USAF/US NAVY 6G Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS news

[specializedoptions1@gmail]

This USAF apprehensive view regarding moving forward with NGAD, let the disinformation flow, perfect time for some moderate chaos. Boeing probably and covertly moving forward with USAF NGAD, ADP working other "related" projects, NG is spooling up USN F/A-XX. CCAs are NGAD companions and/or stand-alone strike vehicles. The wonderful world of the USG and with a huge black budget, lots of activity.

This is what I'm saying. Let's make our most critical program seem like it's in shambles to keep china's biggest Intel source in the dark (the internet).

 

[Rodrigo Avella]

And all of that happened inside the last year? Since the RFP was released last summer. What are the odds of that? More likely that they simply don't have the funds and a rescoping at the 11th hour will lead to lawsuits and a huge set of other problems which make setting this aside and starting on a new program (like NGB?) the only viable next step unless they have funding and walk all this talk back.

A while ago a very large company in the USA (I can't say which one) commissioned me to design a sixth generation fighter, to use it in a report that would be shown to investors from what I understood.
The leader of this project was an aerospace engineer who worked at both Boeing and Lockheed, because, although he did not know what the proposals of both companies were like, he did have some knowledge of the general aspects of both.
One of the things they emphasized the most is that the model had to be large, about 22 meters, have side air intakes and above all that it had to look very similar to a modern YF-23 (which they emphasized the most).
And what caught my attention the most was that they wanted him to have foldable tails. They told me that this was so that it would be as stealthy as possible on long flights and that when the plane reached its destination or the pilot needed it, the tails that in "stealth mode" would make it look like a plane without a tail (like those seen in most representations), folded upwards, reaching an angle similar to that of a YF-23, so that the plane would enter "combat mode."
I asked if this was an assumption or if it was real information, to which I had no answer... and I just continued with the work (which I cannot show due to confidentiality issues).
But if, as I believe, the information they gave me is based on some type of knowledge, what can be assumed is that as we say in Argentina, if it barks, has four legs and wags its tail, it is a dog; here perhaps it happens that the plane must meet too many requirements which makes it extremely expensive (perhaps much more than 300 million per plane in reality).
These requirements would be to fly very far while being very stealthy and carry a lot of weapons, so it would have to be quite large; and also have good maneuverability and the ability to self-defense in the "traditional way" (dog combat) in case of encountering an enemy.
That's why when I read that perhaps the possibility of adapting the B-21 as a sixth-generation fighter was being evaluated, I wasn't very surprised. Because here the requirements would clearly be being simplified: the ability to maneuver is completely nullified.
I would love to know if the information they gave me to design is real and also to know if the folding tails are one of the characteristics of any of the participants. If so, and this thing about folding tails is from Lockheed's proposal, and they were the ones who presented something "more traditional", I would much more like to know what Boeing presented.
I don't know if all this is true or not. I just wanted to share it...
Best regards!

 

[sferrin]

When they say downsize the engine they're talking the physical size, which means the physical weight. Weight directly correlates with cost. If the engine they decide to go for is 80% the weight of the demonstrator engines than it should be roughly 80% of the cost. Also, they probably can make the airframe smaller because the original design didn't have CCA's in mind. Which means it was carrying six to eight missiles internally. They can probably pare that down to four missiles internally and put the rest on CCAs. That will give them a smaller lower weight aircraft with smaller engines, lowering the cost of the aircraft. However, with the added capability of the CCAs, it would be just as effective or possibly more effective than the original configuration size they were originally looking at. Makes complete sense to me.

But now they're hobbled by CCA's speed and range (or lack of both). Can't leave the CCA's behind and, from the looks of it, those are going to be strictly subsonic.

 

[specializedoptions1@gmail]

A while ago a very large company in the USA (I can't say which one) commissioned me to design a sixth generation fighter, to use it in a report that would be shown to investors from what I understood.
The leader of this project was an aerospace engineer who worked at both Boeing and Lockheed, because, although he did not know what the proposals of both companies were like, he did have some knowledge of the general aspects of both.
One of the things they emphasized the most is that the model had to be large, about 22 meters, have side air intakes and above all that it had to look very similar to a modern YF-23 (which they emphasized the most).
And what caught my attention the most was that they wanted him to have foldable tails. They told me that this was so that it would be as stealthy as possible on long flights and that when the plane reached its destination or the pilot needed it, the tails that in "stealth mode" would make it look like a plane without a tail (like those seen in most representations), folded upwards, reaching an angle similar to that of a YF-23, so that the plane would enter "combat mode."
I asked if this was an assumption or if it was real information, to which I had no answer... and I just continued with the work (which I cannot show due to confidentiality issues).
But if, as I believe, the information they gave me is based on some type of knowledge, what can be assumed is that as we say in Argentina, if it barks, has four legs and wags its tail, it is a dog; here perhaps it happens that the plane must meet too many requirements which makes it extremely expensive (perhaps much more than 300 million per plane in reality).
These requirements would be to fly very far while being very stealthy and carry a lot of weapons, so it would have to be quite large; and also have good maneuverability and the ability to self-defense in the "traditional way" (dog combat) in case of encountering an enemy.
That's why when I read that perhaps the possibility of adapting the B-21 as a sixth-generation fighter was being evaluated, I wasn't very surprised. Because here the requirements would clearly be being simplified: the ability to maneuver is completely nullified.
I would love to know if the information they gave me to design is real and also to know if the folding tails are one of the characteristics of any of the participants. If so, and this thing about folding tails is from Lockheed's proposal, and they were the ones who presented something "more traditional", I would much more like to know what Boeing presented.
I don't know if all this is true or not. I just wanted to share it...
Best regards!

Purely wild, I love it.

 

[okakac]

Another surreally political post.

I am not bound by any US Laws, yet there is no point in talking too much.

There exists a possibility of a change through the US Elections.

Which might lead to further fraught court battles between political sides, next wave of charges revolving around ignoring some form of a greatest threat. As an example, the possible criminal charges against Boeing to take advantage of claims of failure taking hold of the US economy.

Which then centers once again on the Naval Fighter of 2017. Purely speculative, considering the wide range of US legal issues the forum might be falling afoul of today. With the numbers I am making up just for the purposes of this discussion. 50% capability at 75% the cost. Making it fight inside the 1000 miles circle, with Northrop-Grumman directly rejecting to allow the use of the Hellcat II name. Bringing the carriers inside the 1000 miles circle. It is at most a baseline to measure the real contestants. Built on Russian mobilization concepts, it will be falling apart in a few years. It is cheap because it avoids production bottlenecks where-ever possible.

None of the qualifications above need apply if a political change happens. It looks cheap and there could have been a hundred in service this year and three hundred next year. Which will be starting point of the political spin.

This is why the narrative suddenly seeks "smaller". The studies will no doubt once again justify the cost of larger offers.

We have no problem with this. But yes, a quick decision would increase the thrust/weight ratios in one different country, too.

 

[Josh_TN]

But now they're hobbled by CCA's speed and range (or lack of both). Can't leave the CCA's behind and, from the looks of it, those are going to be strictly subsonic.

The first batch of CCAs seem to intentionally be matched to F-35 performance. One USAF official said it must be able to cruise at F-35 cruise speeds and accelerate to a reasonably faster speed (than F-35 cruise) at max thrust.

Other increments likely will have different requirements. Long term, I suspect someone will produce an after burning version of the small commercial engines the CCA sized aircraft typically use, or else adopt larger power plants and airframes for NGAD CCAs.

 

[joewee]

But now they're hobbled by CCA's speed and range (or lack of both). Can't leave the CCA's behind and, from the looks of it, those are going to be strictly subsonic.

And all of that happened inside the last year? Since the RFP was released last summer. What are the odds of that? More likely that they simply don't have the funds and a rescoping at the 11th hour will lead to lawsuits and a huge set of other problems which make setting this aside and starting on a new program (like NGB?) the only viable next step unless they have funding and walk all this talk back.

I love when other's articulate my thoughts better than I can...

sferrin's: CCAs are not NGAD 'wingman' UAVs unless they're supersonic capable and long-legged. Prepositioning long-dwell CCAs is a silly notion in most scenarios.

bring_it_on: can't see any other explanation at this late date other than Kendall has been charging ahead for the last 2 years, basically unchecked, and now he's trying to fit 5 lbs into a 2-lb bag -- a result of undergoing OSD review for USD-AT&L approval to proceed into EMD (i.e., Milestone B). SECAF and his staff knew this day-of-reckoning was coming, after all, Kendall was USD-AT&L from 2012 to 2017.

 

[bobbymike]

Boeing bets big on next-generation fighter manufacturing facility

The US airframer has begun construction of a $1.8 billion advanced combat aircraft assembly facility in St. Louis, at a time when support for sixth-generation fighter programmes appears to be waning at the Pentagon.

www.flightglobal.com

 

[DWG]

A couple of thoughts on scaling designs up and down.

a) I currently have British Secret Projects 3 open on my desk, lots of projects there with two variants scaled differently for either Merlin or Griffon/Sabre. It's not unprecedented to scale airframes up or down. But pretty unusual at this stage of the game. Though U-2R and F/A-18E/F spring to mind.

b) The problem for scaling current generation aircraft vs previous generation aircraft is avionics don't scale. If you scale the airframe down, then either the geometry has to change to retain avionics volume, or the avionics volume has to eat into something else, probably the fuel fraction, or you have to sacrifice some avionics capability.

 

[Manuducati]

A while ago a very large company in the USA (I can't say which one) commissioned me to design a sixth generation fighter, to use it in a report that would be shown to investors from what I understood.

Thanks for sharing!

Well, knowing that Boeing inherited YF-23 DNA after the merge with McDonnell Douglas, maybe in the end we will have a F-23ish in service one day!

As for the foldable tails, that reminds me of this J-20 derivative patent that was shared somewhere else in this forum.

 

[Desertfox]

Could be as simple as the new engines are going to cause 5 year delay, what can we do with F119/F135s to get this plane into service sooner at say 90% capability? Basically pulling a F-14A.

 

[Hydroman]

Thanks for sharing!

Well, knowing that Boeing inherited YF-23 DNA after the merge with McDonnell Douglas, maybe in the end we will have a F-23ish in service one day!

As for the foldable tails, that reminds me of this J-20 derivative patent that was shared somewhere else in this forum.

Since I had involvement with the YF-23 way back and based on our design, it was a gen 5.5 aircraft, again, look at the various new NGAD 6th gen concepts from us and other nations. Hell, we (Northrop) educated Boeing on advanced composites back in the early B-2 days and yes, McAir/Boeing gained YF-23 DNA from Northrop. Folding/retractable tails adds to actuation complexity and must be redundant, you do not want any failure mode in an asymmetric condition which could compromise aero performance or LO.
From Rodrigo's previous post, a B-21 or any flying wing-type vehicle would not make a good fighter, great for stand-off but would be a sitting duck in close air combat. Any B-2 or B-21 caught visually by an enemy fighter, better pull the handles.