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

X-39 said:
Maybe related :
www.flightglobal.com

PBS and Pratt to explore futuristic APU technologies

Czech Republic aerospace firm PBS and Pratt & Whitney have signed a memorandum of understanding to explore advanced APUs for future fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that the "6th-generation aircraft" referenced in that article are not stealth fighters. Small APUs would make more sense for airliners and commercial helicopters.
 
IMHO this planform looks like a mash between SMG infographic 6th Gen and Rodrigo Avellas's F/A-XX with canards.
 

Attachments

  • 16971766672632847115.jpeg.jpg
    16971766672632847115.jpeg.jpg
    63.7 KB · Views: 254

Attachments

  • Defining the Next Generation.mkv_snapshot_00.32_[2023.09.13_07.17.27].jpg
    Defining the Next Generation.mkv_snapshot_00.32_[2023.09.13_07.17.27].jpg
    181.7 KB · Views: 158
  • Defining the Next Generation.mkv_snapshot_00.34_[2023.09.13_07.18.12].jpg
    Defining the Next Generation.mkv_snapshot_00.34_[2023.09.13_07.18.12].jpg
    530.1 KB · Views: 181
  • DEFINI~3-.jpg
    DEFINI~3-.jpg
    39.8 KB · Views: 238
Last edited by a moderator:

Attachments

  • Phantom Works production line A.jpg
    Phantom Works production line A.jpg
    19.6 KB · Views: 227
  • Phantom Works production line 2.jpg
    Phantom Works production line 2.jpg
    15.1 KB · Views: 212
  • Helendale RCS shape.jpg
    Helendale RCS shape.jpg
    111.8 KB · Views: 220
I think the USAF is very sensitive to bender lock and also very sensitive to production bottlenecks of what needs to be and inexpensive and mass produced platform. Using multiple manufacturers solves that problem. I suspect in some cases multiple platforms will even be used for the same roles.
 
pedrospe said:
If Lockheed Martin is choose for the Air Force NGAD program( as i think it will:) this will leave us with Boeing and NG, for the Navy fighter.
Click to expand...
doubt it. navy has to spend money on ships as well. they will piggyback on air force's selection preferrably.
 
why drastically different? Long range high flying ultra stealth. There's less emphasis on maneuverability and technology has advanced to the point you don't need swing wings to get off a carrier anymore. If air force wants more speed surely there's enough studies and researches in modular design that you can have a common body and different wings for different sweep angles.
 
donnage99 said:
why drastically different? Long range high flying ultra stealth. There's less emphasis on maneuverability and technology has advanced to the point you don't need swing wings to get off a carrier anymore. If air force wants more speed surely there's enough studies and researches in modular design that you can have a common body and different wings for different sweep angles.
Click to expand...

Well, for starters, the real possibility that the USAF aircraft will simply be too big to fly off a carrier. It's going to need significantly more range than a carrier aircraft and won't be limited to carrier dimensions or weights.

True low observable design can't be reconciled with "just swap out the wings to a different sweep angle." Planform edge alignment means that the entire outer mold line has to change if you change the sweep angle. (The VG NATF or A/FX just accepted that it would not be very stealthy at certain wing sweeps.)

Plus, there may be major differences in the use of adjuncts -- the USAF's CCAs probably won't be carrier compatible, and the USN may not have direct replacements. Heck, the carriers may not have room for as many as adjuncts as the USAF plans to use.

There are also differences in role -- the USN is looking to replace Super Hornet, which means its FA-XX needs to have significant strike potential. NGAD may not have as much, since it functionally replaces F-22 (limited strike) and F-15C (no strike worth mentioning).
 
Looks like an early design for NGAD from the Boeing Phantom Works F.L., it will be interesting to see how far it develops.
 
donnage99 said:
why drastically different? Long range high flying ultra stealth. There's less emphasis on maneuverability and technology has advanced to the point you don't need swing wings to get off a carrier anymore. If air force wants more speed surely there's enough studies and researches in modular design that you can have a common body and different wings for different sweep angles.
Click to expand...

The USN has size, weight, and stall restrictions that the USAF doesn’t. And the USN likely doesn’t have the same absolute range requirements since its airstrips move. The USAF machine is almost certainly larger and longer ranged.
 
Josh_TN said:
The USN has size, weight, and stall restrictions that the USAF doesn’t. And the USN likely doesn’t have the same absolute range requirements since its airstrips move. The USAF machine is almost certainly larger and longer ranged.
Click to expand...
Historically it was for the most part the other way around, though. Some land aircraft were longer-ranged (and those were mostly either escort or sea-related ones), but by large it's the opposite.
The current situation(prevalence of relatively shorter-legged medium fighters on the decks) is in fact weird and forced by circumstances around the end of CW.

Carrier aviation requirements for reach and endurance are higher - and carrier users were willing to go to larger sacrifices to achieve that.
USN airstrips move, yes, but they also have a nasty habit of going out of commission (at best) if hit.
 
donnage99 said:
why drastically different? Long range high flying ultra stealth. There's less emphasis on maneuverability and technology has advanced to the point you don't need swing wings to get off a carrier anymore. If air force wants more speed surely there's enough studies and researches in modular design that you can have a common body and different wings for different sweep angles.
Click to expand...
I would be surprised if NGAD isn't too big for carriers. 80k-90k. Maybe even 100k.
 
paralay said:
Does it bother you, round nozzles and the fact that this is a fighter in the dimension of the F-18?
Click to expand...
It's as real as the $3 bill I have in my pocket. It's not even close to an actual real design. Remember, pre-ATF we saw all kinds of weird, sometime tiny, aircraft and then we ended up with the F-22.
 
paralay said:
Does it bother you, round nozzles and the fact that this is a fighter in the dimension of the F-18?
Click to expand...
Looks perfect for replacing the FA-18, the nozzles can be changed, and it looks like the wings can be folded, so perfect design:)
 
pedrospe said:
Looks perfect for replacing the FA-18, the nozzles can be changed, and it looks like the wings can be folded, so perfect design
Click to expand...
There is only one problem, new engines of this dimension are not planned ;)

The differences between the land and sea versions of the fighter are in the minimum landing speed. Therefore, the land one is tailless with a 0.2 m2 RCS, and the sea one is a normal aerodynamic scheme with a stabilizer and therefore somewhat more noticeable. This is at least
 
donnage99 said:
why drastically different? Long range high flying ultra stealth. There's less emphasis on maneuverability and technology has advanced to the point you don't need swing wings to get off a carrier anymore. If air force wants more speed surely there's enough studies and researches in modular design that you can have a common body and different wings for different sweep angles.
Click to expand...
Maximum size, stall speed, landing speed, minimum control speed and characteristics, being built to handle arrested landings...

I'm expecting the USAF NGAD to be a big beast. Bigger than a Flanker, even. The USN VF/A-XX will have to be pretty awesome to be that big, and it will still have to be lighter than 80klbs.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
100,000lbs AUW is around F-111B size, so Carrier operation should still be possible, especially now the USN has a uniform force of CVNs. Don't have to worry about compatibility with Essex or Midways anymore.
Click to expand...
F-111B was 88k MTOW, the other F-111s had a MTOW of 100k.

A 100k+ fighter is getting into F-108 size. The SR-71 is 153k MTOW, so not quite that big.

F-14D was all of 74k MTOW, and the F-35C looks to be on the order of 70k MTOW, so even an 85k MTOW VF/A-XX is going to be huge.

Pretty sure the biggest aircraft to launch off any carrier was the F-111B at 88k, the A-3 "Whale" was all of 82k MTOW.
 
F-22 MTOW is 83.5K so its definitely going to be greater than that. You gotta remember the things going to have 90k lbs of thrust, does it make sense to have > 1:1 TWR at MTOW? The weapons bays and huge fuel tanks add lots of weight.
 
njiiaf said:
F-22 MTOW is 83.5K so its definitely going to be greater than that
Click to expand...
Such a mass is unattainable, since the changes made to the wing design do not allow four external tanks to be hung.
Maximum take-off weight: 19660+100+9367+3700+1744 =34571 kg / 76216 ft, with 4 AMRAAMS on an external suspension and 2 external tanks
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom