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

donnage99 said:
DrRansom said:
For the Navy, I can see why they'd want something to fly fast to serve as fleet air interceptor.
The navy hasn't really cared for fleet interceptor for the past 20 years. What it wanted and still want is a deep strike dream machine - ultra stealth, ultra range, with good payload, all of which will compromise speed. All of this could change depend on the political climate though. Though I would still bet that Navy would trade speed for range any day.

It would seem like the Navy cares much more about strike than interception. From what I can tell, its dream replacement for the F-14 back in the early 90s is the A/F-X, with more emphasis on attack rather than fighter capability, though the Lockheed/Boeing proposal with VG wings would be quite a nimble jet, if unofficial statements from engineers are to be believed. Time will tell how much the F/A-XX is about strike and how much is about fighter capability.

It's interesting that the Air Force doesn't seem to care for high speed interceptors. Though theoretically, if speculated performance figures for the F-23 is true, then it would be perfect for this role.
 
The Air dominance initiative is a systems approach to the air dominance. They won't come out with RFP's for the F-X from this initiative but broader strategic decisions of where the networks need to be (future), where the weapons need to be, how best to link up the various manned, unmanned, stealth platforms with the troops on the ground etc. The F-35 would not be magically transformed into an F-22, but its capability would be continuously upped so that it stays mission relevant and better aligned to the threats of the future.

The RFP's for 6th generation programs would come through the services. Currently the Fa-XX AOA is under way (should be anyhow) and will take a few years to wind up. Perhaps following that the Navy can begin making investments for setting up technology initiatives for development of the next big tech that will find its way into that platform (what the AF is also likely to do).

It's interesting that the Air Force doesn't seem to care for high speed interceptors. Though theoretically, if speculated performance figures for the F-23 is true, then it would be perfect for this role.

The YF-23 flew in the early 90's so from a technology perspective much more advances have happened in materials, aerodynamics, stealth and propulsion to use that as a basis for anything for the future. MDD and NG look a lot different then what they did with the YF23 team :). Its more likely that Northrop grumman teams up with Lockheed as opposed to Boeing for the future fighter competitions (in an event they do not decide to go all alone). I think the next gen platforms would see the Navy developing and acquiring a low risk solution (call it 5.5 generation) and the air force going all out for an F-22 replacement.
 
There is a need for a 6th gen fighter , it will replace the F-22 and the F-15c there is a need for at least 300 superiority fighter. I m a little afraid that the USAF look at an evolution of the F-35 to replace this type of plane. F-35 has poor kinematics performance, to become Superior in air fight , it has not the speed and not the range to compare to the last SU-35 and futur T-50. USAF look a little a lot about electronic and stealth and less on the kinematic performance, in my opinion its a mistake.
 
I m a little afraid that the USAF look at an evolution of the F-35 to replace this type of plane

Those fears are much unfounded. The F-35 will receive capability enhancements, but no one has even remotely suggested that the F-35 will eventually become a F-22/F-15C replacement. DARPA and its initiative has definitely not made any such thing, nor was an F-16 ever considered an alternative to developing the F-22 (at least seriously anyways). Ultimately, the F-35 will require capability enhancement as the F16 continue sly got. This capability would be both in the air to air and in the air to ground ability. Modern missiles, more software development, next generation engines and a continuous development of its EW suite is required. The stealth fleet also needs to be networked to each other and the legacy fleet in a much better way. There is plenty of scope to add capability and that is what the initiative hints at. Start with some investment in that, and you'll end up upping the technology that may be required for the future fighters.

The F-22/F-15 program replacement is the F-x and its going to be a few years before the USAF enters into a formal AOA for it. The Navy has already said that it would enter the AOA phase of the FA-XX in 2014 (complete late 2015 or 2016) and it may well be that a joint AOA would occur between the navy and the air force following USN's independent review. That is going to depend on the President of the time, and the secdef. Personally I think the Navy will go in for a less ambitious 5.5 generation solution for the F-18E/F replacement while the air force takes it time to develop another ATF like head to head.
 
dark sidius said:
There is a need for a 6th gen fighter , it will replace the F-22 and the F-15c there is a need for at least 300 superiority fighter.


I'll try to avoid getting into the whole f-35 thing. So I'll just gonna target this since it's relevant to the topic, based on what analysis did you arrive at that number?
 
170-180 F-15C Golden Eagle and 182 F-22, the number 300 is for the same number in inventory with a F/X F-22 successor. Ok its more 350 but in general less plane with the new generation.
 
dark sidius said:
170-180 F-15C Golden Eagle and 182 F-22, the number 300 is for the same number in inventory with a F/X F-22 successor. Ok its more 350 but in general less plane with the new generation.


I think that might be over simplifying. It's important to analyze potential future threats, and the numbers of aircraft will depend on the overall strategic goal of meeting those threats, not so much of "there's this many old planes, so now there's this many new planes." And it also depends on the capabilities of the notional future platform as well. For example, with the advent of the carrier killer ballistic missile, the US navy is pushed out further to sea, and the proliferation of long range air breathing cruise missiles also threaten our tanker fleet, this means that our fighters will have shorter sorties. This means that we might need more aicraft. However, if the aircraft is designed to have ultra long range that can offset that disadvantage, we might need less platforms. There are a bunch of intricate factors that involved in determining how many aircraft we might need 20 years from now.
 
In 20 years, the USA will probably lack the economic and industrial base for developing a 6th generation fighter. The US is going to have to collaborate with a foreign country like Japan or ? in order to make this feasible in another 20 years or so. Maybe Mexico, or Thailand, or China will be contracted to actually produce it, while components are made at various places around the globe. If that is pessimistic, it is. Look at current trends and see.
 
bring_it_on said:
...but no one has even remotely suggested that the F-35 will eventually become a F-22/F-15C replacement.


How about the f-22 never even got off the ground. Replacement? The USAF needs to reconstitute air superiority... The USN too.
 
DrRansom said:
The USN hasn't faced bomber threat for the past 20 years. With China getting their cruise missile act together, it is likely that the US will want some form of Outer Air Defense in the near future.

Though if you want range, stealth, and persistence, buy a UCAS and be done with it.


You're right. With China would be doing something right if they can force American navy to heavily invest in its defensive capabilities to protect its carrier strike groups, exhausting fundings from its offensive capabilities. The "carrier killer" ballistic missile system hasn't sank any carrier yet but it disrupted American naval weapon buying, costing billions of dollars to go down the sink.


To my limited understanding, the navy envisioned the ddg-1000's hull as the future, so much that it retired early some of its cruisers, now only to cancel ddg-1000 and its follow-on cruisers, spiking up cost, and having to, ironically, refurbish old cruisers in hope of lessen the ship gap.
 
  • flateric said:
    ::)


    Not Entirely, if we can still believe AW&ST


    I think we can also admit USA aerospace and economy ($80 Trillion debt?) is not what it used to be. the price of this new fighter with (inflation 20+ years will approach $300 Million to $500 Million per copy) in today's dollars alone. For soon old, obsolete Raptor $180-200 Million?






    Japan Aims To Launch F-3 Development In 2016-17



    Tokyo plans to begin developing its next fighter in about five years


    Oct 22, 2012Bradley Perrett | Aviation Week & Space Technology

    • EMAIL

  • INSHARE​




COMMENTS
0



Sometime around 2030, if U.S. Air Force plans come to pass, a fighter that leaps ahead ofLockheed Martin F-22 and F-35 technology will enter U.S. service. At about the same time, if Japan's plans come to pass, a similarly advanced fighter will enter service on that side of the Pacific.
It might be the same fighter. Merging Japan's 2030s requirement into evolving U.S. plans for post-F-35 fighters seems to make great industrial sense. Japan plans to begin developing a homegrown fighter within five years, with the aim of beginning production under the designation F-3 around 2027. The defense ministry wants to lay the groundwork to go its own way by investing in stealth technology and building its own powerful fighter engine.
IHI Corp. is to develop a technology-demonstrator engine of 15 metric tons (33,000 lb.) thrust, according to an official document seen by Aviation Week.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is already building a small airframe technology demonstrator, the ATD-X Shinshin, which the ministry expects to test in the fiscal year beginning April 1, 2014. Mitsubishi Heavy is also very likely to build the F-3, which Japanese officials expect will carry a pilot.

The ATD-X, to be flown in 2014, will demonstrate some of the technologies intended for the F-3. This is a non-flying test article.Full-scale development would begin in 2016 or 2017 and the first prototype would fly in 2024-25, according to the ministry's plans. Series production is to begin in 2027 and the type would begin replacing Mitsubishi Heavy Industries F-2 strike fighters in the first half of the 2030s. In the second half of that decade it would begin replacing Boeing F-15Js. The F-15s are older but are likely to remain the mainstay of Japan's air-defense squadrons, with suitable upgrades (see following article).
The exact status of the ministry's plans is unclear, but they probably represent what it hopes to achieve, with some expectation of obtaining approval. It projects production of about 200 F-3s, which would follow the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning into Japanese service. Japan has decided to buy 42 F-35s and may build parts of them. The U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force tentatively plan to begin fielding new fighters in 2030-35, the former sometimes using the name F/A-XX and the latter referring to its proposed F-X.
Two years ago, the ministry disclosed a research effort for what it called the i3 Fighter, intended to assemble a suite of advanced technologies for a future combat aircraft—or, some suspect, to be offered to the U.S. as a Japanese contribution to the next U.S. fighter. The ministry's Technical and Research Development Institute is leading the i3 Fighter work.
The ministry's plans are evidently firming up, and broadly match a road map for fighter development set out by Japanese industry in 2010. The industry proposal, though, included production of an imported aircraft—now determined to be the F-35—until 2028. While production of the confirmed batch of F-35s, which will replace F-4EJ Kai Phantoms, could not feasibly be stretched until 2028, it is possible that some F-15s could be replaced earlier by additional F-35s before F-3s replace the rest.
The power of the IHI demonstrator engine is surprising. It would generate 50% more thrust than the General Electric F414, two of which power the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The Super Hornet's thrust is not notably high for its empty mass, 14.6 tons (32,100 lb.), but in a twin-engine installation the output of the IHI demonstrator would be abundant for a larger, budget-straining aircraft. It does seem that Japan is looking for a twin aircraft: In a single installation, the engine would be adequate for only a modestly sized fighter, hardly suitable as an F-15 replacement.
Japan has discussed plans for such an engine for some time, but the specific thrust and intention to build a full-scale demonstrator have not been disclosed. Japanese industry revealed a drawing of the engine last year, showing that it would follow the general configuration of the Pratt & Whitney F119 and have a sophisticated arrangement of inlet vanes designed to disrupt radar reflections (AW&ST Feb. 14, 2011, p. 33). In its budget request for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 2013, the ministry has published drawings of three of the engine's modules: fan, high-pressure section and the low-pressure turbine.
The key goal of the engine program is to build an unusually slim turbofan. The low frontal area and the modest bypass ratio evident in drawings would both promote the ability to fly supersonically without afterburner. So would the generous thrust, although 33,000 lb. must be the afterburning rating; the maximum dry output is unknown.
Researchers are aiming to achieve the highest possible temperature at the inlet to the high-pressure turbine, the ministry says in its budget request. They can already achieve 1,600C (2,900F) but want to go higher during the study program, while also reducing engine weight, it says. Mitsubishi Heavy said last year it had achieved a 1,600C turbine inlet temperature, the highest ever, for an electricity-generating engine to be installed in a power station.
Previously disclosed elements of the Japanese engine research include single-crystal turbine rotor blades, stator blades made of ceramic matrix composite (a ceramic reinforced with carbon fiber) and an advanced combustor.
The proposed budget for the fighter engine development is ¥17.2 billion ($218 million), of which ¥4.5 billion would be spent in fiscal 2013. Research would run until fiscal 2017. From fiscal 2015, there would be “testing,” which may mean running the demonstrator.

IHI Corp. will build a 33,000-lb.-thrust technology-demonstrator engine for the F-3 program. (Credit: Japanese defeNse Ministry)A Japanese engine would not be needed if the F-3 program were merged into a U.S. fighter program, as industry executives suspect it will, since the U.S. would certainly supply its own powerplant. But by developing an engine, Japan will retain the freedom to power its own fighter should it not come to an agreement with the U.S. And even if it does, technology from the demonstrator might be useful to the U.S.
Japanese participation in the next U.S. fighter program is now conceivable because Tokyo has relaxed its arms-export restrictions, which in the past have largely prevented its industry from working with foreign partners. The way is not entirely open for cooperation, however, since Japan might be reluctant to supply some countries that the U.S. sees as suitable customers.
Stealth technology is also a feature of the F-3 program, as it has been for the i3 Fighter. That, too, is probably a hedge against failure to cooperate with the U.S., which is unlikely to need much Japanese help in that area when it designs its next fighter.
Other work flagged for the i3 Fighter might be enticingly dangled under the Pentagon's nose, though. The Technical Research and Development Institute and industry are working on skin sensors, directed-energy weapons and advanced avionics.
Arguing that neighboring countries—meaning China, South Korea and Russia—will have stealth fighters and longer-range missiles in the 2020s, the ministry is asking for ¥1.6 billion in fiscal 2013-16 to study integration of antennas into the skin of an aircraft, thereby helping to control radar reflections. The antennas would be those for electronic support measures, which listen to enemy transmissions, and electronic countermeasures (ECM), which jam and confuse them.
The ministry also wants to push ahead Japanese ECM technology, to preserve national independence in that area that was developed in building a system for the F-15. The ECM work must be part of what the ministry calls an “all-around surveillance and jamming system.” Japan is also looking for “reflection suppression” technology, apparently distinct from stealth shaping and materials. Details are unavailable. Results of this electro-magnetic work are to be assessed in 2019.
From fiscal 2010 the institute ran a ¥2.5 billion study on “internal weapons aerodynamics,” apparently an investigation into releasing bombs and missiles from bays, and now it wants ¥3.8 billion for further work, including a test rig.
 
donnage99 said:
To my limited understanding, the navy envisioned the ddg-1000's hull as the future, so much that it retired early some of its cruisers, now only to cancel ddg-1000 and its follow-on cruisers, spiking up cost, and having to, ironically, refurbish old cruisers in hope of lessen the ship gap.

Astonishingly, Admiral Obama and Commodore Gates sank most of that otherwise highly survivable tonnage along with the Kinetic Energy Interceptor and the Multiple Kill Vehicle (which collectively would have preserved more VL cells for offensive weapons) *after* the Chinese efforts to develop an ASBM were very well known to US intelligence and had in fact been publicly disclosed.

On the ASCM front, a long range, stealthy aircraft would useful in providing additional mid-course and possibly terminal guidance aid to SM-6 for use against airborne ASCM carriers; supersonic capability would be a huge asset in dealing with leakers particularly if Air-launched HTK is pursued.
 
marauder2048 said:
Astonishingly, Admiral Obama and Commodore Gates sank most of that otherwise highly survivable tonnage along with the Kinetic Energy Interceptor and the Multiple Kill Vehicle (which collectively would have preserved more VL cells for offensive weapons) *after* the Chinese efforts to develop an ASBM were very well known to US intelligence and had in fact been publicly disclosed.

As far as I understand, KEI and MKV are not designed to tackle ASBM. What we have now is much more suitable for that, and a hell lot cheaper. KEI and MKV are designed for longer range ballistic missiles that have a very different flight paths from ASBM.
 
http://news.usni.org/2014/06/23/next-generation-engine-work-points-future-u-s-fighter-designs

Next Generation Engine Work Points to Future U.S. Fighter Designs

The U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force are in the earliest stages of creating the requirements for their next generation of fighters but development of the engines that will power those aircraft are already well underway — and provide hints on what American sixth-generation aircraft will be able to do. One thing is already clear, both aircraft will be fast, long range and extremely efficient.

