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

[donnage99]

This is LM rendering.

Anyone knows the time line between the v-tail design and the tailless design. I believe the v-tail predates the tailless one but not sure. Also reading somewhere that boeing was favored as lockheed initially pitched a more conservative design while boeing went for a much more radical one. Maybe that's why Lockheed went back and worked out their tailless flying wing design as well?

 

[flateric]

The higly classified B-21 was the same , and the 2015 rendering was right

You don't understand the difference between USAF (Customer) officially released rendering and fruits of in-house visualization farms.

 

[flateric]

Anyone knows the time line between the v-tail design and the tailless design.

You mean between 'art'?

 

[TomS]

I'm guessing NGAD will have bays deep enough to hold 2000lb bombs (while F-22 does not have bays deep enough to hold anything bigger than a 500lb bomb).

The standard air-to-ground payloads for the F-22 are 1000-lb JDAMs or quad SDBs (which are roughly the external dimensions of a 2000lb bomb). The bays seem to be too short for 2000-lb JDAMs, not sure about depth.

 

[Forest Green]

The standard air-to-ground payloads for the F-22 are 1000-lb JDAMs or quad SDBs (which are roughly the external dimensions of a 2000lb bomb). The bays seem to be too short for 2000-lb JDAMs, not sure about depth.

Probably depth more than length. A 2k JDAM is 3.89m, and the staggered AIM-120 loadout has about the same total length.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The standard air-to-ground payloads for the F-22 are 1000-lb JDAMs or quad SDBs (which are roughly the external dimensions of a 2000lb bomb). The bays seem to be too short for 2000-lb JDAMs, not sure about depth.

Huh, didn't think that the 1000lb bombs would fit, they're quite wide/deep.

The quad JDAM rack is as wide and as long as a 2000lb bomb, but is not as deep.

 

[flateric]

Anyone knows the time line between the v-tail design and the tailless design. I believe the v-tail predates the tailless one but not sure.

V-tail was the first concept published and appeared in LM 2012 calendar

 

[dark sidius]

V-tail was the first concept published and appeared in LM 2012 calendar

Twelve years since now do you think this one will be the real NGAD Lockheed prospect ? After 2012 this is the tailless concept we see each time in promotion pictures..

 

[Manuducati]

Huh, didn't think that the 1000lb bombs would fit, they're quite wide/deep.

The quad JDAM rack is as wide and as long as a 2000lb bomb, but is not as deep.

A GBU-32 (1000lb warhead) in the F-22 bay for illustration purpose.

 

[sferrin]

My WAG it won’t be tailless it will be closer to that “Lady Liberty” design from awhile ago.

I'd love it if that was the design.

 

[SkunksdoWork]

Curious if it was the Lady liberty 'art' purely speculation, what would that say in terms of stealth? and other factors cause like i love the design of the 2012 'art' but compared to Tailless designs Range, Payload, etc.

 

[FighterJock]

Same here sferrin, I would be gutted if they made changes to that design.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

My WAG it won’t be tailless it will be closer to that “Lady Liberty” design from awhile ago.

Personally, I think this is the right direction to go in. But I admit I am probably overly skeptical of completely tailless designs. In my amateur opinion a configuration with a shallow V-tail or Pelikan tail represents a good compromise for a fighter while still enabling it to achieve a high level of stealth. For a dedicated strike or attack aircraft however I can easily envision the sort of flying wing designs we keep seeing as representing the future.

When was this design dubbed "Lady Liberty"? I wish there were a few more photos of it. Very nice looking but from the two perspectives it was shown it seems unrealistically flat.

It's true that most of the concepts for NGAD (or whatever acronym it currently is) and F/A-XX show flying wings and such but just remember all of the concepts and art that was released by contractors vying to win the ATF contract. While some had some basis in the actual designs of those companies others were simply fake to confuse the competition, the Soviets, and whoever else might be watching.

My favorite beautifully drawn example from LM which Sferrin posted in the ATF thread. It had no relation to the design Lockheed was working on. I think I first saw it in an old Osprey book on stealth aircraft (must have been published sometime in the '80s) that I got from my dad.

With all of the CGI these days it's probably easier than ever for a company to come up with something to show to the public. I don't think NGB is a good comparison because once it was determined that NGB was going to be subsonic there really was only direction to go with in order to achieve maximum stealth, a flying wing. And once they selected Northrop? Well by then it was a guarantee it would greatly resemble the B-2.

Time will tell for sure. But just look at the BAE Tempest-GCAP or FCAS to see what others are doing and I don't know if it's quite as likely those countries are going the extra mile to be misleading the competition.

 

[dark sidius]

Same here sferrin, I would be gutted if they made changes to that design.

Surely you are right , it seem to be a tail in it.... May be impossible to go high supersonic without tails

 

[Scott Kenny]

A GBU-32 (1000lb warhead) in the F-22 bay for illustration purpose.

Huh, I stand corrected then!

 

[Forest Green]

My favorite beautifully drawn example from LM which Sferrin posted in the ATF thread. It had no relation to the design Lockheed was working on. I think I first saw it in an old Osprey book on stealth aircraft (must have been published sometime in the '80s) that I got from my dad.

That picture brings back memories from 1990.

 

[bobbymike]

2.6 Research Paper Release: The Need for Collaborative Combat Aircraft for Disruptive Air Warfare - Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies

The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies invites you to enjoy our rollout for our newest paper: The Need for Collaborative Combat Aircraft for Disruptive Air Warfare by Mark A. Gunzinger, Director of Future Concepts and Capability Assessments and a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of...

mitchellaerospacepower.org

 

[Josh_TN]

A recent study indicated that lower cost UCAVs, and more of them, is likely the preferred route. This seems to deviate from the recent statement that a CCA might cost 1/3 of an F-35, although that figure was given as more of an absolute ceiling given the context. A previous game last year (that unfortunately I cannot locate) involving another group had the same take away: they opted for more and cheaper UAVs, many of them disposable or at least expendable, rather then more reusable equipment with more capability.

Robot wingmen vs. China: What a think tank’s wargame revealed about a key USAF concept

As the Air Force contemplates a range of price points, the tabletop exercise suggests cheaper is better.

www.defenseone.com

 

[FighterJock]

I think that is the way the USAF is going Josh_TN, having just the manned variant of the NGAD as the air controller with twin seats controlling the far more numerous CCA UCAVs into battle and keeping far away from the fight.

 

[TomcatViP]

Humm... I would prefer having UAS controlled by Space Marines in a stealthy orbital control station. No need for a twin seat.

 

[Josh_TN]

Humm... I would prefer having UAS controlled by a Space Marines in a stealthy orbital control station. No need for a twin seat.

Given the new Transport Layer of the proliferated satellite constellation, orbital control may be actually achievable (with enough on board automation for realtime reactions). If nothing else using something “RQ-180” or B-21 as a relay for satellite commands should be doable, so long as control only required periodic decisions and other inputs.

 

[FlyGuy369]

Have any of you seen the Boeing patent with the NGAD in it? I would even go as far to argue that it may be for the F/A-XX program only because of my experience working with the KFIRs and what not seeing the high angles of attack and approach speed it would seem that this patent for it would be a solution to the need for lower landing speeds aboard carriers.

 

[FighterJock]

There is only one thing that I do not like about this Boeing design and that is the side mounted air intakes, I do not know what makes Boeing choose exotic air intakes over standard designs? Lets see what happens to this design between now and contract award.

 

[FlyGuy369]

There is only one thing that I do not like about this Boeing design and that is the side mounted air intakes, I do not know what makes Boeing choose exotic air intakes over standard designs? Lets see what happens to this design between now and contract award.

Are you familiar with the ACWFT study? That may elude to some of the design considerations behind the top mounted air intakes, maybe the fuselage ahead of the intake allows for passive porosity to grant air flow.

 

[donnage99]

Have any of you seen the Boeing patent with the NGAD in it? I would even go as far to argue that it may be for the F/A-XX program only because of my experience working with the KFIRs and what not seeing the high angles of attack and approach speed it would seem that this patent for it would be a solution to the need for lower landing speeds aboard carriers.

Which patent is this from if you don't mind me asking

 

[Scott Kenny]

Have any of you seen the Boeing patent with the NGAD in it? I would even go as far to argue that it may be for the F/A-XX program only because of my experience working with the KFIRs and what not seeing the high angles of attack and approach speed it would seem that this patent for it would be a solution to the need for lower landing speeds aboard carriers.

Is that showing deployable canards?

 

[flateric]

Which patent is this from if you don't mind me asking

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/usaf-us-navy-6g-fighter-programs-f-a-xx-f-x-ngad-pca-asfs-news.3536/post-353399

 

[FlyGuy369]

Is that showing deployable canards?

Yes, that's what I'm seeing, and they're expandable pending flight conditions, the patent even reads about the conditions under which they are to deploy automatically.

 

[FighterJock]

Interesting to see canards on a USAF fighter, with the USAF being so anti canard in the past I wonder why now?

 

[FlyGuy369]

Interesting to see canards on a USAF fighter, with the USAF being so anti canard in the past I wonder why now?

Honestly, I think this design isn't for the Air Force, but rather the Navy. I mean, if you look at the markings around the air intakes on some of the renders, it appears to be Navy style markings which would allude to the fact that it may be for Carrier based work. Hence why it might need the canards to reduce the landing speed for delta wing configured aircraft which inherently has a much higher landing speed as we've learned from historical examples.

 

[apparition13]

Northrop will not bid on Air Force’s new fighter

The company's decision leaves Boeing, Lockheed Martin to compete to build the Next Generation Air Dominance jet.

www.defenseone.com

Well, I’m frankly not sure how I feel about Northrop Grumman forgo bidding as a prime for USAF NGAD. It remains to be seen how they are positioning themselves for the naval F/A-XX, since beating the current Navy fighter incumbents, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, would be challenging but certainly not impossible.

I've been thinking about this lately, and I wonder if Northrop Grumman dropping out is a bad sign for the program.

The last time they 'passed' like this on a program it was the A-12. Northrop had recent experience with the B-2, and had a good idea how much the A-12 would cost, which was much more than the Navy wanted to pay, so they submitted a non-compliant (but realistic) bid, which was their way of getting out.

I wonder if something similar just happened. Did NG drop out of the air force program because they thought the requirements were unrealistic for the price desired, leading to a decision to drop out and avoid a bad contract?

Meanwhile we've got Lockheed, who's strategy is to over-promise leading to massive cost and time overruns hoping to win in the end based on sunk costs, and Boeing MD who's greed for short term profits has turned a great company into a basket case.

Given how well the B-21 program has gone and how poorly Lockheed and Boeing have done I was looking forward to seeing what NG could do with the program. Now I wonder if the program will ever show something, or if it does whether it will be in service before 2040 at double or triple the price.

 

[Hydroman]

NG could have an edge for F/A-XX that may explain why they dropped out of USAF NGAD. Boeing is in a bad way especially on the commercial side, along with KC-46 and T-7 is having issues, F-15EX is somewhat a silver lining. The NG X-47B program was an excellent example of NG naval aviation prowess, plus B-21 is moving into LRIP already (due in part of the "RQ-180" and B-21 lineage). The YF-23/F-23 program even though was in the late 80's, early 90's and I have stated this before, was Gen 5.5+. This is probably the reason other nations 6th gen aircraft concepts including some LMCO concepts have F-23 traits.

 

[FighterJock]

We shall see how NG get's on with the F/A-XX program Hydroman, I am still recovering from NGs shock exit from the Air Force NGAD so we will have to wait and see who wins the F/A-XX program. All that I can say right now is that this coming year is going to be highly interesting.

 

[red admiral]

https://valkstrat.com/the-cartman-gambit/

Some relevant thoughts on the industrial base in here from Bill Sweetman

Most companies exist to make money. If you have a guaranteed long term income stream already, then you don't need to take risk and expense in bidding for new business.

Boeing defense is in a must win position, but neither LM nor NG are.

I think that CCA winner(s) will be more interesting

 

[FighterJock]

The last "cat" named fighter was of course the mighty Tomcat and there have been too many years between the Tomcat's retirement and the F/A-XX program, so I would think that the US Navy would be thinking up good names for their next aircraft.

 

[Hydroman]

We shall see how NG get's on with the F/A-XX program Hydroman, I am still recovering from NGs shock exit from the Air Force NGAD so we will have to wait and see who wins the F/A-XX program. All that I can say right now is that this coming year is going to be highly interesting.

FighterJock, you are correct, things are going to get very interesting this year. With the state of the world right now, NG and LM I'm sure have a lot going on. I know things are very busy for NG, I still keep in touch with a few old cohorts even after I left. NG could still be a subcontractor of whoever wins USAF NGAD, along the lines of F-35, maybe.

 

[Hydroman]

The last "cat" named fighter was of course the mighty Tomcat and there have been too many years between the Tomcat's retirement and the F/A-XX program, so I would think that the US Navy would be thinking up good names for their next aircraft.

I also worked the Tomcat when I was on CVN-65, I miss that plane, the F-110 engines made it the fighter it should have been. See, Tomcat gone, CVN-65 gone, oh no!

 

[Manuducati]

No way the Air Force was going to select N-G for NGAD, as N-G already has the B-21 program going. As in early 90's, and the B-2/ATF situation. You don't want the same company to run all your major programs, for various reasons.

My bet would be for LM to get NGAD.

For F/A-XX, N-G is a strong contender, but Boeing has to have something if the company is to remain in the combat jets business. So maybe a N-G/Boeing partnership again (even if the last occurence wasn't particularly a smooth ride)...

 

[FlyGuy369]

All I'm saying is, when things like this pop up, it just makes you wonder...Just how many NGAD variants are out there actually flying.

 

[Sundog]

All I'm saying is, when things like this pop up, it just makes you wonder...Just how many NGAD variants are out there actually flying.

There aren't any NGAD variants flying. There was a DARPA program to flight test advanced fighter configurations, of which, reportedly, two or three flew (One from each of the contractors, which I would assume would be LM, NG, and Boeing.) Those were demonstrators for new fighter designs, but they weren't the NGAD as I doubt the NGAD mission profile was defined yet. The NGAD will definitely reference what was demonstrated.