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

sferrin said:
chuck4 said:
The artwork may well have taken something from a Klingon Bird of Prey and Romulan Warbird, and then worked them over with a beautification tool. It also seems to me to have taken and blended in quite a bit from X-Wing, Viper and Starship Trooper designs. But this is at least 10 years before first metal is cut. Compare concept artwork 10 years before F-15 and F-22 flew and see how much they resemble the final products.
Click to expand...

Approximately as likely.
Click to expand...

Please don't misquote me.
 
Phantom Work guys have enough creativity for their own instead of looking for others' designs.
Note that this one is looking like radical iteration of second concept revealed, not the third one with top mounted intakes.
 
ikke666 said:
where can i download the navy rfi for the f/a-xx? ::)
Click to expand...

Here:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=7681467de538b6e46a5196cfe7103a24&tab=core&_cview=0
 
This looks like more of a 5th Gen+ design than a new 6th generation. I agree about this being 10 years out, the design is going to look completely different. The yf-22 and yf-23 were far from the early concept art.


i personally think there will be some hypersonic features show up on the 6th gen, maybe not cruise, but for short sprint capability. As stealth advances and stealth detection, speed will become important again? And there will be a energy weapon more than likely.


Makes me also interested to see some Chinese, and Russian Mig/Sukhoi 6th Generation proposals.
 
kcran567 said:
This looks like more of a 5th Gen+ design than a new 6th generation. I agree about this being 10 years out, the design is going to look completely different. The yf-22 and yf-23 were far from the early concept art.


i personally think there will be some hypersonic features show up on the 6th gen, maybe not cruise, but for short sprint capability. As stealth advances and stealth detection, speed will become important again? And there will be a energy weapon more than likely.


Makes me also interested to see some Chinese, and Russian Mig/Sukhoi 6th Generation proposals.
Click to expand...

We can't even get an unmanned, air-breathing missile to fly at mach 3 reliably anymore. Hypersonics ain't gonna happen. I could see brief excursions, maybe even a bit of cruise, at Mach 3 or so but that's it. Think of a stealthy F-108 with more maneuverability.
 
I have read that the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor can supercruise at Mach 1.8 and has an estimated maximum speed of Mach 2.3 at altitude. Isn't this speed fast enough? Can fighter designs maintain stealth at higher speeds? Can stealth coatings handle the heat of higher speeds or titanium/stainless steel construction?
 
I've read that at speeds above Mach 3, radar stealth become impossible as the heated wake becomes visible to radar.
 
there's no sense to bother of LO for radiospectrum when you look like a meteor for MlG-29 OLS at M=3
you are starting to have problems with composites structural stiffness at M=2.3
there are RAMs that can survive even higher temperatures (just look at F-22 nozzles and RVs), but again, it's not making sense for entire airframe
that's why temperature management is a new headache and favorite phrase for AFRL lately

and seems that I was talking of that several times and you. just don't listen, kcran567
 
I was meaning short hypersonic sprint capability Flateric. What about that? Is that as much of a materials challenge? Not for cruising for a long time at M3 or higher. And why not use ceramics over key parts of the shell of the fighter or other new heat dissipating methods? A 6th generation fighter requirement is going to be sustained high altitude capability with some high speed capability. I say that because low and slow is going to be increasingly more dangerous place to be with the proliferation of 5th generation fighters.
If the SR-71 was still flying would you say the same about it?
 
kcran567 said:
I say that because low and slow is going to be increasingly more dangerous place to be with the proliferation of 5th generation fighters.
Click to expand...
Why?
 
Triton said:
I have read that the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor can supercruise at Mach 1.8 and has an estimated maximum speed of Mach 2.3 at altitude. Isn't this speed fast enough? Can fighter designs maintain stealth at higher speeds? Can stealth coatings handle the heat of higher speeds or titanium/stainless steel construction?
Click to expand...

According to Paul Metz top speed is better than Mach 2.4
 
sferrin said:
Triton said:
I have read that the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor can supercruise at Mach 1.8 and has an estimated maximum speed of Mach 2.3 at altitude. Isn't this speed fast enough? Can fighter designs maintain stealth at higher speeds? Can stealth coatings handle the heat of higher speeds or titanium/stainless steel construction?
Click to expand...
According to Paul Metz top speed is better than Mach 2.4
Click to expand...
Dang, it just keeps going up. I remember when the F-22's top speed (not supercruise) was given as only Mach 1.8; since then it's gone to 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, and now even higher? I'm starting to wonder when we're gonna find out it can do 3.0 at sea-level like it could in the old Jet Fighter II game I played as a teenager. ;D
 
2IDSGT said:
sferrin said:
Triton said:
I have read that the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor can supercruise at Mach 1.8 and has an estimated maximum speed of Mach 2.3 at altitude. Isn't this speed fast enough? Can fighter designs maintain stealth at higher speeds? Can stealth coatings handle the heat of higher speeds or titanium/stainless steel construction?
Click to expand...
According to Paul Metz top speed is better than Mach 2.4
Click to expand...
Dang, it just keeps going up. I remember when the F-22's top speed (not supercruise) was given as only Mach 1.8; since then it's gone to 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, and now even higher? I'm starting to wonder when we're gonna find out it can do 3.0 at sea-level like it could in the old Jet Fighter II game I played as a teenager. ;D
Click to expand...

Paul Metz said this years ago when the F-22 was still in flight test. They were interviewing him on one of the numerous Discovery/History/TNT/whatever shows. His exact quote was, "it's fast, I mean it's REALLY fast. The top speed is classified but it'll do 1600 mph." Which works out to Mach 2.42 (Which I believe is also the top speed listed in Jay Miller's F-22 book.)
 
If true, F-22 would be the first jet I know of that has essentially fixed intake that can do substantially better than Mach 2.
 
chuck4 said:
I've read that at speeds above Mach 3, radar stealth become impossible as the heated wake becomes visible to radar.
Click to expand...

Don't believe everything you read. There are any number of ways to deal with the ionization.
 
chuck4 said:
If true, F-22 would be the first jet I know of that has essentially fixed intake that can do substantially better than Mach 2.
Click to expand...

The YF-23 didn't have any problems going much faster than Mach 2.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the XF8U-3. It's really interesting to compare it's inlet design to the YF-107's, considering they are from around the same time frame.
 
So we ca be fairly certain the the FA-XX woun't supercruise above Mach 2.2 as that would require a major development of new materials.

It makes sence. Maybe Mach 2.3 is to stealth what Mach 1 was to speed: A barrier that going to take time to overcome while maintaining LO signature.

And while the F-22 can go Mach 1.82 without afterburner, its most fuel efficient speed is at about Mach 1.5 where it can only spend 30 min or it faces overheating issue in the rear fuselage...or so I've heard.

So even Mach 2 super cruise for the FA-XX would be a major breakthrough by today standards.
 
Can we presume that weapons stowage in the Boeing Navy concept is at least as good as the McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics A-12 Avenger II at 5,160 pounds (2,300 kg) in internal weapons bay(s)? With external hard points up to 18,000 lb (8,170 kg) of ordnance and fuel tanks as in the Grumman A-6 Intruder? Or is it closer to the Grumman F-14 Tomcat with external hard points up to 14,500 lb (6,600 kg) of ordnance and fuel tanks? Thoughts?
 
Triton said:
Can we presume that weapons stowage in the Boeing Navy concept is at least as good as the McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics A-12 Avenger II at 5,160 pounds (2,300 kg) in internal weapons bay(s)? With external hard points up to 18,000 lb (8,170 kg) as in the Grumman A-6 Intruder?
Click to expand...

I would assume not, as it wouldn't be necessary to carry that load. I would assume internal carriage of 8 to 10 missiles and four external pylons. But I wouldn't expect it to carry near the external load of A-6, as I'm sure they would expect it to carry mostly PGM's of all different types and they're far more accurate and destructive than they were when the A-6 is fielded. If they want a bomb truck, they'll have the F-35C. ;)
 
Thanks, Sundog. B) When you read about the intention of a stealthy Grumman A-6 Intruder replacement, you imagine that the performance will match the Grumman A-6 Intruder or close to the McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamic A-12 Avenger II.
 
Would it make sense with 'expertise' gleaned from the 3 version F-35 program to have a stealthy 'regional bomber' type platform also in production with larger wings and larger internal weapons bay a la the X-44? Or will the NGB go ahead in enough numbers to make this just too costly?