The engines for the F/A-XX and F-X programs will be the single most technologically challenging part of their development. As such, the Pentagon has already started work on developing those next generation propulsion systems.

Company officials with engine makers Pratt & Whitney and General Electric spoke with USNI News on the development work on their respective concepts to power those future combat aircraft.

“What we are seeing today, and this is especially true in all of the discussions around sixth-generation types of airplanes, the propulsion system capability is in fact driving a lot of the thinking about the size of the airframe, what the inlets and exhausts are going to look like, how much fuel capacity the aircraft has to have to meet the range requirements,” said Dan McCormick, General Electric’s general manager for adaptive-cycle engine programs.
“The propulsion system very much needs to be integrated into the design process of these next-generation airplanes.”

Both companies have started working on revolutionary new adaptive-cycle jet engines that will power the successors to the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.

These advanced engines would be able to vary their bypass ratios for optimum efficiency at any combination of speed and altitude within the aircraft’s operating range unlike today’s engines that are at their best at a single point in the flight envelope.

The powerplants have to be ready well ahead of air vehicle development—as both the Air Force and Navy discovered in the 1970s with the McDonnell Douglas F-15A Eagle and Grumman F-14A Tomcat with both type encountering severe difficulties with their engines.

Some of the key requirements for those next-generation fighters can be extrapolated from the goals set forth by the Air Force Research Laboratory and Office of Naval Research for their respective research and development efforts.

The Air Force has its Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT), Adaptive Engine Technology Development and NextGen programs mature next generation engine technology for a future F-X fighter while the Navy has its Variable Cycle Advanced Technology (VCAT) program looking at how those same technologies could be adapted for naval aviation.
Jeff Martin, General Electric’s expert on sixth-generation fighter propulsion, said that some of those extrapolated requirements suggest that a sixth-generation warplane will have much longer range than existing strike aircraft.

Further, the aircraft will be fast—with very high acceleration—and it will have excellent subsonic cruise efficiency.
“The bottom-line is it’s going to have to be a variable-cycle engine to meet those kinds of needs and not be a humongous airplane,” Martin said.

A variable-cycle engine would be able configure itself for maximum efficiency at any combination of speeds and altitudes. For example, it could act almost like a turbojet at supersonic speeds while performing like a high-bypass turbofan for efficient cruising at airliner speeds.
The indications thus far point towards aircraft designs that would have the finess ratio needed to supercruise—even if the requirements do not explicitly call for such a capability.

“The Navy has talked about a deck launched intercept mission where you get up and go, and get up some number hundred nautical miles away and you get there as fast as you can, as efficiently as you can,” Martin said.

That mission would be reminiscent of the F-14, which was designed to launch off the deck to intercept hordes of Soviet bombers before they could launch their payload of cruise missiles. While that mission disappeared after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a fast rising China may eventually pose a similar threat to the carrier strike group.

“It’s not clear to me that supercruise is going to be a major requirement, but it’s also not clear to me that it makes any difference at all. The airplane is going to have a pretty good fineness ratio, it’s going to be a supersonic airplane. And when its got that, and its got a variable-cycle engine in it, it’s going to be able to supercruise,” Martin said. “But whether they do it or not is a different story because to you do use more fuel when you supercruise.”

Tightly knit partnership
While the Navy and Air Force have separate programs, they are working closely together according to AFRL officials.

“The engine community is a tight knit group, we’ve had full transparency with the Navy,” the AFRL said in a statement released to USNI News.
“They’ve been invited and we welcome their participation in all the reviews. We gain additional insights from their subject matter expertise. They are a true partner in ADVENT and AETD.”
Martin offered some more details about the Navy effort.

“The VCAT program is really aimed a Navy specific items that they’re going to need for their next-gen fighter that would be additive to what AFRL is doing,” he said.
According to Martin, the VCAT effort—which will eventually lead to some propulsion rig testing—has proven to be extremely valuable. The Navy project has yielded important information on defining the exact cycles the engines should operate in—and that the airframe and engines need to be treated as an integrated whole.

For Pratt & Whitney, the VCAT effort also meant looking at if other parts of the engine—it might not just be the fan might be variable, said James Kenyon, general manager for next gen fighter engines for Pratt & Whitney. “It does bring a much greater degree of variability,” he said. “You may express than in a change in the bypass ratio a or change in some other things, but there is a great amount of flexibility that goes into that.”
Technological Maturity

For the Air Force, the goal is to ensure that the engine is at a relatively high level of technological maturity for a Milestone A decision in 2018 to proceed with the technology development phase of the F-X fighter.

However, a production engine would not have to be ready until a Milestone B decision to enter the engineering and manufacturing development stage. “Generally the thinking in here is that if you’re at TRL [technology readiness level] 6 by Milestone B, you’re in good shape,” Martin said.

With adaptive engine technology already set to hit the TRL-6 milestone before the end of the year, a production engine could be ready by 2021 if necessary.

One of the key technologies behind the adaptive-cycle engine is the adaptive fan, which allows the engine to vary its bypass ratio depending on its altitude and speed due to a third stream of air. Air flows through the third stream as needed to increase or decrease the bypass ratio of the engine—or alternatively use the extra airflow for cooling.

“We can effectively vary the performance of the engine across the flight envelope,” Kenyon said.
At high-supersonic speed, the third stream can reduce spill drag by letting the excess air flow through the engine—however performance above about Mach 2.2 is still limited by the physics of air inlet geometry. “The third stream does help supersonically very much,” McCormick said.

For example, a fighter with an adaptive-cycle engine would use a low-bypass configuration where there is little bypass air flowing around the engine core during take-off and supersonic flight where high specific thrust is needed.

But the high jet-velocities of a low-bypass high specific thrust configuration mean low propulsive efficiency—which is bad for efficient cruise speeds. Thus, an adaptive fan would allow an engine to switch to a high bypass configuration for high propulsive efficiency once established on cruise conditions.

But it is not just the adaptive fan that will make future adaptive-cycle engines much more efficient than existing engines, new materials will allow the engine to run much hotter and at far greater pressure ratios than is currently possible.

The first variable-cycle fighter engine was the early-1990s-era General Electric YF120 engine that lost to what became the Pratt & Whitney F119 that powers the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. “The YF120 engine was an adaptive-cycle engine focused in a totally different area,” McCormick said. “The ADVENT and AETD are primarily focused on fuel efficiency, certainly there is additional thrust capability for the AETD as well as significant improvements in thermal management. But the YF120 engine it was an adaptive cycle engine focused very much on the supercruise requirement of the aircraft.”

First Steps
The Air Force undertook its first steps towards developing sixth-generation variable-cycle engine with the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT) program in 2007. The AFRL’s goal was to bring the next-generation engine technology up to what the Pentagon calls TRL-6 and manufacturing readiness level six (MRL-6) — which means that prototypes can be readily built and tested “revelant” environment.

General Electric and Rolls-Royce were each awarded a six-year contract to produce demonstrator engines under the ADVENT effort. Pratt & Whitney’s ADVENT design was not selected for the program, but the company continued to pour its own resources into developing its technology in the hopes of securing follow-on work.

Pratt & Whitney’s efforts were centered on an early developmental version of a fan for the F135 engine that powers the Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Kenyon said.

The company used the fan to demonstrate an adaptive fan capability on a test rig at its compressor research facility.

“In that test we were able to demonstrate the ability to control the flow through the different streams,” Kenyon said. Eventually, Pratt & Whitney’s investment of its own funds would pay-off handsomely.

Adaptive-cycle realized
Meanwhile, after six years of development, General Electric began testing its ADVENT demonstrator engine on November 26, 2013. ADVENT engine testing is ongoing and is currently scheduled to end later this year—in the mid- to late-summer timeframe.

“We have a full-up adaptive-cycle technology engine here at Evendale [Ohio],” McCormick said. “It’s not an engine that just has the adaptive-cycle feature, but it really is a full-up engine that has all of the suite of technologies that are being matured for these next-generation propulsion systems.”

The General Electric ADVENT engine has an adaptive-fan, which creates a third stream of air, an extremely high-pressure compressor, a new combustion system, various new materials such as ceramic matrix composites and cooling technologies, McCormick said.

In testing, the General Electric ADVENT design’s core engine temperature exceeded its goal by more than 130 degrees Fahrenheit. According to the company, the engine set a record for the highest combined compressor and turbine temperature in the history of jet engine propulsion as validated by AFRL.

Further, McCormick said that the ADVENT demonstrator engine is actually exceeding expectations in many cases including for fuel burn. The fuel efficiency target for ADVENT was to reduce fuel-burn by 25 percent.

The AFRL’s follow-on Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) program is intended to bring the technologies developed under ADVENT into a flight-worthy design. ADVENT was primarily aimed at proving that a working adaptive-cycle engine is feasible. Engineers did not take into account the weight, size or other factors that would enable the engine to physically fit into an operational aircraft.

“AETD is taking that suite of technologies that ADVENT is bringing forward and maturing and now looking at how those get packaged into designs we could physically fit into airplanes,” McCormick said.

But AETD is not a direct continuation of the ADVENT effort. The Air Force held a fresh competition for the follow-on program, and in the end General Electric and Pratt & Whitney prevailed while Rolls-Royce was knocked out of contention.

Unlike the ADVENT program, the AETD effort will not produce a complete engine.

Preliminary designs
However, the companies are required to take a complete engine design to a preliminary design review (PDR). Originally that PDR was scheduled for November 2014, but the Air Force encouraged General Electric and Pratt & Whitney to push it back to February 2015.
There were two reasons to push the PDR back. One major reason is that the NextGen follow-on to AETD may not start until fiscal year 2016.

“That’s a FY16 start, and so by moving the preliminary design review milestone a little bit to the right, that helps us with levelizing the manpower,” McCormick said.
“The second reason is that AFRL was interest and in fact encouraged us to move it to the right to better align with the current preliminary design review schedule of our competitor.”

For the AETD program, there are two phases of testing. The first phase includes several combustor rigs—one of which is a full annular combustor. Additionally, General Electric is will test an exhaust system integration rig and components using CMCs, all of which should be completed by early 2015.

“We have testing going on as we speak primarily in the combustor area,” McCormick said.
“In fact we are on our third separate combustor design—combustor rig test plan. We also have an upcoming nozzle test that we’ll be running over at NASA in Cleveland [Ohio] here over the summer.”

The second phase of testing includes a fan rig, a compressor rig, and a core engine test. The General Electric plans to test the fan and compressor in late 2015 and early 2016 before the finale in late 2016 with the core engine test.

“There is no full-up engine test in AETD,” McCormick said. “There was no requirement or need to do a full-up engine test for us in AETD.”

Following AETD, the next step towards an operational adaptive-cycle engine is the Air Force NextGen program. Earlier in the year, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced that there would be $1 billion invested into bringing an advanced engine into production. However, at present there are few details available on exactly how development will proceed.

Bolded bit I thought was interesting.
 
marauder2048 said:
Astonishingly, Admiral Obama and Commodore Gates sank most of that otherwise highly survivable tonnage along with the Kinetic Energy Interceptor and the Multiple Kill Vehicle (which collectively would have preserved more VL cells for offensive weapons) *after* the Chinese efforts to develop an ASBM were very well known to US intelligence and had in fact been publicly disclosed.
The Zumwalt class was reduced from 30 hulls to 2 before Gates took office. If anything, he would get credit for adding a third hull back to the program were it not for the fact that was almost entirely the result of negotiations between Secretary Winter and the Congress. KEI was too big for a DDG-1000 hull, which is why the KEI cruiser concept was an over 20,000-ton behemouth based on the LPD-17 hull. And KEI was arguably useless against ASBMs, it was a boost-phase or mid-course weapon, any ship defending itself or a task force from ASBMs needs terminal-phase defense. Likewise, MKV's usefulness against ASBMs was suspect at best, and the MDA could not justify continuing the development while the existing GBI kill vehicle performance was so wildly unreliable.
donnage99 said:
To my limited understanding, the navy envisioned the ddg-1000's hull as the future, so much that it retired early some of its cruisers, now only to cancel ddg-1000 and its follow-on cruisers, spiking up cost, and having to, ironically, refurbish old cruisers in hope of lessen the ship gap.
Your understanding is incorrect. The cruiser retirements have nothing to do with CG(X), they're being retired because of the budget situation and because the Ticonderoga class is not aging well. Nearly all the ships have problems with superstructure cracking, their growth margin to support additional upgrades is all used up, and their manning is expensive compared to more recent designs. The refurbishments intended to keep them in the fleet longer are being scaled back or cancelled due to the escalating expense involved. The immediate fallout of the CG(X) cancellation is the Burke Flight III program, which intends to construct new Destroyers with enhancements (such as AMDR) that will allow them to fulfill Cruiser missions.
 
what the hell CG(X) does in this topic??
 
flateric said:
what the hell CG(X) does in this topic??

From the article:

"The Navy has talked about a deck launched intercept mission where you get up and go, and get up some number hundred nautical miles away and you get there as fast as you can, as efficiently as you can,” Martin said.

That mission would be reminiscent of the F-14, which was designed to launch off the deck to intercept hordes of Soviet bombers before they could launch their payload of cruise missiles. While that mission disappeared after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a fast rising China may eventually pose a similar threat to the carrier strike group."
 
marauder2048 said:
flateric said:
what the hell CG(X) does in this topic??

From the article:

"The Navy has talked about a deck launched intercept mission where you get up and go, and get up some number hundred nautical miles away and you get there as fast as you can, as efficiently as you can,” Martin said.

That mission would be reminiscent of the F-14, which was designed to launch off the deck to intercept hordes of Soviet bombers before they could launch their payload of cruise missiles. While that mission disappeared after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a fast rising China may eventually pose a similar threat to the carrier strike group."

would second that emotion and more.
 
marauder2048 said:
From the article:

"The Navy has talked about a deck launched intercept mission where you get up and go, and get up some number hundred nautical miles away and you get there as fast as you can, as efficiently as you can,” Martin said.

That mission would be reminiscent of the F-14, which was designed to launch off the deck to intercept hordes of Soviet bombers before they could launch their payload of cruise missiles. While that mission disappeared after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a fast rising China may eventually pose a similar threat to the carrier strike group."

The F-14 wasn't really a deck-launched interceptor (though it could do that if needed). It had the endurance to loiter in a CAP waiting for the enemy to approach, while a pure deck-lanuched interceptor would be like the old BAC Lightning, emphasizing speed and time-to-climb over endurance.
It seems to me that a lot of the fleet air defense role has basically been taken over by AEGIS ships. A Standard Missile is the ultimate DLI.
 
Could the Lockheed/Boeing A/FX (AFX-635) proposal have performed the intercept mission?

For the past several years, the United States Navy was in a transition from being a blue-water navy to a green-water navy with the increased emphasis on the littorals and the whole last superpower shtick. Further, the United States has been engaged in a Global War on Terrorism and our attention has been centered on the Middle East. A lot of these programs had to answer the question who was a potential adversary of the United States to justify their high cost.
 
marauder2048 said:
"The Navy has talked about a deck launched intercept mission where you get up and go, and get up some number hundred nautical miles away and you get there as fast as you can, as efficiently as you can,” Martin said.

This sounds like a job for Supercharged Ejector Ramjet Man!

No, really. Specifically, Marquardts VTOHL skew-wing SERJ-powered interceptor...
 
Triton said:
Could the Lockheed/Boeing A/FX (AFX-635) proposal have performed the intercept mission?

For the past several years, the United States Navy was in a transition from being a blue-water navy to a green-water navy with the increased emphasis on the littorals and the whole last superpower shtick. Further, the United States has been engaged in a Global War on Terrorism and our attention has been centered on the Middle East. A lot of these programs had to answer the question who was a potential adversary of the United States to justify their high cost.


Not the best, but certainly better than the super hornet or the f-35 for sure. As for the navy, it is transitioning out of the green water force and back into the blue water force given the rise of china and russia, as well as advance in anti ship missiles.
 
I'm not quite sure why the Navy wants to do Deck launched interception. By the time the fighter reaches the intercept point after launching from the carrier, the target may already be firing stand-off AShMs.

It seems to me far better to try to replicate the F-14 performance and tie that into a new generation of Outer Air Defense sensors. Have the aircraft loitering already then supercruise into firing range.

A network of E-2 and specially outfitted IRST UCAS-N pickets?

Does anybody have any idea what a USAF F-X CONOPs would look like? The Navy seems straight forward, defend the carrier and the strike package. USAF seems to have a more open ended choice.
 
DrRansom said:
I'm not quite sure why the Navy wants to do Deck launched interception. By the time the fighter reaches the intercept point after launching from the carrier, the target may already be firing stand-off AShMs.

It seems to me far better to try to replicate the F-14 performance and tie that into a new generation of Outer Air Defense sensors. Have the aircraft loitering already then supercruise into firing range.

A network of E-2 and specially outfitted IRST UCAS-N pickets?

Does anybody have any idea what a USAF F-X CONOPs would look like? The Navy seems straight forward, defend the carrier and the strike package. USAF seems to have a more open ended choice.

The USAF says no US soldier has been killed/bombed from the air since WWII and a 13:1 air to air combat record. Simply put (very simply); USAF create an air supremacy environment for offensive operations, if it flies it dies.

Stealth, speed, persistence, first look, first shoot, etc.
 
The problem is going to come from a proliferation of stealth and stand off cruise missiles. When the opponent can field Supercruising stealth fighters, subsonic stealth and non stealthy fighters, subsonic stealthy UCAV's all capable of carrying stand off and PGM of all shapes and sizes the ability to keep these threats farther out of the "ring" gets challenged. I think that is the mission threat around which the navy made such a requirement as is stated in the article. I don't think they'll be looking for a point blank interceptor where you take off fast reach a place, employ weapons and look for a tanker :). What is required is the speed and sensors to pick hard to find enemies from afar and the weapons to effectively target them from long range. Both the FA-XX designs look slick and i think it will come down to cost. Supercruise (combined with the A in attack and stealth), is still expensive both at the design phase as well as at the range/fuel penalty so it would all come down to the advances the newer AETD driven engines produce over and above the F-119/135 family. Can the 6th ten fighters perform their entire speed requirement without using afterburners (Likely to be between mach 1.8+)? Thats the question.

One interesting point from the article was that the 1 billion on advanced engines is over and above the AETD spending. I always thought the 1 billion was for the AETD. Apparently where and how it will be spent has not been discussed.
 
DrRansom said:
I'm not quite sure why the Navy wants to do Deck launched interception. By the time the fighter reaches the intercept point after launching from the carrier, the target may already be firing stand-off AShMs.

It seems to me far better to try to replicate the F-14 performance and tie that into a new generation of Outer Air Defense sensors. Have the aircraft loitering already then supercruise into firing range.

A network of E-2 and specially outfitted IRST UCAS-N pickets?


In the late 70s and 80s DARPA was pushing the concept of large, loitering RPV/UAV sensor platforms and over the horizon radar providing cueing for ballistic interceptors - for both Navy air defense and USAF air defense missions and SIOP penetration.
The RPV/UAV component evolved into TEAL RAIN (propulsion) and TEAL CAMEO (UAV). The Boeing Condor was a demonstrator that grew out of TEAL CAMEO.
The missile/interceptor was the LORAINE program. It produced a maneuvering reentry vehicle, GPS/INS guidance (the first of it's kind), and a very advanced terminal radar seeker. These components were flight tested.


At the time both the Air Force and Navy had similar, related programs going on. Both the services did not want the DARPA solutions. DoD forced DARPA to turn the programs over to the services, where they all died within a few years. The LORAINE radar was supposed to undergo more flight tests on an SR-71, but that ended up not happening.


The Navy has a bad habit of wanting things they are never going to get, and not wanting some of the things they really need.
 
quellish,

Stupid question time (and not to take this thread too OT) : did LORAINE's MaRV carry a conventional warhead?

Answer: DARPA's budget document for FY83 indicates that it was non-nuclear.
 
quellish said:
DrRansom said:
I'm not quite sure why the Navy wants to do Deck launched interception. By the time the fighter reaches the intercept point after launching from the carrier, the target may already be firing stand-off AShMs.

It seems to me far better to try to replicate the F-14 performance and tie that into a new generation of Outer Air Defense sensors. Have the aircraft loitering already then supercruise into firing range.

A network of E-2 and specially outfitted IRST UCAS-N pickets?


In the late 70s and 80s DARPA was pushing the concept of large, loitering RPV/UAV sensor platforms and over the horizon radar providing cueing for ballistic interceptors - for both Navy air defense and USAF air defense missions and SIOP penetration.
The RPV/UAV component evolved into TEAL RAIN (propulsion) and TEAL CAMEO (UAV). The Boeing Condor was a demonstrator that grew out of TEAL CAMEO.
The missile/interceptor was the LORAINE program. It produced a maneuvering reentry vehicle, GPS/INS guidance (the first of it's kind), and a very advanced terminal radar seeker. These components were flight tested.


At the time both the Air Force and Navy had similar, related programs going on. Both the services did not want the DARPA solutions. DoD forced DARPA to turn the programs over to the services, where they all died within a few years. The LORAINE radar was supposed to undergo more flight tests on an SR-71, but that ended up not happening.


The Navy has a bad habit of wanting things they are never going to get, and not wanting some of the things they really need.
over the horizon radar providing cueing for ballistic interceptors is one good mission set for a family of un/manned systems for both USN And USAF. Not all of this family should be "low density" ie expensive systems. Air defenses protecting these threats are just too good for only expensive systems to attempt to defeat.
 
But to cue it how? Develop a UAV mounted air to air radar? or use IR and other passive means. I am not aware of any program to develop such sensor for the UAV although I am all for a long loiter time AEW UAV that can feed sensor data to the E2 or to the ship directly.
 
[/quote]


In the late 70s and 80s DARPA was pushing the concept of large, loitering RPV/UAV sensor platforms and over the horizon radar providing cueing for ballistic interceptors - for both Navy air defense and USAF air defense missions and SIOP penetration.
The RPV/UAV component evolved into TEAL RAIN (propulsion) and TEAL CAMEO (UAV). The Boeing Condor was a demonstrator that grew out of TEAL CAMEO.
The missile/interceptor was the LORAINE program. It produced a maneuvering reentry vehicle, GPS/INS guidance (the first of it's kind), and a very advanced terminal radar seeker. These components were flight tested.


At the time both the Air Force and Navy had similar, related programs going on. Both the services did not want the DARPA solutions. DoD forced DARPA to turn the programs over to the services, where they all died within a few years. The LORAINE radar was supposed to undergo more flight tests on an SR-71, but that ended up not happening.


The Navy has a bad habit of wanting things they are never going to get, and not wanting some of the things they really need.
[/quote]
 
Don't think it was posted before.
A concept of operations featuring miss february


1397144564187.jpg





fromhttp://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2014/ahead-of-the-curve.htm

much larger size at http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/corporate/photo/features/2014/post-2030-battle-space-scenario.jpg
 
That missile is an odd duck. Either it's some kind of hypersonic, conical RV-thingy or the 3D art guy was lazy.
 
sferrin said:
That missile is an odd duck. Either it's some kind of hypersonic, conical RV-thingy or the 3D art guy was lazy.

I think it is just a placeholder for 'missile' cause they seem to have the same system coming from an F-16 Block 60, an SSGN, an LCS, an F-35 and the '6th Generation' air dominance 'platform' attacking airborne and ground based targets.
 
Air Force Research Lab Exploring Advanced Engine, Propulsion Concepts


Posted: Jul. 02, 2014

The Air Force this week issued two contracts with a potential value of $100 million aimed at advancing the service's engine and propulsion research.

The University of Dayton Research Institute and Universal Technology Corp., both Dayton, OH-based companies, were awarded contracts on July 1 to support research led by the Air Force Research Laboratory's aerospace systems directorate. The organizations both responded to a broad agency announcement first issued in April of 2012 with the goal of furthering engine and propulsion research in three main areas: aircraft gas turbine engines; aerospace power, energy and thermal management; and advanced propulsion.

Air Force spokesman Bill Hancock told Inside the Air Force in a July 2 email that the research is a significant driver of the directorate's mission.

"The mission of the aerospace systems directorate is to create, develop, and transition propulsion and power technology for military dominance of air and space," Hancock said. "The aerospace systems directorate leads the nation in the development of future propulsion and power technologies."

The directorate is located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH.

The research effort has a ceiling value of $100 million and the two selected organizations are the only parties eligible to compete for future task orders. Both were awarded funds for the initial task order -- Universal Technology received $25,000 and University of Dayton $10,000 -- which is not defined in the July 1 contract announcement because the specific task orders are classified. Universal Technologies was also awarded a $277,750 contract for the second task order.

The 2012 BAA lays out in detail the directorate's specific interests in each of the three research thrusts. In the area of aircraft gas turbine engines, the directorate's interested in technical research of advanced turbine engine systems meant to make engines more fuel efficient and improve overall life-cycle performance. The second research area is focused on managing energy and power, and the directorate is most interested in power electronic technologies, energy conversion and power management and distribution. Research in advanced propulsion will focus on innovative high-speed propulsion concepts and associated technologies and integration of engines with air vehicles, weapons and launch vehicles.

The Air Force is currently pursuing two significant engine programs. The more mature program is to build a next-generation fighter engine. In its fiscal year 2015 budget, the service requested $1.4 billion over the next five years to fund the effort, which would advance several years of research into a program of record, likely in the later part of the decade.

The service is also exploring the development of an advanced rocket engine to replace the RD-180, a Russian-made engine that powers the United Launch Alliance's Atlas V booster. The service is still determining its acquisition strategy for the new engine, but one long-term option is to initiate a development program. In the meantime, ULA announced last month that it is self-funding a domestic engine-development program. -- Courtney Albon
 
DARPA Boss on the Air defense initiative , was reported last year by Dave Mujumdar ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&list=WL&v=8giv-1v54JU#t=1250
 
Does anyone know if there might be an export ban on NGAD (F/A-XX F-X) or an export-only version of the fighters? It will be interesting to see how decisions concerning F/A-XX and F-X will affect the Mitsubishi F-3.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom