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

[Arjen]

Do you have a source about the Saab Gripen story?

http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/gripen/39altern/altdesigns.html
Design 2107:

2107
The version most likely to compete with the canard layouts had a dorsal intake, which meant a short and straight duct. Wind tunnel tests showed that it would work well at high angles of attack and that 2107 had better turning performance than 2105. Saab judged the risks with the dorsal intake as too large.

 

[Ogami musashi]

thanks arjen.

 

[bobbymike]

Asking the Right Questions

—John A. Tirpak

7/17/2015

Those impatient for the Air Force to get going on a sixth generation fighter need to be patient and wait for the Air Dominance 2030 study to figure out what's really needed, Pentagon acquisition chief William LaPlante said in an interview. "It's very early right now, but I think we are successfully ... putting the right pieces together across the Air Force, from the operators to the ... science folks at AFRL [Air Force Research Laboratory] to the folks in industry," and "we're lining up a series of activities that will be resourced," such as prototyping and experimentation, LaPlante told Air Force Magazine. The question to be answered, he said, is "what does the kill chain even look like in 2030, 2035? Which is … a different question than … what follows F-35?" The latter can only be answered "by doing this," he said of the program. The F-22, he added, has a service life profile "that ... looks like it's almost to 2050," so there's time to figure out the next steps in air dominance. Even though the F-22 has been operational for a decade, replacing it is "not imminent, but it is something we need to think about." Though people, "both in industry and the press, …want to make the discussion about what's the next plane ... we have consciously said that is not what this is," he explained. The Pentagon has not said when it expects to produce conclusions from the Air Dominance 2030 study, of which USAF is only one element.


Future Kill Chain

—John A. Tirpak

7/17/2015

The next step in air dominance is not as easy as simply starting a new airplane program because "warfare today is such a complicated endeavor," involving aspects that weren't anticipated even a short while ago, Air Force acquisition chief William LaPlante told Air Force Magazine. In a recent interview, LaPlante said, "the platform gets all the attention because that's the hard part; it's what people see, and it's where the money is," but "it's the kill chain that matters." Beyond simply out​maneuvering an opponent, air dominance "now involves things like space and cyber and really involves EW," or electronic warfare. He rejects the arguments of those who think the new paradigm signals the end of stealth, however. "You take all the stealth you can get ... Stealth helps you, and ... if you can drive stealth further, you'll do it, and you don't give that up." Increasingly, though, the "intersection of cyber and EW is ... very important to look at." Those considerations must also be viewed in the context of "what Red is putting together. Because Red's not stupid, Red's thinking the same way

 

[bring_it_on]

 

[totoro]

but is f-x really going to replacement for f-22, being retired, realistically, from 2045 to 2055 or something like that...
OR is it going to be replacement for remaining f-15c and accompanying f-22 - from 2035 onward?

Because with all these f15c airframe refits going over 12,000 hours and approaching 15,000 hours it is perfectly plausible that 200ish remaining f15c/d will indeed last until 2035.

the f-22 graph represents retirement based on initial lifetime projection. but as we've seen with pretty much every single usaf plane - they all get several thousand of hours more by the time they get retired. So 2036 seems like unrealistcal date...

 

[bring_it_on]

2035 AIR DOMINANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE-ON-STATE CONFLICT

 

[bring_it_on]

PRICE VS. PERFORMANCE/ THE VALUE OF NEXT GENERATION FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

 

[dark sidius]

Good, but old documents.

 

[bring_it_on]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr34Nt3BqaQ

 

[bring_it_on]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4weT1ONqXcw

 

[bring_it_on]

Aircraft Thermal Management -Heat Sink Challenge


http://papers.sae.org/2014-01-2193/

 

[bring_it_on]

From a recent GE AIAA presentation

 

[bobbymike]

Do have the rest of the presentation?

 

[bring_it_on]

I took a screenshot from the video -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNM64_DlAcA

 

[DrRansom]

I saw a 3-D printed mock-up of a Boeing F/A-XX design at Air and Space Museum this weekend

Most notable aspect was the bomb bays, which appeared to be in a Y orientation (with the bottom pointed towards the rear of the plane):

The bays were located in the well between the two engines. At the top were two small side bays on the 'walls' of that well. Starting at the middle of the side base and continuing to the rear of the aircraft were two long base, one on top of the other.

It looked like two small side bays for short ranged AAMs and then two long bays for large missiles / bombs. They were aligned end to end to keep within the well between engines and keep the center of the airframe relatively skinny.

 

[bobbymike]

I saw a 3-D printed mock-up of a Boeing F/A-XX design at Air and Space Museum this weekend

Most notable aspect was the bomb bays, which appeared to be in a Y orientation (with the bottom pointed towards the rear of the plane):

The bays were located in the well between the two engines. At the top were two small side bays on the 'walls' of that well. Starting at the middle of the side base and continuing to the rear of the aircraft were two long base, one on top of the other.

It looked like two small side bays for short ranged AAMs and then two long bays for large missiles / bombs. They were aligned end to end to keep within the well between engines and keep the center of the airframe relatively skinny.

Given their proportion to the rest of the aircraft could you guess missile load out or too difficult to ascertain?

 

[DrRansom]

I can try to upload the pictures later, but if I had to guess:

Forward bays were AIM-9's only, they looked too short for AIM-120s.
The long bays looked to be JDAM sized, for a maximum load of 2 x 2000lb JDAM.

 

[Steve Pace]

Much like small diameter bombs they need to come up with short length medium- and long-range air-to-air missiles. -SP

 

[dark sidius]

Do you have picture of it ?

 

[sferrin]

Much like small diameter bombs they need to come up with short length medium- and long-range air-to-air missiles. -SP

CUDA would fit the bill. Put a booster on it for the long-range version. (And put 12 of them in an MLRS. B) )

 

[bring_it_on]

That was essentially what Lockheed did with the two missiles they had proposed. Of course they are unlikely the only ones that have something to offer in that category but since not receiving the T-3 funding, they have been the most vocal on internal development products that could have possibly been candidates for the Air Dominance Initiative R&D funding.

The company is not disclosing Cuda’s design range, but one variation of the concept is a two-stage missile with a similar total length to Amraam, presumably with the goal of covering a wide range envelope with a single missile design.

Both Cuda and SSTRR are being supported by independent research and development money and are being pushed as concepts of interest under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Air Dominance Initiative project.

 

[TomS]

I saw a 3-D printed mock-up of a Boeing F/A-XX design at Air and Space Museum this weekend

Downtown or out at Udvar-Hazy? If it's likely to still be there in a couple of weeks I'll have to make a visit.

 

[DrRansom]

I saw a 3-D printed mock-up of a Boeing F/A-XX design at Air and Space Museum this weekend

Downtown or out at Udvar-Hazy? If it's likely to still be there in a couple of weeks I'll have to make a visit.

Downtown, it was part of the Boeing Above and Beyond exhibit (whose adverts included a rather prominent picture of the Boeing F/A-XX prototype, the one with canards).

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Boeing F/A-XX from Boeing Above and Beyond exhibition.

Source:
http://aboveandbeyondexhibition.com/visitor-info/washington-dc/

 

[DrRansom]

Interestingly enough, the 3-D printed model didn't have canards. It was a chine + single delta-like wing. Engine exhaust was on the top rear.

 

[Triton]

"Lockheed not ditching agile fighter designs"
By: James Drew
Washington DC
Source: Flightglobal.com
18:52 13 May 2015

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-not-ditching-agile-fighter-designs-412288/

Lockheed Martin says it is too early to discount highly maneuverable fighter aircraft designs for future US Air Force and Navy warplanes, even as advances in long-range air-to-air missile technology makes dogfights less likely.

According to the company’s director of advanced air dominance and unmanned systems strategy, Bob Ruszkowski, the US must be prepared to fight outnumbered, and air-to-air missiles can be countered.

“In a situation where maybe there’s a numerical mismatch between the number of threat aircraft and the number of allied aircraft, there may be situations where dogfighting emerges, even as a secondary capability, but one you may have to resort to,” Ruszkowski tells Flightglobal. “Or, in situations where long-range missiles are negated by some other capabilities and now they’re rendered relatively ineffective. What bet are you going to make?”

Some in Washington have argued that speed and agility should not automatically be key attributes of a sixth-generation combat aircraft, since those design attributes could be traded for greater size, range and payload. According to a report published in April by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the lethality of a large combat aircraft "may be competitive or even superior to more traditional fighter aircraft designs".

“We're at a point where it's time to think long-term, and hard, about what attributes we want and need and make everything earn its way onto the platform,” the report's author John Stillion said at an Air Force Association event last month. “Don't just assume it's going to be fast and agile.”

Ruszkowski agrees that a larger combat jet might be preferred in the future, but it’s too early to tell.

“I don’t believe anybody has defined what those attributes are,” he says, while noting that the Vietnam War-era McDonnell Douglas F-4 was delivered without a gun, but one had to be installed later as a “fallback capability” because air-to-air missiles of the day proved to be less effective in combat than imagined.

“They needed a fallback capability,” he says.

Lockheed has been exploring sixth-generation aircraft capabilities and designs in earnest since 2009, and Ruszkowski says the company is looking for high-payoff technologies to invest in.

He thinks assured communications with satellites and other aircraft will be essential, and next-generation weapons will be a “discriminating” factor on any future air dominance platform. To that end, the company is investing heavily in hypersonic air vehicles laser weapons.

Last year, the company demonstrated a new beam control turret for an airborne laser, conducting eight flight tests in a surrogate aircraft over Michigan. Lockheed is also exploring the propulsion, materials and sensor technologies needed to develop an air-launched hypersonic missile.

“They’re not only applicable for next-generation air dominance platforms, but they’re applicable for current-generation platforms,” Ruszkowski says.

The navy is looking to replace its Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets in the late 2020s. The air force wants to develop a truly next-generation platform through its Air Dominance 2030 initiative.

 

[sferrin]

Interestingly enough, the 3-D printed model didn't have canards. It was a chine + single delta-like wing. Engine exhaust was on the top rear.

Did it have any vertical tails?

 

[TomS]

Downtown, it was part of the Boeing Above and Beyond exhibit (whose adverts included a rather prominent picture of the Boeing F/A-XX prototype, the one with canards).

Thanks. I'll have to get down there sometime before it closes in January.

 

[DrRansom]

No vertical tails.

 

[sferrin]

No vertical tails.

One of these?

 

[pedrospe]

Very interesting picture,thanks Triton for sharing ,it is the first time i see the fa-xx concept from below,i wonder if the yf-23 weapons bay design was used as a reference...


best regards


Pedro

 

[jsport]

Artist's impression of Boeing F/A-XX from Boeing Above and Beyond exhibition.

Source:
http://aboveandbeyondexhibition.com/visitor-info/washington-dc/

at least it's not tube & wing drag queen.

carry some mass, make maneuver. is it so much to ask..

 

[DrRansom]

Sorry for the delay, here are the pictures. The layout isn't very new, but I thought the bomb bay arrangement was something not shown before.

 

[bring_it_on]

Looks fairly similar to the 3D printed model Boeing had in on of their PR videos.

 

[flateric]

Model bottom was seen before, but anyway thanks for sharing real model photos. Better then screenshots.

 

[jsport]

Model bottom was seen before, but anyway thanks for sharing real model photos. Better then screenshots.

Thank you for posting. Fairly blended body..

 

[bring_it_on]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3eudKVbdG0

 

[bobbymike]

BIO - Great video. When you mostly just read about this technology you just don't get the appreciation of the system complexity without videos like this.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pw-ge-submit-proposals-for-next-gen-fighter-engine-416754/

 

[LowObservable]

Cool. (Literally.)