 
Triton said:
Internal bays long enough to carry Boeing AGM-84A Harpoon as in the Lockheed Martin/Boeing A/FX proposal?
Click to expand...
Designing a new aircraft against a old weapon is the dumbest thing an aerospace engineer can do.
 
What means a better kinematic performance for FA/XX than the other legacy fighter, it must mean a greater speed than the others? We know current fighters fly in a mach 2 class, F-16, F-15, +/- F-18.
 
None of the fighters you mentioned can fly at Mach 2 with their typical weapons load. They actually hardly every fly at Mach 2 because its operationally unjustified to do so if:
1. You can't fire weapons at that speed because you don't carry any
2. You don't have the trust to maneuver at all
3. You waste 3x the fuel as compared to flying at Mach 0.9

So its not nesessarry for the FA-XX to have a higher top speed, it just needs to have higher operational speed.
 
lantinian said:
Triton said:
Internal bays long enough to carry Boeing AGM-84A Harpoon as in the Lockheed Martin/Boeing A/FX proposal?
Click to expand...
Designing a new aircraft against a old weapon is the dumbest thing an aerospace engineer can do.
Click to expand...

Not if you expect the old weapon to still be an main ordinance the new plane will carry. Unless you tried to do the Soviet thing and try to develop a new generation of ordinance with each new generation of aircraft.
 
Maybe I should have been more specific and said "old weapon for external carriage" and "new aircraft with internal carriage"
 
dark sidius said:
What means a better kinematic performance for FA/XX than the other legacy fighter, it must mean a greater speed than the others? We know current fighters fly in a mach 2 class, F-16, F-15, +/- F-18.
Click to expand...



It's generally accepted that a 6th Gen fighter will have a higher altitude and cruise point for a given mission set (think more Blackbird than Raptor; i.e. go fast/high and stay there). It will be interesting to see if DEW pans out enough to reduce the maneuverability requirements because if it does, it could mean a wing that is better tailored to high altitude and air speeds (deltas for instance). Couple that with the new ADVENT engine variants which has a higher compression ratio than current 5th gen engines and will be able to configure to a pure turbojet and you could have a design that should be able to cruise higher, perhaps much higher than the current 5th gen heavyweights. I could see this jet cruising another 10-15k higher and perhaps another 0.5 Mach higher. I'd imagine it'd infer similar kinetic advantages over a 5th gen as a 5th gen does over a 4th gen.


It's also conceivable that with the advances in materials and manufacturing technologies there could be significant weight savings which could of course translate not only higher altitude/Mach but could also allow for higher available G at any given altitude/Mach point. That's pretty important feature since being able to rapidly change your vector (cranking) is important in BVR tactics. Personally as cool as these concept drawings are, I don't think they anything like what these respective design houses are working on.
 
bobbymike said:
Would it make sense with 'expertise' gleaned from the 3 version F-35 program to have a stealthy 'regional bomber' type platform also in production with larger wings and larger internal weapons bay a la the X-44? Or will the NGB go ahead in enough numbers to make this just too costly?
Click to expand...


Please no. I really want to see the USAF develop a proper bomber even if its a B-2 lite. It's even more critical now given the current budget environment.
 
Popular Mechanics spoke to Phantom Works and Skunk Works on their latest concept images released during the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space Conference and Expo.


Phantom Works spokeswoman Deborah VanNierop had this to say: “Phantom Works … very regularly comes up with graphics of what we think the product might look like. More often than not, the end product is not a reflection of the first few graphics.”
Click to expand...
Link: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/military/concept-wars-weapons-of-mass-marketing-15339142
 
If secret projects drawings were drinks, this article was the ice.

Interesting quote
"the company may have good reason to leave out details of an airplane, but it takes pains to produce images that show its conceptual aircraft in realistic action"
 
These concepts are not necessarily what the company aims to propose (there are competitors listening) but they're indicative. The idea of showing something at USNL is to get the message across to customer people that you're thinking... and maybe the Navy Lt Cdr who stops to chat might be someone in the office that's also thinking about such things, and who knows where he'll be when he's a Capt.

Note that all the Boeing concepts have been absent vertical tails, finless and highly blended.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom