US Navy 6th Gen Fighter - F/A-XX

Josh_TN said:
Length definitely. Google Ford weapon elevators, they are more obvious than the Nimitz class because they actually arrive on the flight deck.
Click to expand...
You could always have a weapon trolley that pitches the nose up to allow an extra few inches, so I wouldn't treat weapon elevator length as an absolute limit.
 
djj said:
Obviously HACM length is classified. Google said it would be 90 inches in length, or 7.5 feet. CatGPT said that it would be between 6 to 9 feet,
Click to expand...
Can we please not attempt to use AIs as reference, I've googled a string of aviation related stuff over the last few days, and the unasked for AI summary at the top of each query has been consistently drivel, for instance one that confidently asserted FCS stood for Fighter Combat System, not Flight Control System.

Asking an AI a technical question is little better than asking a random person on the street to google it for you. They don't have the specialist knowledge to know if an answer is relevant or not.
 
DWG said:
You could always have a weapon trolley that pitches the nose up to allow an extra few inches, so I wouldn't treat weapon elevator length as an absolute limit.
Click to expand...

I cannot imagine that is a solution the USN wants to adopt.
 
Josh_TN said:
On a carrier deck?
Click to expand...
yes, obviously. It´s just about having the right assembly mode and tolerances at the interfaces.
Auto mechanics that assemble your car engine on the production lines have to work in roughly similar conditions (speed of execution, minimal space, environmental stress, cumbersome to manipulate sub-assembly parts etc...).
 
In order to maintain the F/A-XX at sea, the aircraft will more than likely not have the level of LO as compared to the F-47. The F/A-XX may have other performance related benefits vs. LO, possibly supercruise, enhanced maneuverability, longer range. I am speculating of course but I don't think you can get the USAF level of LO in the carrier environment anyway. On CVN-65, we flew in sleet, snow, heavy rain and sometimes very high sea states, lots of sea water coming over the bow. USN pilots are used to flying in these types of conditions, I know from 1980 to 1986 we did. Then when the sun comes out, it's wash all the aircraft day!
 
Hydroman said:
In order to maintain the F/A-XX at sea, the aircraft will more than likely not have the level of LO as compared to the F-47. The F/A-XX may have other performance related benefits vs. LO, possibly supercruise, enhanced maneuverability, longer range. I am speculating of course but I don't think you can get the USAF level of LO in the carrier environment anyway. On CVN-65, we flew in sleet, snow, heavy rain and sometimes very high sea states, lots of sea water coming over the bow. USN pilots are used to flying in these types of conditions, I know from 1980 to 1986 we did. Then when the sun comes out, it's wash all the aircraft day!
Click to expand...

The upcoming LO coatings (maybe ceramic) might be more durable than the existing ones (polymer). If that's the case, choosing the most durable coating and the most stealthy would be the same decision. They're already operating the F-35, which already has a more durable coating than B-2 or (likely) F-22.
 
TomcatViP said:
Why?
Tight tolerances are nothing out of standards in mechanical assembly.
Click to expand...
On a moving surface and that need to be done by 18yo kids.


TomcatViP said:
yes, obviously. It´s just about having the right assembly mode and tolerances at the interfaces.
Auto mechanics that assemble your car engine on the production lines have to work in roughly similar conditions (speed of execution, minimal space, environmental stress, cumbersome to manipulate sub-assembly parts etc...).
Click to expand...
They're not working on a rolling, pitching, heaving carrier deck with the two separate trailers trying to run them over and kill them. Ignoring any waves big enough to cause flooding in the Hangar Deck while planes need to be armed...
 
Reminds me of a probably apocryphal story about a conversation between Andrei Tupelov and Kelly Johnson. Tupolev says, 'You Americans make planes like a fine lady's watch - drop watch, watch break. We make planes like old alarm clock - knock it off the table but it still wakes you up.' Then we also see aerospace companies showing renders of massive top-heavy landers miraculously finding the only perfectly flat and level bowling green on the Moon to land on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scott Kenny said:
They're not working on a rolling, pitching, heaving carrier deck with the two separate trailers trying to run them over and kill them. Ignoring any waves big enough to cause flooding in the Hangar Deck while planes need to be armed...
Click to expand...

Until old Bob has his retirement party set to fire at noon, mid shift...
'
 
Last edited:
Hydroman said:
In order to maintain the F/A-XX at sea, the aircraft will more than likely not have the level of LO as compared to the F-47. The F/A-XX may have other performance related benefits vs. LO, possibly supercruise, enhanced maneuverability, longer range. I am speculating of course but I don't think you can get the USAF level of LO in the carrier environment anyway. On CVN-65, we flew in sleet, snow, heavy rain and sometimes very high sea states, lots of sea water coming over the bow. USN pilots are used to flying in these types of conditions, I know from 1980 to 1986 we did. Then when the sun comes out, it's wash all the aircraft day!
Click to expand...

I agree with @joshjosh in that I'm rather confident that the F/A-XX will utilize a completely new and probably more durable coating than the previous aircraft. Same probably applies to the F-47. When we look back the F-117 or B-2 stealth coatings used to be rather fragile and IIRC the B-2 actually has climate controlled hangars for that reason. The F-22s coating became more durable, still more so on the fragile and expensive to maintain side. The F-35, with naval operations in mind, on the other hand was deliberately developed with a coating that's sturdy and easier to work on than on previous aircraft. I expect a similar leap in maintenance friendliness, performance and sturdiness with the F/A-XX and F-47.

The only reason why the F/A-XX should have worse stealth characteristics than the F-47 would be airframe related, like if the F-47 was tailless and the F/A-XX has two vertical stabilizers.
 
Forest Green said:
It only actually reached Mach 5.5 though, and the warhead and range of the AL version is unlear, it was almost 2m shorter (4.65m) than the SL version (6.5m), the SL version aimed at 1100km.

Click to expand...
I would expect the range of the air-launched version to be similar to the ground-launched version.

Yes, the ground-launched booster likely gets the missile going faster, but doesn't get it anywhere near as high so there's lots more drag to fight once the booster drops.

But the air-launch gets the missile much higher so has less drag to fight.
 
For F/A-XX, do we anticipate that it may have an EW capability peer or superior to the Growler platform? Was a topic of discussion at work today.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
For F/A-XX, do we anticipate that it may have an EW capability peer or superior to the Growler platform? Was a topic of discussion at work today.
Click to expand...
Unclear.

AESA can act like a jammer while still searching for targets, but they're usually limited in terms of bandwidth they can cover. While the Growler can cover a whole lot of radar and communications bands via those NGJ pods.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Unclear.

AESA can act like a jammer while still searching for targets, but they're usually limited in terms of bandwidth they can cover. While the Growler can cover a whole lot of radar and communications bands via those NGJ pods.
Click to expand...
What I mean is the F/A-XX being able to fully accomplish the mission of the growler without need of the NGJ.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
What I mean is the F/A-XX being able to fully accomplish the mission of the growler without need of the NGJ.
Click to expand...
Right, and that just isn't clear right now.

Also, being a stealthy aircraft, you don't really need a standoff jammer like a Growler, but rather a stand-in jammer.

and stand-in jammers don't take much power at all in comparison to standoff, so you can conceivably get away with using something the size of a MALD! I'm talking a jammer that is less than 100W peak power, instead of the Growler being able to gray out half a hemisphere.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
What I mean is the F/A-XX being able to fully accomplish the mission of the growler without need of the NGJ.
Click to expand...
That seems unlikely to me. That would be significant additional hardware and systems in every single F/A-XX which we know the USN is trying to keep costs down on. A possible scenario would be a follow on subset of aircraft to replace the Growler or more likely a CCA that is completely EW focused and hosts the NGJ or a variant of.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I would expect the range of the air-launched version to be similar to the ground-launched version.

Yes, the ground-launched booster likely gets the missile going faster, but doesn't get it anywhere near as high so there's lots more drag to fight once the booster drops.

But the air-launch gets the missile much higher so has less drag to fight.
Click to expand...
The warhead was 700lb (318kg) apparently.

Shame it wasn't built.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1912133417409409402
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1912133417409409402
 
Last edited:
Ozair said:
Potentially. Might also be the end of the fighter bases stand off jammer in USN service. If the CCA can penetrate further and is attritable then a less powerful.jammer can have the same effect.
Click to expand...

Probably no reason a MQ-25 could not carry those pods as is.
 
Not correct

ngj-mid-band-inc-1-png.597273


Free Refresh Here ;)
 
TomcatViP said:
Not correct

ngj-mid-band-inc-1-png.597273


Free Refresh Here ;)
Click to expand...

I believe there is a pretty high drag associated with the pods when in use, on top of the drag of the baseline pod when its air ducts are closed. Nothing that I think would preclude an MQ-25 from carrying it, but there is a pretty heavy range penalty to the F-18 airframe.
 
BlackBat242 said:
Exactly - there are two intake ducts and what looks like a large "squirrel-cage" fan to drive the electrical generator, then exhaust ducts..
Click to expand...
Sure sounds like a Ram Air Turbine to me!


In other news:
Kiltonge said:
1967 F-111B SAC
Click to expand...
Thanks to Kiltonge for finding this, which gives us a possible trap weight for the F/A-XX of 60,000lbs and 20-25knots wind over deck (in tropical conditions).

I'm still going to assume ~55k trap weight for F/A-XX, because I'm assuming it'll have a higher stall speed than 100 knots, which means a higher landing speed.

A 55k trap weight with ~12,000lbs of weapons (4x LRASM plus 2x AMRAAM-weight AAMs) means an aircraft empty weight of about 40,000lbs to have 3,000lbs of fuel onboard (more than the F-111B's planned 2400lbs of fuel edit: at recovery).

And a 40,000lb empty weight suggests an MTOW of 80,000lbs. 80-55=25. 28,000lbs of fuel total, which is 5000lbs more fuel than the F-111B.

What's the cruise fuel burn for an F110 engine?
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Sure sounds like a Ram Air Turbine to me!


In other news:

...
A 55k trap weight with ~12,000lbs of weapons (4x LRASM plus 2x AMRAAM-weight AAMs) means an aircraft empty weight of about 40,000lbs to have 3,000lbs of fuel onboard (more than the F-111B's planned 2400lbs of fuel edit: at recovery).

And a 40,000lb empty weight suggests an MTOW of 80,000lbs. 80-55=25. 28,000lbs of fuel total, which is 5000lbs more fuel than the F-111B.
Click to expand...
Your weight estimate is actually suggesting an aircraft in the size of F-22A ;)
 
VTOLicious said:
Your weight estimate is actually suggesting an aircraft in the size of F-22A ;)
Click to expand...
*wiki* Huh. I'll be. So it is...

~3000lbs lighter, in fact!

10klbs more fuel, however. 56% more fuel means a combat radius about 28% more than an F-22, which happily gives us a 760nmi range...

The real question, of course, is how do you make a supersonic airframe able to carry 4x LRASM and a pair of AMRAAMs internally only weigh 40,000lbs empty?!?

If we're starting from an F-22 airframe, we're talking about:
  • stretching the weapons bays enough to fit 4x AIM-174s for length in the mains, to 16ft long.
  • making the main weapons bays deeper, to about 25" deep instead of the ~14" deep of the F-22, and that really cuts into internal volume above the weapons bays.
  • main bays also need to hold 4x 25" wide weapons, plus room to get your arm up and around them to mount the weapons. This is probably 5" or so between weapons, which adds another 25" of width. 125" total width for a single weapons bay. 130" or a little more if it's two bays. Two bays is probably better operationally, since the bay doors would be smaller. F-22 main bay is only about 90" wide, so that is a whole lot of extra width through the weapons bay.
  • this makes the width at the inlets 40-45" wider than the F-22, which probably makes up for the much deeper bays cutting into the fuel tank.
  • the ~2ft length stretch for the main bays also gives the side bays ~2ft more length, so we have an easy stow for the AMRAAM now.
  • delete the vertical stabilizers to improve RCS.
Which would give us an end result looking a lot like the FB-22 or X-44... Frack!
 
Id imagine the F-22 was pretty heavy for its size, the maneuverability requirements probably made them add quite a lot of structural reinforcements and of course it has giant vertical stabs. F/A-XX would likely be tailless and its emphasis on strike also means little focus placed on maneuver. Even if it does end up weighing about the same I think it'll likely be a bit bigger
 
Sevrent said:
Id imagine the F-22 was pretty heavy for its size, the maneuverability requirements probably made them add quite a lot of structural reinforcements and of course it has giant vertical stabs. F/A-XX would likely be tailless and its emphasis on strike also means little focus placed on maneuver. Even if it does end up weighing about the same I think it'll likely be a bit bigger
Click to expand...
Yeah, I doubt anyone is doing 9g maneuvers with 4x LRASM or AIM174s onboard.

Engines based on F110-132, so I'm guesstimating 33-37klbs of thrust. That's 70klbs+- thrust, putting the 1:1 T:W time at about 40% of mission time, while armed heavy.
 
BlackBat242 said:
Exactly - there are two intake ducts and what looks like a large "squirrel-cage" fan to drive the electrical generator, then exhaust ducts..
Click to expand...
I think some people here think engineers are dumb like hell.
If the Power Generation Ram Turbine was impacting so much the performances of the carrier aircraft, this would have been offset to the plane engines...
Just that you are aware, it´s not just a RAM turbines mounted internally (something that do reduce drag already), it´s an electrically powered turbine that mix hot air generated by the pod electronics and mix it downstream with air sourced from the turbine.
What does a RAM turbine do? It converts kinetic pressure to rotation (hence cooling the air - See the first principle of Thermodynamics)
Then the air is heated with the cooling air system hot air and ejected rearward...

It´s then a Meredith like system that compensate partially the RAM air pressure loss with a hot air nozzle...

The electrical turbine, either sourced from a battery or the carrier airplane, guarantee that power generation is level, accelerating/decelerating the rotation (and hence charging doing so the battery).

Mechanically, there is nothing Dumb in that system. It´s a combination of the best of the 21st century available tech to power the pod, cool it and compensate (partially) for its drag...
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
I think some people here think engineers are dumb like hell.
If the Power Generation Ram Turbine was impacting so much the performances of the carrier aircraft, this would have been offset to the plane engines...
Just that you are aware, it´s not just a RAM turbines mounted internally (something that do reduce drag already), it´s an electrically powered turbine that mix hot air generated by the pod electronics and mix it downstream with air sourced from the turbine.
What does a RAM turbine do? It converts kinetic pressure to rotation (hence cooling the air - See the first principle of Thermodynamics)
Then the air is heated with the cooling air system hot air and ejected rearward...

It´s then a Meredith like system that compensate partially the RAM air pressure loss with a hot air nozzle...

The electrical turbine, either sourced from a battery or the carrier airplane, guarantee that power generation is level, accelerating/decelerating the rotation (and hence charging doing so the battery).

Mechanically, there is nothing Dumb in that system. It´s a combination of the best of the 21st century available tech to power the pod, cool it and compensate (partially) for its drag...
Click to expand...
So it's a smart Ram Air Turbine. It's still a very draggy system.
 
FighterJock said:
Quite Scot Kenny, the F/A-XX would be far too heavy to even try to attempt a manouver at 9Gs with that load out.
Click to expand...
Also, with the bay size I proposed, you could easily pack 8-10x AMRAAM-sized missiles into the bays. (8x in the main bays, 2x in the side bays) And that is a warload of about 3500-4000lbs.

40klbs empty, 4000lbs of weapons, and 28klbs of fuel. So the launch weight of that plane in Air-to-Air missions would be ~72klbs and the plane would have a TWR of close to 1:1 at takeoff.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom