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

what_is_that said:
Taking a step back, I wonder if the hesitation/change of direction might be due to new intelligence. I say this because none of the other factors brought up are really new. Perhaps China's space based sensing is further along than was thought, or they are on the verge of a new capability in some area.
Click to expand...
It most certainly is a factor and if it isn’t an issue today it will be in the short to medium term. If you go nuts, and spot them persistent high quality tracking of surface ships and aircraft, then hypersonic ships are really the way to go. Unmanned obviously. Sorry Mav.
 
sublight_ said:
I think the speed that the Pacific is traversed may be the really expensive option that is tripping this whole thing up. Whatever the stealth option they use, be it the F35 generation, or something newer, the RCS is going to change significantly as the temperature from high speed runs get the airframe really toasty. The F35 already had a problem with hot fuel. Are they going to have to cryo cool the NGAD fuel to soak up some of that heat?
Click to expand...

As part of a hypersonic program Lockheed developed the ability to 3d print structures that efficiently used hydrocarbon fuel to chill and density incoming supersonic air in an inlet.

It would be reasonable to conclude the same methods were used to embed “capillaries” into the structure of a supersonic aircraft to control the skin temperature and boundary layer.
 
quellish said:
As part of a hypersonic program Lockheed developed the ability to 3d print structures that efficiently used hydrocarbon fuel to chill and density incoming supersonic air in an inlet.

It would be reasonable to conclude the same methods were used to embed “capillaries” into the structure of a supersonic aircraft to control the skin temperature and boundary layer.
Click to expand...

And boy oh boy does that sound pricey!
 
sublight_ said:
And boy oh boy does that sound pricey!
Click to expand...
According to reports about similar technology in the Mako hypersonic missile, the price is lower than the subtractive machining cost, with weight gains and more tunable material properties. The American aerospace industry is quietly investing millions of dollars in micron and nano-scale precision metal and resin 3d printing for large parts. It'll be interesting to see the next generation of aerospace vehicles as they integrate more generative design and additive-only design elements, like embedded systems in structural components.
 
sublight_ said:
And boy oh boy does that sound pricey!
Click to expand...

If you can 3D print the whole structure it is not nearly as complicated to make. HAWC is said to work this way: the combustor is 3D printed so all the intricate channels for fuel to be pumped as a coolant (and also use the heat to crack the fuel into lighter hydrocarbons) are created as the assembly is printed. X-51 apparently had to machine all of this; now THAT sounds incredibly complicated.
 
Josh_TN said:
If you can 3D print the whole structure it is not nearly as complicated to make. HAWC is said to work this way: the combustor is 3D printed so all the intricate channels for fuel to be pumped as a coolant (and also use the heat to crack the fuel into lighter hydrocarbons) are created as the assembly is printed. X-51 apparently had to machine all of this; now THAT sounds incredibly complicated.
Click to expand...
The other side of the equation is that the X-51 had to use CFD on computers that predate Windows XP, to say nothing about the computational materials science revolution at the turn of the century that the HyTECH program never took advantage of
 
A general electric patent that appears to show how a three stream engine is used is a SERN assembly like that seen on the Northrop patent.

US8984891B2 - Flade discharge in 2-D exhaust nozzle - Google Patents

An aircraft gas turbine engine has a row of FLADE fan blades disposed radially outwardly of and drivingly connected to a fan in the engine's fan section. The FLADE fan blades extend across a FLADE duct circumscribing the fan section. A two dimensional air discharge passage is in fluid flow...
patents.google.com
 

Attachments

  • US08984891-20150324-D00000.png
    US08984891-20150324-D00000.png
    35.9 KB · Views: 47
  • US08984891-20150324-D00001.png
    US08984891-20150324-D00001.png
    76.9 KB · Views: 49
  • US08984891-20150324-D00002.png
    US08984891-20150324-D00002.png
    55.1 KB · Views: 45
  • US08984891-20150324-D00003.png
    US08984891-20150324-D00003.png
    56.9 KB · Views: 49
Explorer121 said:
According to reports about similar technology in the Mako hypersonic missile, the price is lower than the subtractive machining cost, with weight gains and more tunable material properties. The American aerospace industry is quietly investing millions of dollars in micron and nano-scale precision metal and resin 3d printing for large parts. It'll be interesting to see the next generation of aerospace vehicles as they integrate more generative design and additive-only design elements, like embedded systems in structural components.
Click to expand...

The Mako is not a 10,000+ hour airframe. Making a platform that lasts that many hours and doesn't cost a zillion dollars an hour to sustain is what is making attributable and unmanned platforms look really tasty right now.
 
If they're not progressing with NGAD, they need to build more F-22s in the meantime.
 
Not to be repetitive but this seemed to come with the confluence of

F-15EX
Very long range AAMs
CCAs

And maybe thinking “do we need a $300 million stealth fighter?”
 
bobbymike said:
Not to be repetitive but this seemed to come with the confluence of

F-15EX
Very long range AAMs
CCAs

And maybe thinking “do we need a $300 million stealth fighter?”
Click to expand...
I can't say I really agree with such logic. The F-15EX has uses for sure, but it also has a large RCS and might have to worry about evading shots from those long-range AAMs you speak of. Similar missiles have existed before the AIM-174, but they're often not great at hitting fighters, let alone when those fighters have minimal RCS and quality ECM gear. CCAs are still relatively immature, and even if their capabilities were fully realized tomorrow, I'd still want manned fighters that can operate closer to their unmanned wingmen.
 
quellish said:
More like how long can we wait for a new fighter.

Some of the capabilities they really want, like CCAs, are not really mature yet.
Click to expand...
Perhaps new capabilities have been found that they feel need to be integrated into the aircraft. I don't know if that's a good guess, but it's wild to me to pause this right at the end.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
The F-15EX has uses for sure, but it also has a large RCS
Click to expand...

I did hear that it was nicknamed 'The Magnet' in some quarters because of its tendency to attract metal.

Still, an F-1EX with CCAs (assuming some are mature soon) and a specialist wrangler in the back seat might plug a gap.

This article looks at the possibility:

www.twz.com

USAF Should Look At China's Future Multi-Crew Fighter Model For F-15EX

The F-15EX's currently empty rear cockpit needs to be taken advantage of by adding a new kind of second crewmen, an Air Mission Commanding Officer.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

Meanwhile, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) advocates for multi-seat configurations to manage data-rich combat environments effectively. USAF plans, on the other hand, currently exclude utilizing the F-15EX’s rear cockpit, limiting its role to air-to-air missions and possibly limited air-to-ground missions sometime in the future.

In this era of transformative air combat, as the PLAAF pioneers new operational concepts with multi-seat fighters, the USAF stands at a crossroads, balancing legacy strategies with the imperative for adaptive, integrated command and control of unmanned systems and network-centric operations. With the F-15EX, however, the USAF has an opportunity to lead the way regarding future air combat by fully embracing the Eagle II’s two-crew capability.
 
I for one think long range AAMs are destined for the EX. Perhaps it’s as simple as validating the 174B, but I suspect the USAF would like much much faster and potentially more longer-ranged stand off missiles. Couple with six CCAs, four of which carry D3s or AIM-260As, this creates the ability to create formidable anti air bubbles provided air refueling and the requisite resilient/agile basing can be assured. Can also be used as hunter killer assets for high value ISR and tanker targets. In a vacuum this isn’t much, but a multiship EX formation sharing sensor CCAs, allowing for more effector CCAs, becomes especially intriguing if USAF have some sort of Project Mayhem type unmanned asset to keep red forces on their back foot.

Putting that aside, I believe there’s a lot more going on here with the recent bubbling of NGAD issues culminating w SecAF comments today - I’m not convinced that this announcement is just because the deciders had an oh sh*t moment on the cost per capability of the Boeing and LMs NGAD proposals in a vacuum where the only thing that changed was someone did basic counting math on the salvo generation of PRC forces across both island chains vs US ground base launches and VLSs, and what that meant for runway availability in an all-out shooting war. That’s nuts. There must be better ways of deploying $50bn+ to impose US policy in the west pacific than 150 aircraft that quite honestly might only be marginally better than F-22 or -35 at solving dilemmas a future PRC IAD systems might impose in 203x when NGAD protection might be at full tilt.
 
On second thought maybe this is pretty easy.

Merge the USN and USAF NGAD programs.

Let carrier ops define the baseline specs.

Use as much F-35 stuff as possible including awarding GE a contract for an adaptive powerplant that will be backward compatible with A/C F-35 models.

Develop external weapons and tank pylons that can be jetistoned and restore a totally undisturbed surface for incoming EM emissions.

Develop an airframe with highly efficient high subsonic speed with low IR emissions but with excellent transonic and climb performance, even a the expense of a high top speed. Supercruise would be nice but not a dealbreaker.

Design capacious and thoughtful weapons bays that emphasize medium to very long range weapon sizes vs bespoke cubby holes for 9Xs or AMRAAMs.

Space for future power generation, cooling, sensors, etc

All in all design a new airframe and use as much currently existing tech to populate its innards, similar to B-21, which now that you look back on it, might have been the template for NGAD hiding in plane sight (haha) all along.

Develop a rapidly deployable EMALS and arrest system that can be deployed rapidly and integrate into the ACE deployment scheme.

Not sure the US can afford the cost of separate USN and USAF programs and unlike the F-35 and the STOVL requirement, NGAD might be a program where true efficiencies might be harvestable, especially if you can diversify the power plant benefits to the congressional boondoggle that is the F-35 (sorry marines, but you can still fly Cs off carriers). Plus, if the USAF is so worried about long run ways, perhaps approaching things like a naval aviator might actually be useful for future conops. But what do I know, I just write checks to the government and pay for stuff.
 
Last edited:
Training_Dummy said:
Putting that aside, I believe there’s a lot more going on here with the recent bubbling of NGAD issues culminating w SecAF comments today - I’m not convinced that this announcement is just because the deciders had an oh sh*t moment on the cost per capability of the Boeing and LMs NGAD proposals in a vacuum where the only thing that changed was someone did basic counting math on the salvo generation of PRC forces across both island chains vs US ground base launches and VLSs, and what that meant for runway availability in an all-out shooting war. That’s nuts. There must be better ways of deploying $50bn+ to impose US policy in the west pacific than 150 aircraft that quite honestly might only be marginally better than F-22 or -35 at solving dilemmas a future PRC IAD systems might impose in 203x when NGAD protection might be at full tilt.
Click to expand...
I think something is definitely going on that has nothing to do with their stated reasons why they are taking a pause. It really seems Kendall and his surrogates are throwing stuff at a wall and hope it sticks. We had variations of the budget, the cost of NGAD, a need for more range for NGAD, the exploding cost of Sentinel, a sudden change in the threat from the Chinese, and recent advances in AI. They have spent ten years and billions of dollar on research, analysis, demonstrators, production representative prototypes, and wargames and now they decide to take a pause to regroup? There is something else going on.

The budget situation has remained challenging, Sentinel overruns notwithstanding. The Pacific Ocean didn't get larger over the last few years. The threat from the Chinese has remained constant.

You are correct about the challenge facing the stand in force with basing. According to AF officials, you cannot defeat the Chinese from stand off ranges. You need to be able to operate from bases within the First Island Chain. NGAD doesn't have to have the range of B-21 to be valuable. By increasing the combat radius of NGAD above the F-35 and F-22 to 1,000 to 1,200 nm opens up a lot more bases to operate from in First Island Chain without the need for air to air refueling. The assumption was that the manned NGAD platform would be close in size to an F-111 and have similar range. Or were they looking at something smaller with less range and that is what the issue is? Kendall says they need more time to make sure they get this right. Then speculates that it may be unmanned, or optionally manned? Make up your mind already. Despite the efforts at damage control this looks like a big screw up by Kendall.
 
The USN program probably proceeds as is, but I cannot imagine the USAF ever buying it. They have totally different requirements. Typically that only happens when Congress forces the services to do so.
 
Josh_TN said:
The USN program probably proceeds as is, but I cannot imagine the USAF ever buying it. They have totally different requirements. Typically that only happens when Congress forces the services to do so.
Click to expand...
Or SecDef forces them to.

However, the first time that happened, it resulted in one of the greatest fighters of the generation: the F-4 Phantom II. The third time it happened, the USAF-demanded engine swap improved the type so much that the USN replaced all their older A7s with Spey-engined and M61 gunned A-7Es. The second time it happened, the carrier requirements were not held as critical, so the F-111B was rejected hard.
 
Josh_TN said:
The USN program probably proceeds as is, but I cannot imagine the USAF ever buying it. They have totally different requirements. Typically that only happens when Congress forces the services to do it
Click to expand...

Budget crunch is real.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The second time it happened, the carrier requirements were not held as critical, so the F-111B was rejected hard.
Click to expand...

Well the F-111B could've worked but the requirements were set during the Vietnam war where the USN, USAF and USMC discovered the hard way that they needed dogfighting interceptors with internal guns so they wanted the shit-hot F-14A Tomcat not the F-111B Turkey supersonic LR missile-truck (Even though I'm sure it would've done an adequate job defending the CVBG from AS-4 Kitchen toting Tu-22Ms).
 
Scott Kenny said:
Or SecDef forces them to.

However, the first time that happened, it resulted in one of the greatest fighters of the generation: the F-4 Phantom II. The third time it happened, the USAF-demanded engine swap improved the type so much that the USN replaced all their older A7s with Spey-engined and M61 gunned A-7Es. The second time it happened, the carrier requirements were not held as critical, so the F-111B was rejected hard.
Click to expand...
Great historical perspective/reminder.

Look we all know how much powerplant & associated systems plus sensor suites are combined a major fraction of an aircraft’s cost. BTW carrier specific gear coupled with thrust reversers is a feature not a bug. As is folding wings if you want to maximize hardened shelters.

It shouldn’t be a dealbreaker. It’s worth looking at. Besides, we all know we are looking for interim solutions that provide step and not incremental improvements given the huge per airframe costs, but this is all prelude to a radically different form of aerial warfare both at the personal level (drones) and beyond.
 
Training_Dummy said:
Great historical perspective/reminder.

Look we all know how much powerplant & associated systems plus sensor suites are combined a major fraction of an aircraft’s cost. BTW carrier specific gear coupled with thrust reversers is a feature not a bug. As is folding wings if you want to maximize hardened shelters.

It shouldn’t be a dealbreaker. It’s worth looking at. Besides, we all know we are looking for interim solutions that provide step and not incremental improvements given the huge per airframe costs, but this is all prelude to a radically different form of aerial warfare both at the personal level (drones) and beyond.
Click to expand...
Yup. and personally, I hope that the USAF NGAD has two seats, because I don't think the CCAs are going to be single-pilot-friendly for a decade or more.

I'm guessing that the USN version will have two seats, since it's taking over the Fleet Air Defense role. It's just flat useful to have a spotter working your long range sensors while the pilot works the short range sensors like the Mk1 eyeball.

My mental model for the USAF NGAD has it roughly the size of an F111 or larger (105klbs MTOW), due to the range desired. Also has a variant that is a Strike Eagle replacement with a ~20,000lb increased MTOW for bombload. The NGAD payload is honestly only about 3000lbs as 8x AMRAAM and 2x Sidewinders.

The USN FAXX cannot be more than about 85,000lbs MTOW due to catapult limits, and can't weigh more than about 46,000lbs empty due to arresting gear limits. Even the new AAG in the Ford has the upper limit of ~55,000lbs. The AAG is capable of handling much lighter aircraft (drones) than the older gear on the Nimitz.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom