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

[bobbymike]

Interesting article from Aviation Week -

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/04/26/AW_04_26_2010_p50-218630.xml&headline=ACC%20Looks%20At%20Possibilities%20For%20Future%20Weapons

 

[seruriermarshal]

Video from flightglobal.com

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/05/boeing-fa-xx-concept-walkaroun.html

 

[Orionblamblam]

Video from flightglobal.com

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/05/boeing-fa-xx-concept-walkaroun.html

Grrrr. Wasted opportunity!
1) It's a 1/16 scale model. Great! But no attempt seems to have been made to get the dimensions of the *model*, thus no way to use the scale of the model to determine the dimensions of the full sized vehicle.
2) The video takes a whole lot of closeups, but no decent overall views. What's the profile? What's the planform?

Bah.

 

[seruriermarshal]

Video from flightglobal.com

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/05/boeing-fa-xx-concept-walkaroun.html

Grrrr. Wasted opportunity!
1) It's a 1/16 scale model. Great! But no attempt seems to have been made to get the dimensions of the *model*, thus no way to use the scale of the model to determine the dimensions of the full sized vehicle.
2) The video takes a whole lot of closeups, but no decent overall views. What's the profile? What's the planform?

Bah.

Ok , I only found the video . I'm glad if anybody can found better .

 

[BDF]

Here's a new configuration:

Clearly designed for all aspect wideband VLO. Interesting features are the intakes on the top of the vehicle, blended canopy and smooth nearly flat bottom.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

From profile, the nose really does take on a similar look to the planes from Stealth. However I do see a hint of X-36 in the planform view.

 

[Steve Pace]

I see canards on the straight and level ac, none on the banking a/c.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I see canards on the straight and level ac, none on the banking a/c.

No, you don't. You're seeing part of the LERX being lit by the sun/part in shadow due to the angular, pointy inlet above the wing.

 

[Trident]

Is it just me or do those inlets look somewhat oversized? It's a spectacularly cool design though, I like it!

What's funny however, if you got rid of the tails and enlarged the wing that Iranian stealth model would look very similar indeed

 

[Stargazer]

I also DO see a canard there... The root of the canard starts further up than the shade's outline.

 

[sferrin]

I also DO see a canard there... The root of the canard starts further up than the shade's outline.

Where? I see a bright spot from sunlight in the side view and nothing in the top.

 

[Stargazer]

Here:

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

it's shadows and highlights of the inlet playing tricks imo

it apparently appears like a separate or raised canard due to the shadow of some bulges at the lower inlet lip

 

[Stargazer]

If I consider the second aircraft, and if they are both one and the same model, I must concur that you must be right. But you'll have to admit that it's pretty ambiguous. Had we seen only the top aircraft, I'm sure 99% of viewers would have gone for the canard.

 

[Stargazer]

I reworked the picture using your explanation as a basis and it DOES work...

 

[sublight]

Wow, they haven't even built it and its so visually stealthy it plays tricks on your eyes!!!!! :

 

[Deino]

Hmmm here it looks as there are canards .... ???

 

[fightingirish]

Hmmm here it looks as there are canards .... ???

The newest configuration of Boeing's 'F/A-XX' has LERX and no canards!
If we look closely at pictures again, we can even read 'No Step' in the shadow.

Wow, they haven't even built it and its so visually stealthy it plays tricks on your eyes!!!!! :

Good one!

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

not really an honest lerx tbh

made a quick render on how the inlet looks like(roughly)

as you can see, it forms a triangle and when viewed at the side appears to be sort of a raised canard or something like that.

 

[Sundog]

Hmmm here it looks as there are canards .... ???

No, that's just shading on the LEX from the dorsal inlet that makes it look that way at first glance. Look at the drone version in the foreground and you can see it more clearly.

 

[donnage99]

Hmmm here it looks as there are canards .... ???

Where did u get the pictures, Deino?

 

[flateric]

Where did u get the pictures, Deino?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/07/341580/boeing-displays-concepts-for-fa-18ef-replacement.html

 

[Woody]

As can be seen here in this manipulation, there is no canard (disappointed), only a lex below the intake.

Though it's always nice to see a new fast jet design get one step closer to reality I don't get the placement of said intake. Presumably the point of mounting them high is to mask them from radars below, but in this case the forward jutting inlet top would defeat this while the lex would starve it of air at high AoA.

The company understands that its potential customer wants a replacement with more engine power to supercruise, with the low observable aircraft to carry internal weapons, distributed sensors and have extreme agility.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/07/341580/boeing-displays-concepts-for-fa-18ef-replacement.html

And how exactly would a rudderless delta, even with 2D thrust vectoring be extremely agile? Also despite having the deepest fuselage ever seen it has no pilot rear vision and probably a larger side area than the F-22 with it's rudders.

Guess they must know what they're doing.

Cheers, Woody

 

[sferrin]

As can be seen here in this manipulation, there is no canard (disappointed), only a lex below the intake.

Though it's always nice to see a new fast jet design get one step closer to reality I don't get the placement of said intake. Presumably the point of mounting them high is to mask them from radars below, but in this case the forward jutting inlet top would defeat this while the lex would starve it of air at high AoA.

The company understands that its potential customer wants a replacement with more engine power to supercruise, with the low observable aircraft to carry internal weapons, distributed sensors and have extreme agility.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/07/341580/boeing-displays-concepts-for-fa-18ef-replacement.html

And how exactly would a rudderless delta, even with 2D thrust vectoring be extremely agile? Also despite having the deepest fuselage ever seen it has no pilot rear vision and probably a larger side area than the F-22 with it's rudders.

Guess they must know what they're doing.

Cheers, Woody

I'm not sure what they're thinking if they're calling it an air superiority fighter. No rear visability, nothing that indicates any particular agility, and the huge tadpole-shape upfront makes me wonder about the speed. That and the two-man crew makes me think it's more geared toward the strike role.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

UCAV strike leader, maybe?

 

[donnage99]

I can't speak for the configuration with intakes on top, but for the other one that we've seen for a while now, I think a combination of active flow control, novel control surfaces, fluidic thrust vectoring (i think the nozzle layout would still allow this. It's not the classic TVC), would give the desired agility. The lack of rear visibility is easy to explain - using a similiar technology (assuming with even better solution) to Northrop Grumman's Distributed Aperture System.

 

[Avimimus]

With improving data-links and LOAL capability, does one really need manoeurvrability for air-superiority work? With improvements in sensors and computing over the next 20 years such a requirement for turn performance may no longer be anywhere near as important as we assume it is. In comparison lower drag with a focus on low observability, higher internal volume, range and speed may be highly desirable.

Achieving good control during the inherently difficult carrier landing may be an entirely different matter though.

Is it possible to maintain control during high AOA and low speed flight with such a design? Especially in bad weather?

 

[Woody]

But the provisionally 9g-rated airframes also reflect the air-to-air performance once provided by the Grumman F-14, which the Super Hornet finally replaced in 2006, says Dave Thieman, a programme development official in Boeing's advanced global strike systems division.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/07/341580/boeing-displays-concepts-for-fa-18ef-replacement.html

Distributed apertures are a great idea. All jets should have them. Infrared cameras are only 20 bucks each at my local store. But if the rear vision isn't required, why stop there? With the emergence of directed energy weapons, it would make more sense to bury the crew at the centre of the airframe also giving them the best protection from instantaneous G-forces.

But rear vision is definitely out of fashion to look at the F-35, PAK-FA and Japanese stealth. Go figure.

Cheers, Woody

 

[Sundog]

The new designs use electronics for rear vision. It is no longer required when the sensors can see better than the human eye can. As for high AOA ability, nobody here knows what the design is capable of, but it's LEX's and planform indicate is a capable high AOA. Assuming it isn't capable of high alpha because it has dorsal inlets is like saying it can't stay in a straight line since it doesn't have vertical tails. At this point, I would say it's just driven by a higher LO requirement.

I know people like to picture all dogfights as if they were all giant WW2 or WW1 furballs, but the fact of the matter is that only 10% of all aerial kills are the result of dogfights, whereas, in 90% of them the pilot never saw it coming. As such, SA is everything and the new sensor systems give the aircrews much higher SA than a bubble canopy ever did. Not to mention, most modern aerial kills are from missiles, not guns, and with missiles getting better and better, I really think future battles will be between missiles, ECM, and High Energy Weapons. It doesn't mean there won't be dogfights, but they'll probably be in highly jammed environments and limited in nature. But it seams to me, based on what I've read of research into 6th gen systems, the U.S. military services are looking for maximum stealth and SA to make the kill. As with most aerial combat, dogfighting is the last resort.

My only question with systems like this is can they make them affordable. So far, the answer is a resounding, "No." I don't see how you then build a system more stealthy than the last one and make it more affordable. Or are they thinking they can use the extra money from not having to build vertical or horizontal tails for the extra stealth?

 

[donnage99]

DARPA is trying to revolutionalize the process in which we design and build military aircraft. If that bring any fruitation, then not only the cost, but the time to put a weapon system in the air would be a portion of what we do today.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I don't see how you then build a system more stealthy than the last one and make it more affordable.

I can. Consider:
1) The F-22A is cancelled.
2) The mold line and materials data is retained.
3) A new program for an air dominance fighter comes along.
4) Lockheed designs a new fighter using the F-22 mold lines and materials, but with simplified systems.

Since all the development work on stealth for the F-22 is already done, the F-22-Junior coudl get away with far less expense in that area.

Similarly, I'd imagine that the computers and codes needed to design a stealthy fighter are now pretty well advanced. Far easier, faster and cheaper to design the shapes needed for stealth At this point, a new fighter should be stealthy without significant development cost.

 

[BDF]

Navy show gives sneak peek at new planes, helos

For today’s pilots and aviation sailors, the future is still pretty far away.

Conceptual drawings of futuristic unmanned fighter jets adorned glossy posters at the Sea-Air-Space Exposition sponsored by the Navy League in early May. And many Navy leaders talk about 2025 or earlier as the target year for those aircraft to join the fleet.

But the Navy is preparing to keep today’s manned aircraft on carrier decks well beyond that timeline.

Plans are underway to extend the lives of today’s F/A-18 Super Hornets by 50 percent — from 6,000 flight hours to 9,000 — said Capt. Mark Darrah, F/A-18 program manager at Naval Air Systems Command.

Considering that most Super Hornets fly about 350 hours a year under today’s high operational tempo, the 3,000-hour extension would keep the newest aircraft flying for at least another 25 years.

And if the Navy buys another batch of Super Hornets, as senior officials are suggesting, that means Boeing’s fourth-generation fighter/attack jet will be deploying on carriers until nearly 2040.

So relax, pilots. You’ve got plenty of job security for now.

More here:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/05/navy_aviation_051010w/

 

[sublight]

That's funny, there isn't one mention of F35 in the article.... I wonder why??? B)

 

[Kryptid]

I tried to develop a top view outline for the airplane using a technique similar to the one linked to in the thread about Senior Peg (as well as some eyeballing and guesswork). I'm new to this technique, so I doubt it's too accurate. The nose looks small. Comments and criticism are welcomed.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

And how exactly would a rudderless delta, even with 2D thrust vectoring be extremely agile? Also despite having the deepest fuselage ever seen it has no pilot rear vision and probably a larger side area than the F-22 with it's rudders.

Try Boeing's NASA report "Investigation Into the Impact of Agility in Conceptual Fighter Design" and the subsequent configuration of some Model 988s. Designed in the 1990s a few of these aircraft look a bit like this new FA-XX configuration (bit of a 988-122, 988-114 mix).

Hi,

the Boeing Model-988.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960000737_1996900737.pdf

 

[lantinian]

tried to develop a top view outline for the airplane using a technique similar to the one linked to in the thread about Senior Peg (as well as some eyeballing and guesswork). I'm new to this technique, so I doubt it's too accurate. The nose looks small. Comments and criticism are welcomed.

It look like you drew it correctly, then downsized its longest side but left "keep aspect ratio" option unchecked

 

[Kryptid]

tried to develop a top view outline for the airplane using a technique similar to the one linked to in the thread about Senior Peg (as well as some eyeballing and guesswork). I'm new to this technique, so I doubt it's too accurate. The nose looks small. Comments and criticism are welcomed.

It look like you drew it correctly, then downsized its longest side but left "keep aspect ratio" option unchecked

I didn't use the same programs as the ones suggested, unfortunately. If I knew the ratio of length-to-wingspan I could make it more accurate. Of course, I'd probably be better off leaving this to someone else!

 

[Orionblamblam]

Here's my take on the latest version. I'm mostly satisfied, except something about the top view of the canopy doesn't seem right. No idea as yet regarding scale, however.

 

[seruriermarshal]

Here's my take on the latest version. I'm mostly satisfied, except something about the top view of the canopy doesn't seem right. No idea as yet regarding scale, however.

Where you take the pic ?

 

[flateric]

Is it too hard to understand that Scott draw it himself?