of the Hornet debacle, but still the majority of CVN space need be for unmanned, ideally something like NGrum A-12 competitor ie more like a carrier borne mini-B-2. a depiction can be found SPF.

Probably, but I'm expecting the Army to take over CAS via a gunship V280 controlling a bunch of drones. And F-35s should be doing most of the BAI.

The question is who does the deeper interdiction inside the A2AD zone. The old F-111 and Strike Eagle mission.

IMHO deep strike is separate and an opportunistic strategy change to the ATO while BAI is near battle and more tactical to operational level.

1. B-21s are designed to go there already. Building more would be an option.

Assume there will be spare B-21s even if there are more built than currently planned is quite optimistic.

1. Another option is building a Strike NGAD, which ideally needs to be decided on when designing the NGAD so your bays are already big enough to hold a useful number of bombs. See the F22, which cannot carry a 2000lb bomb internally because the bay is too small. An F-22 loaded for mixed work can carry 8x SDB, 2x AMRAAM, and 2x AIM9; and that's only 2x AIM9 more than an F35 carries. While each bay of the F35 can carry 4x SDB and 1x AMRAAM. The F-22 cannot carry the AARGM or AARGM-ER internally at all, so unless the AIM260 also has some A2G/ARM capabilities the Strike NGAD bays need to at least be big enough to take an AARGM-ER.

IMHO one of the basic issues is that craft which can't carry numbers of lng rng weapons for long distances are not all that useful in the 2030s. Thus the mention of the Bone being reconsidered. The best F-111 is a B-1 Lrg non stealth craft, or stealth multi-purpose/tankers and new radical concepts start to make sense.

CVNs who cant carry some craft w/ serious payloads like the NG carrier bomber AX proposal will begin to show themselves of limited value..have stated this numerous times on threads over the yrs.

1. Or you design a whole new plane for deep interdiction, separate from either B-21 or NGAD airframes. That'll be expensive, so that is the least good option.

Those are your 3 choices. Well, I guess you could have a fourth option, doing nothing for deep interdiction, but I don't see that happening.

Single mission craft are likely gone for good.

Probably, but you still need the maintenance, fueling, ordnance, etc people as if those were manned planes. So it ends up that going to CCAs on a carrier doesn't save a whole lot of manning, it just reduces the number of pilot officers to deal with.

yes

Remember, you are space limited on a carrier, and the Navy is less sold on drones than the USAF is. So early on the plan appears to be lots of manned planes and few CCAs, probably 1-3 per plane and only the "spear carrier" types that pack a couple of AAMs for your manned plane to use. Not like the probable USAF usage with only one manned plane per strike package.

IMHO most flying things which are not radical concepts (what is genuinely needed) start looking like lrg internal bay Blended Wing Body (BWB) munition/UAS motherships w/ DEW. CCA's, yes, but mostly optionally manned regular NGAD because beyond niche EW, ISR, CAS they need to deliver serious payloads to be worth it.

 

[quellish]

The question is who does the deeper interdiction inside the A2AD zone.

F-35 leaves the chat weeping

 

[F-2]

ADB410823

Air Vehicle Integration and Technology Research (AVIATR). Task Order 0025: Advanced Air Vehicle System Integration and Technology Analysis for Next-Generation Tactical Aircraft (NGTA) - Boeing. Volume 7: Phase 2 Task 5 - Kinetic Weapons Integration, Nonproprietary Version

3/1/2014

AD1017024

Research for the Aerospace Systems Directorate (R4RQ). Task Order 0005: Advanced Research and Development of Airbreathing Propulsion Systems (ARDAPS)

6/15/2016

AD1078187

Integrated Vehicle and Energy Technology (INVENT) Spiral 2 Integrated Ground Demonstration (IGD)

9/1/2017

ADB411151

Aerospace Technology Evaluation and Assessment (ATEA). Task Order 0014: Global Strike Technology Assessments

3/1/2015

Some DTIC docs that might be related to F/A-XX

 

[Desertfox]

I see NGAD as FB-23 and F/A-XX as F-23N, both with F-35 derived avionics.

 

[Scott Kenny]

F-35 leaves the chat weeping

They've got a role, mostly doing Battlefield Air Interdiction. They're not Scud-hunting or equivalent. They can't loiter in the A2AD zone, while I'm expecting FAXX, Strike NGAD and/or B-21 to be able to do just that.

F-35 is doing pinpoint but planned strikes due to limited capacity (2x JATMs, maybe 1x SiAW, and 4x SDBs; or if the JATMs are A2G capable 2x JATMs and 8x SDBs), not going strolling through the area seeing what they can blow up.

 

[quellish]

They've got a role, mostly doing Battlefield Air Interdiction. They're not Scud-hunting or equivalent. They can't loiter in the A2AD zone, while I'm expecting FAXX, Strike NGAD and/or B-21 to be able to do just that.

F-35 is doing pinpoint but planned strikes due to limited capacity (2x JATMs, maybe 1x SiAW, and 4x SDBs; or if the JATMs are A2G capable 2x JATMs and 8x SDBs), not going strolling through the area seeing what they can blow up.

They are doing SEAD, CAS, and BAI wether they like it or not - because they are the only option available.

First day stealth - FTW!

 

[jsport]

SEAD w/ F-35 would then be limited almost to east side of Taiwan, whereas the TBMs, and PLAAF airfields protected by S-300's and above SAMs would likely be westerly Mainland ie F-35 rendered useless.

First day stealth will become first month stealth w/ standoff working for the other guy and one's 5th gen decimated.

JATM is only for BVR defense in this scenario not the "pound of ground" ie a self-(s)licking ice cream cone. Are you attempting to save pilots or executing a A2AD strategy. Any space not effecting DMPIs is as they say a bit "too self-reflective" ie "pilot selfish -- pound foolish".

Craft that can't carry AGM-183 ARRW ("Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon") are going to be of limited value.
Minus DEW self-protection one is quite limited after 2030s missiles of all types w/o significant range and likely ability to overcome ground-based gun-based counter-munition tech protecting ground assets like SAMs & hardened shelters will be of limited value.

Concentrating on SIAW will only counter ship threats reducing CVNs to self-protecting ice cream cones.

 

[datafuser]

Of course you can use this mission profile as a baseline assumption. You may end up with something like this ...

Can you please post the whole presentation here?

 

[VTOLicious]

Can you please post the whole presentation here?

You can search this forum for ESAV and/or STAV

 

[datafuser]

You can search this forum for ESAV and/or STAV

Thanks, got it.

Wayback Machine

 

[yasotay]

F-35 leaves the chat weeping

At least in Europe, homebuilt sports planes and kamikaze drones.
Given the plethora of small cruise missiles and powered guided bombs the answer may be a C(B)-17 in a larger conflict.

 

[Ainen]

My assumptions for NGAD is sustained cruise at supersonic speeds, such that best range is supersonic not subsonic. Probably supercruising faster than F-22, but the important part is the range. 3000nmi+ combat radius, so that you can fly from outside the Chinese A2AD bubble, outside the First and even Second Island Chains, and fight over the mainland. This means a really dang big airframe. If it's under 100klbs MTOW I will be surprised.

This is an old and very dangerous can of worms.
Such a plane can't really interact with anything other than itself. There's a philosophical principle, that to control a medium, you have to adhere to its rules.
Rule of the game - most objects in the air move at subsonic speeds or slower.

You need to be able to fly with CCAs and match their advancement and time on station. You need to fly with stealth bombers, which aren't exactly fast. You need to escort an endless amount of things.
You need to be able to loiter in the area to provide CAP.

All of these things directly suffer from a high supersonic optimized darter.

Mig-31BM is, as a M=3 class interceptor with a full load of BVR weapons, is one of the most formidable "killers" in the air, despite being 45 years old. At the same time, it's the single most shitty "fighter" among anything remotely modern. Like, F-5 is more useful for 80% of practical cases.

If you're doing such a supersonic-optimized, VLO "destroyer" - you have to be ready that it will not be your fighter, it's a force multiplier/airspace interdiction asset. You need to design and/or have such a fighter.
China, as assumed, is doing it now because they have such an air superiority fighter in mass production; they can afford to expand on its qualities.
For US, the current asset is F-35. If consistent cheaper NGAD rumors are true - the new NGAD is specifically an air superiority replacement to the F-35.
I.e. it isn't just affordable, it has to take the same tasks as listed above. You can't make it an Elusive Joe.
VLO is highly desirable, and supercruise is highly desirable, but high supersonic optimization is just not.

 

[quellish]

For US, the current asset is F-35. If consistent cheaper NGAD rumors are true - the new NGAD is specifically an air superiority replacement to the F-35.

NGAD is a replacement for the F-22, not F-35. F-35 is a strike fighter not air superiority.

 

[Ainen]

NGAD is a replacement for the F-22, not F-35. F-35 is a strike fighter not air superiority.

But "F-35 or cheaper" NGAD will very certainly undermine f-35. You don't force them to cost the same otherwise.
F-35, while strike fighter indeed, is meant to be the wast majority of counter air capacity.

And the more I read into those statements, the more I feel something tectonic is going underneath. Something so large the whole Lockheed multi-state, multi-national team couldn't suppress.

 

[Scott Kenny]

But "F-35 or cheaper" NGAD will very certainly undermine f-35. You don't force them to cost the same otherwise.
F-35, while strike fighter indeed, is meant to be the wast majority of counter air capacity.

And the more I read into those statements, the more I feel something tectonic is going underneath. Something so large the whole Lockheed multi-state, multi-national team couldn't suppress.

I don't think they'll really go there.

The range requirement still hasn't been lifted, to anything publicly admitted. So at the very least the NGAD needs to be significantly bigger than the F-35, which tends to mean more expensive. Even if just using F-35 avionics and a single F135.

 

[VTOLicious]

I wonder if we will ever see a supersonic fighter jet that does away with vertical control surfaces altogether. Even Sukhoi, who undoubtedly has extensive experience in TVC, has equipped the Su-57 (and Su-75) with vertical control surfaces.

 

[Manuducati]

I wonder if we will ever see a supersonic fighter jet that does away with vertical control surfaces altogether. Even Sukhoi, who undoubtedly has extensive experience in TVC, has equipped the Su-57 (and Su-75) with vertical control surfaces.

At least it was demonstrated in the white world by the X-31 "semi tailless" program.
The still physically present vertical fin was disabled/neutered by the flight control system.

"Quasi-tailless tests began in 1994. The first phase started with supersonic evaluations at Mach 1.2. "

X-31 Semi-Tailless Concept - NASA

This is an artist's computer-enhanced concept of a semi-tailless X-31 Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability Aircraft in flight.

www.nasa.gov

There are several mentions in this forum about a black program for a X-36 follow-on as well...

 

[VTOLicious]

Exactly, nothing more than concepts, proposals and x-planes... First flight of X-31 was 34 years ago!

 

[Scott Kenny]

Exactly, nothing more than concepts, proposals and x-planes... First flight of X-31 was 34 years ago!

What combat aircraft was designed less than 30 years ago? All the Chinese stuff, which doesn't have the flight control computer experience to make a working tailless fighter.

 

[VTOLicious]

What combat aircraft was designed less than 30 years ago? All the Chinese stuff, which doesn't have the flight control computer experience to make a working tailless fighter.

Su-57 and Su-75 for instance.

What Chinese engineers are capable of is out of my knowledge. However, they tend to graduate in the US

 

[Scott Kenny]

Su-57 and Su-75 for instance.

Which still have tails. Because Russia has only flown a couple of tailless aircraft/UAVs.

What Chinese engineers are capable of is out of my knowledge. However, they tend to graduate in the US

It's not the "what they're capable of doing" that's the issue. It's "what they have experience doing" that's the key here.

If you told me you had an absolutely wicked math problem, I'd go to Moscow Polytechnic U's math department.

But flight control laws for a tailless aircraft need to be developed, and it takes practice to do that well. I expect Russia to develop a tailless fighter before China, just because they've built a couple of tailless UCAVs.

But the US has been flying tailless aircraft for over 30 years, with the B-2s. And the X-31, to apply that on fighter-sized airframes.

 

[VTOLicious]

NGAD is a replacement for the F-22, not F-35. F-35 is a strike fighter not air superiority.

@FlyGuy369 for your inspiration

 

[FlyGuy369]

@FlyGuy369 for your inspiration

View attachment 753307

I like it! I apologize for my abscense here, I've been greatly preoccupied.