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

I would disagree on the J58 being called a very low bypass engine. When at M3+ it is acting with a higher bypass ratio than most fighter jet engines. All that bleed bypass air is being dumped into the afterburner.
If you believe Wikipedia, the J58 bypass ratio with the bleeds open at cruise conditions was approximately 0.25, with a significant portion of the bypass bleed air being used for cooling the AB liner and not available for combustion. As I said, a low bypass single shaft turbofan with the bypass bleeds open
 
If the CCA is being treated as an attritable item, I suppose that it makes sense that their missions would be practiced in simulators rather than being expended in exercises, but I have to wonder what the fidelity of that would be, especially in LFE where I've sometimes seen "magic fairy dust" taken too far.
There is already a lot of virtual training happening and if you consider that most pilots never fire an AAM or cruise missile until combat this won't be too different.

There are two opportunities here though. Andruil's CCA was originally meant to be an adversary and I see that continuing, both platforms would be able to simulate red air. In that context then the CCAs would get rolled out for Red and Green Flags and other exercises and CCAs would operate on both sides with the same restrictions current manned red air use. Then the opportunity to use CCAs for the blue side of that training is also huge. As a cost saving the same CCAs can be rolled out for each exercise with everyone getting the opportunity to command.

Will be interesting to see the first time a CCA intercepts a Russian Bear flying off Alaska and how that interaction plays out.

Also there the opportunity to reduce training costs further. The USAF has talked about T-7s or T-50s sitting at front line units and some training happening with the platforms and reduced hour costs to 5th gen per this article https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-wants-up-to-400-advanced-fighter-trainers-like-t-7s/

Pairing CCAs with this aircraft may also allow training to happen but at lower costs than with the front line 5th and 6th Gen assets.
 
ngadrange-840x1024.jpeg

This graphic is probably the best example I have seen. Very big internal fuel capacity. I wouldn't be surprised if the fuel capacity is over 20 ton.


Lockheed-NGAD.jpg
 
Last edited:
It probably won't be the greatest dogfighter at very low speed. But it is very easy to sustain 9G at high cruising speeds.

I think we need to come back to this because it's relevant to how NGAD might function in combat. The traditional advantage of high speed in air superiority (other than getting the hell out of Dodge), is the ability to function as a booster stage to your own AAMs, which requires a run directly at your target. Once that's done, you need to avoid the merge, because the whole point of lobbing out an LRAAM at max speed is to avoid entering the other guy's engagement range. Then repeat against same or different targets until Winchester. This is where speed starts to work against you, both by giving you the cornering radius of a medium sized country, and by enhancing your signature.

But (and I don't know, I'm not being rhetorical*), how valuable is that high speed boost with modern LRAAMs dependent on boosting to ultra-high/ultra-thin air as quickly as possible. Does the speed boost work with the kinematics, or against it? It's going to increase skin heating if nothing else as the missile will pass through a larger volume of air on its way up.

As for any idea of sustained 9G turns, why? Avoiding the merge needs at most a 90-180 degree turn, more than that, and you're turning back into your pursuer. While for any kind of ACM, the tactical radius of a Mach 3 target pulling 9G is just going to leave it vulnerable to someone moving at their optimal speed for sustained turn rate and in a flight environment where they're able to utilised their high alpha nose pointing abilities. Popping high alpha at Mach 3 sounds like a good way to invoke the legendary 'wings fall off' button.

(And bringing back our putative Mach 3 F-15EX, it's of little use for air combat until someone carries out all the required weapon separation tests at that speed, because I can guarantee you it's outside currently tested release criteria and funny things happen when you drop things off aircraft into unknown aerodynamics).

* It occurred to me this morning and I realised immediately I don't know enough about missile kinematics to make any assumptions.
 
THIS is most likely representative of what USAF cannot afford in large numbers...
View attachment 748654
at the risk piling on yet again ...SecAF has an unenviable position as the time to mature emerging technologies may be lengthening and the risk to committing to something which will be obsolete on arrival is an issue.
some examples of hinderances to commitment:
-advent of lower cost trans atmospherics
-longer range missiles/UASs justifying non stealth/stealth standoff large platforms
-continually upgrading 5th gen fighters to fulfill most requirements
-expectations on DEW and what it can do even from a simple pod ie craft that are extremely difficult to shoot down and thus guaranteeing air superiority
-other budgetary demands (big one)
-
 
As for any idea of sustained 9G turns, why? Avoiding the merge needs at most a 90-180 degree turn, more than that, and you're turning back into your pursuer.
It will definitely be 9G rated. The problem is to maintain the same turning radius as the speed increases you need to pull more G. The SR-71 took a full country to turn around when at top speed.

One scenario
NGAD is travelling at mach 2 towards enemy territory. It detects an enemy Combat Air Patrol (CAP) directly 100 miles ahead at the 12 oclock position. NGAD fires it's missiles. NGAD now wants to perform a 90 degree turn to avoid the merge. If NGAD pulls only 4G the turn radius is so large it will still fly into the detection radius of the CAP. The enemy aircraft might launch missiles at NGAD before they are shot down by the missiles fired from NGAD. To avoid the merge NGAD needs to pull 9G and bleed airspeed to get that 90 degree turn in a short distance. This will put tremendous strain on the pilot. No doubt these turn will have to be semi-automated as it will be pulling 9G for many many seconds.

With the NGAD design I posted above the wing is blended into a thick wedge. This would be incredibly strong while providing good internal fuel volume. It would not surprise me if NGAD could pull semi-automated 10+G 90 degree high speed turns for these evasive maneuvers.

NGAD with the best radar might struggle to detect a J-20 from more than 50 miles away. It will need to turn sharply to avoid the merge.

Second Scenario
NGAD is flying into enemy territory. Ground based IR early warning sensors detects NGAD and passes the information to the radar based SAM network. The ground based radar lights up 50 miles directly infront of NGAD. NGAD needs to turn quickly to stay out of the radar detection of the SAM system.

Third Scenario
A medium range SAM system locks on and fires at NGAD. The SAM site is at the 10 oclock to the left approx 20 miles away. If NGAD is cruising at mach 2 at 60,000 feet
it can then quickly turn to the right and put the missile into a tail chase situation. NGAD will move out of the no escape zone of the missile. Pulling 9G doing this turn will significantly improve the survivability as the missile is still climbing and there is limited time.

Having a silver bullet fleet of only 20-50 of these high speed NGAD fighters makes it very complex for the enemy IADS. This alone can justify the purchase. NGAD can zip around with bursts above mach 3 baiting the enemy at high speed and getting the enemy air and ground based radars to light up. The B-21 can use the location of the enemy to penetrate and hit its deep targets. The F-22 fleet can come in and take out the rest of of CAPs. The F-35 can pound the enemy around the fringe.

I am fairly confident NGAD is already in low rate production at the Skunk Works for a small silver bullet fleet. The rumours that the USAF wants a cheaper/smaller NGAD I actually think the USAF are eyeing off the US Navy F/A-XX design. The F/A-XX design will be the closest to an F-22 replacement in terms of size and kinematics. Many assume the carriers max takeoff limit is between 35-40 ton. The F-22 is 38 ton. The slow carrier landing speed will point towards F/A-XX having a supercruise below mach 2. The US Navy needs hundreds of F/A-XX so the production volume will be higher and the US Navy will have a reasonable price limit per aircraft. The US Navy F/A-XX will be like an F-22 with a bit more range and with the latest F-35 style avionics. The USAF version would remove the wing fold mechanism, maybe a lighter landing gear. It might be 5% lighter and have 5% more fuel than the US Navy version.
 
Last edited:
-expectations on DEW and what it can do even from a simple pod ie craft that are extremely difficult to shoot down and thus guaranteeing air superiority

I'm not sure why fighter-mounted DEW keeps being discussed. The SHiELD program concluded with no plans for further test and evalution. Could the Airforce start a new program and eventually field a self-defense high energy laser? Sure, of course they could. Just as they could eventually produce a hypersonic spy plane. For now, there are no public plans for either.
 


This week the US military released footage of an Apache AH-64 attack helicopter armed with a weaponised version of the Multi-Spectral Targeting System laser conducting fire tests.

Unlike current generation laser range-finders, this modified system is powerful enough to cause substantial damage to vehicles and other objects
.
 
It will definitely be 9G rated.
Why would I want to pull 9g's when I could simply ask my unmanned wingman or another flocking or swarming platform to do that? Platforms even smaller than me, and there for easier, cheaper, and lighter to engineer such a capability into.

Physics are still your enemy at Mach 3. I don't think you appreciate what you are asking for.

For my off-the-wall prediction, future USAF manned tactical aircraft will become less capable, not more. Everything is going netcentric. F-35 may ironically be the pinnacle of manned fighter aircraft for the Air Force. Less will be more.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom