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

Isn't landing an aircraft without yaw control on an aircraft carrier going to be a bit problematic? I've never landed on a carrier myself, but I would imagine pilots use the rudder for all sorts of minor adjustments.

How did they get around this on the A-12?
 
i wonder why Boeing chose to give the cockpit such a 'stepped' shape. it's not like this is a trainer and the guy in the back needs to carrier-land this thing in an emergency (plus by the time this thing gets into service, auto land/JPALS SHOULD be a reality...why would he/she need such field of view over the nose?

Regarding landing without aerodynamic yaw effectors, if anything at low speed thrust vectoring will give you better control because aero surfaces' authority decreases with decreasing 'q'. TV is proportional to thrust setting, which can be left high provided you can generate a lot of drag.
 
The aircraft has yaw control, it just doesn't use vertical tails to achieve it. Come on guys, think. If it didn't have yaw control, it couldn't fly.
 
AeroFranz said:
i wonder why Boeing chose to give the cockpit such a 'stepped' shape. it's not like this is a trainer and the guy in the back needs to carrier-land this thing in an emergency (plus by the time this thing gets into service, auto land/JPALS SHOULD be a reality...why would he/she need such field of view over the nose?

It could be to place the second seat above a weapon's bay? Otherwise they would have to increase length and all that entails.
 
not a bad guess... although eyeballing the center of lift of that planform gives a cg that's way aft of the cockpit.
I'm assuming that cg and center of lift will be pretty close, and furthermore that the centroid of the weapons bay is at the cg.

if it is indeed a weapons bay (and it might be), then it's a pretty long one, like maybe two AMRAAMs-long.
 
this two planes look amazing, thanks for sharing guys.

regards

Pedro
 
imho, it's more suited for either strike role or possibly as unmanned control plane.

top mounted intake configuration as studied by NG back then seem to conclude that this configuration is more suited for payload and range optimization. though the plane's intake per se aren't purely top mounted but a side-top mounted configuration to give it some say... +20 degree(safe assumption) alpha tolerance though +30 would be not as good as fusalage and wing shielded intakes.

fluidic TVC is likely for yaw control since you'd expect it to land on something as difficult as a carrier.

regarding the "LEX", not really an honest LEX since it would interfere with the intake flow at >+20.
 
Actually, in all the papers, at least released publicly, that I've read of dorsal inlet studies by Northrop, there really wasn't an alpha limitation for the intake when designed properly, and their main concern was vortex ingestion by the inlet during sideslip at high alpha. That was an "unknown" twenty five years ago. I doubt it is unknown today and the newer engines are somewhat more tolerant of flow distortion than the older engines were. As such, I've yet to see any evidence that the design shown wouldn't be high alpha capable. Having said that, like the F-35, I don't know that they would even need to worry about that part of the envelope, beyond what is currently employed, and that the dorsal inlet is more about LO concerns than any aerodynamic considerations. I doubt it is optimized for "strike." Any aircraft like this in the future will be truly mulitrole just as they are today since they quite literally can't afford the specialization.

Also, regarding the cockpit, the Super Hornet and Hornet both have the second seat higher than the front seat. In the SH, the back seater also has a helmet mounted cuing system and he can designate targets independently of the pilot. My guess is this aircraft would have the same capability. Also, being designed from the outset as a two seat aircraft, the second seat is just incorporated into the design better than current day designs, which are largely conversions of single seat aircraft.
 
hmmm... good point there. the NG model's TM intakes were placed further at the rear where the ocluding structure will inevitably cause interference as compared to the new concepts where the inlet is placed further in front which may improve tolerance comparable to a SM inlet.
 
Is the lack of vertical tail surfaces in this F/A-XX concept still considered too radical, or risky, to the Department of the Navy or Department of Defense? Will it be rejected like the McDonnell Douglas/Northrop Grumman/BAe Systems Joint Strike Fighter concept? Or has the experience with the X-36 made this approach less radical or risky?
 
Triton said:
Is the lack of vertical tail surfaces in this F/A-XX concept still considered too radical, or risky, to the Department of the Navy or Department of Defense? Will it be rejected like the McDonnell Douglas/Northrop Grumman/BAe Systems Joint Strike Fighter concept? Or has the experience with the X-36 made this approach less radical or risky?

Given the number of tailless aircraft that have flown, I would say it really isn't issue, except with regard to supersonic capability. It's doable, however, I don't know if a tailless supersonic aircraft has actually flown supersonically; i.e., in the Black World. The X-36 is a supersonic configuration, but it couldn't fly supersonically, to the best of my knowledge and was never intended to from a flight test perspective.

As for the McDD/NG/BAe JSF concept, I haven't ever read of anyone having any issue with the tails/FCS for the vehicle. It was the Lift/Lift+Cruise engine set up that did it in, based on all the information I've been able to dig up.
 
The notion that the tailless JSF from MD was too radical for the DoD was from a program ran by History or Discovery channel. And we know better to get our sources elsewhere from those channels in defense related issues.

The FATE program, for what was known, did wrap itself around a tailless concept.
 
I think ever since the ATF Dem/Val testing in 1990, the industry has proven that advanced flight configuration are no longer the biggest development chalenge. Most new flight demonstrator programs complete without even a single crash.

What Boeing needs to worry about is the F/A-XX effort not turning in the next 20+ years next gen platform that breaks the acuasition cost records again.

The aerospace industry needs to get their act together and start tto deliver more planes without a 10 years of R&D.
 
lantinian said:
I think ever since the ATF Dem/Val testing in 1990, the industry has proven that advanced flight configuration are no longer the biggest development chalenge. Most new flight demonstrator programs complete without even a single crash.

What do you mean by flight demonstrator programs? If you're thinking of combat aircraft test fleets, Gripen, EF-2000 and F-22 all had crashes. T-50 and F-35 haven't yet, but haven't been flying for nearly as long as the other test fleets flew for.
 
By flight demonstrators I mean those prototype flight hardware that expand the boundaries, not regular production aircraft which fly so much that sooner or later something breaks.

Ex. ATF prototypes (yes the YF-22 crashes but far outside of its initial role), X-31, X-35, X-32, X-36, X-45, Global Hawk.
Some like the Polecat and other unmanned hardware have indeed crashed, but those are pushing the limit on self control.

Generally speaking, manned or man controlled design have been considerably safer and computer prediction of flight performance has become remarkably precise. That was my point.

Boing can design whatever it wan't now. If they can make it fly in the simulators, I bet it will fly in the real world. It was not so a generation ago.
 
No one mentioned that the F/A-XX program is renamed NGAD (next generation air dominance), hinting that the airframe is to be more optimized for air superiority (but still multirole)
 
Triton said:
Is the lack of vertical tail surfaces in this F/A-XX concept still considered too radical, or risky, to the Department of the Navy or Department of Defense?

Boeing now have the best possible argument: We have flown the Bird of Prey. Without any tail (except the first flight) and with the simple manual (!!) control, without any computer backup.
 
Matej said:
Triton said:
Is the lack of vertical tail surfaces in this F/A-XX concept still considered too radical, or risky, to the Department of the Navy or Department of Defense?

Boeing now have the best possible argument: We have flown the Bird of Prey. Without any tail (except the first flight) and with the simple manual (!!) control, without any computer backup.

I don't know that that applies, since the BoP was neither fast, much less supersonic, or maneuverable. It did prove some advanced technologies, especially with regard to manufacturing. However, it didn't really demonstrate it would be suitable for a supersonic fighter configuration.
 
Maki said:
No one mentioned that the F/A-XX program is renamed NGAD (next generation air dominance), hinting that the airframe is to be more optimized for air superiority (but still multirole)
The change of name hints more toward an approach that uses a combination of different assets (not neccesary a fighter) to achieve air dominance, instead of building a next generation fighter in its purest sense.
 
donnage99 said:
The change of name hints more toward an approach that uses a combination of different assets (not neccesary a fighter) to achieve air dominance, instead of building a next generation fighter in its purest sense.

A fighter must be at the center of any air-superiority plan in my opinion, I don't know what else the Pentagon would think.
 
One could use large number of sensor drones vectoring long range missiles. Depending on how sensor technologies develop, small stealthy drones might be more survivable near the front - with the actual warhead carriers being long endurance platforms at stand-off ranges of a couple hundred kilometers. Response times (once missiles are lancuhed) and the slightly increased operating costs (large missiles, means larger platforms) might be the major issues.

Of course, it may be a cheaper arrangement during peacetime, where fewer long-endurance patrols could replace multiple higher speed ones). The other upshot is that, once air-superiority is achieved, the warhead carriers could be converted into theatre bombers (again co-operating with smaller, stealthier drones).

In any case, I think we can all agree that fighters are turning into sensor and missile carriers - that the high maneuverability platforms like the PAK-FA might be relevant for the next four or five decades, but that the decisive characteristic is going to be sensor capabilities and weapon systems.
 
Regarding the NGAD, Dave Thieman of Boeing said: ''It's a F-22 on the carrier''.

Their aiming at a 9g rated, 40000lb heavy carrier capable twin-engined airframe that can supercruise. To me these specs indicate an airframe optimized for air superiority. This is not so surprising since the navy is tied to the strike optimized F-35C program, and they want to avoid overlap, or else they will have a tough time selling this new plane to congress.
The only thing I find confusing is the choice of a tailless configuration for a supercruising carrier fighter. Not very conventional for this type of plane. A less risky solution would be more preferable considering the long and difficult development processes that plague modern aircraft programs, but then again technology must move on.

Link to an article on the NGAD http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/05/boeing-plots-return-to-next-ge.html
 
Where do they plan on getting the money from? How many billions will a development program cost for a small number of airframes? Everybody can throw around concepts, but I'm skeptical of this thing generating flying hardware.

Tailless could be fine. With fancy leading edge aerodynamics, thrust vectoring and fly by wire...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbQPgVw-1s
This plane is Boeing heritage now. :p

Anyway, you can note how close the Boeing model is in planform to the X-45 C and Phantom Ray with a cockpit stuck out in front and high alpha inlets.
 

Attachments

  • X-45C - X-47B overview.jpg
    X-45C - X-47B overview.jpg
    26.4 KB · Views: 516
Maki said:
Regarding the NGAD, Dave Thieman of Boeing said: ''It's a F-22 on the carrier''.

Their aiming at a 9g rated, 40000lb heavy carrier capable twin-engined airframe that can supercruise.

Didn't they used to call that the "NATF"?

Seriously, though, in an age of vectored thrust high off-boresight missiles (including high maneuverability in the endgame) , helmet mounted sights and 360 degree targeting, with the potential of directed energy weapons coming on aboard, is going to all the trouble of designing for sustained 9g worth it?
 
F-14D - Just my humble two cents but maybe in the age of (future) stealth BVR missiles are anticipated to be less effective precipitating an ole' fashion furball :D
 
Whatever they come up with, I hope that they finally drop the "/" in the designator and either call it the "FA-XX" or simply "F-XX", which is what the present day aircraft still should be. (I still refer to it as the "F-18" in all conversation.) After all, we had the FB-111 and there had been plans for an FB-22, so why not "FA"?

(The "F/A" designator, aside from violating all of the rules of designators, is unnecessary; just about every fighter since WW II has had ground-attack capability, sometimes used quite often. We never had an F/A-84, F/A-100, F/A-105 or F/A-14......)
 
bobbymike said:
F-14D - Just my humble two cents but maybe in the age of (future) stealth BVR missiles are anticipated to be less effective precipitating an ole' fashion furball :D

Although I don't think that'll happen quite so dramatically, in that case that argues even more against spending a lot on 9g capability. A 9g turn doesn't impress a close-in missile that can make 50-60g turns. Plus, 9g sustained degrades the capabilities of the crew. And of course 9g doesn't do much of anything against a directed energy weapon since for all intents and purposes you're motionless.
 
gatoraptor said:
Whatever they come up with, I hope that they finally drop the "/" in the designator and either call it the "FA-XX" or simply "F-XX", which is what the present day aircraft still should be. (I still refer to it as the "F-18" in all conversation.) After all, we had the FB-111 and there had been plans for an FB-22, so why not "FA"?

(The "F/A" designator, aside from violating all of the rules of designators, is unnecessary; just about every fighter since WW II has had ground-attack capability, sometimes used quite often. We never had an F/A-84, F/A-100, F/A-105 or F/A-14......)

I agree. Remember, "F/A" was PR-speak for the original Hornet when they combined the F and A versions into one aircraft.

Although for a while AF was trying to promote the Raptor as the "F/A-22". Thank goodness that is over!
 
We'll never get rid of F/A- prefix for one important reason. It is different to the Air Force. The Navy uses F/A- and except for one brief uncomfortable moment USAF uses F-. I’m no expert on the US Navy but I have noticed a strong desire to be different to USAF at every opportunity.

The air to air missile generation after next will be no more stealthy than the current missiles. Which is pretty stealthy – a missile has a very small frontal area anyway. But they will be fast. Hypersonics will provide a significant change to air combat by massively reducing time of flight for BVR engagements. Combined with enhanced detection range thanks to AESA will make for more effective long range engagement. That is unless you are flying in >-30 dbsm LO platforms. Otherwise you will just be PITBULL bait.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
The air to air missile generation after next will be no more stealthy than the current missiles. Which is pretty stealthy – a missile has a very small frontal area anyway.

There is a current thrust to reduce the signatures of ordinance for external carriage. RCS is much more than frontal area, as the ADM-20 demonstrates well. Creating ordinance that can be carried externally without significantly changing the signature of the carrying platform is a significant challenge, with significant payoffs. This is why so much money has been dumped into such programs in the last 20 years.
Combat aircraft are nearing the point where the visual signature is dominant. Bird Of Prey was significant in that it demonstrated not only very, very low radar and IR signatures across a wide spectrum, but was able to greatly reduce it's visual detection range as well. This is the shape of things to come (in some areas).

Hypersonic AAMs face a number of very different challenges that are far from being overcome.
 
quellish said:
There is a current thrust to reduce the signatures of ordinance for external carriage. RCS is much more than frontal area, as the ADM-20 demonstrates well. Creating ordinance that can be carried externally without significantly changing the signature of the carrying platform is a significant challenge, with significant payoffs.

Well thats a bit of a different issue to the signature while the missile has launched, which I thought was what the original issue raiser was talking about?

quellish said:
Hypersonic AAMs face a number of very different challenges that are far from being overcome.

Sure but progress is being made and generation after next is the 2030+ timeframe.
 
Seriously, though, in an age of vectored thrust high off-boresight missiles (including high maneuverability in the endgame) , helmet mounted sights and 360 degree targeting, with the potential of directed energy weapons coming on aboard, is going to all the trouble of designing for sustained 9g worth it?

Well maybe people should take into account that non U.S. stealth fighters will be coming into production sooner or later. In my opinion their reduced RCS might seriously alter air-to-air combat. BVR may become somewhat less effective. If a more powerful aircraft radar is unable to find and track targets at various ranges, then you can't expect radar guided missiles to be any more effective at tracking a target aircraft. A more maneuverable fighter may be able to break lock of a radar guided missiles. Of course there are always IR missiles, but future IR stealth measures might dampen their effectiveness also. Effectiveness of directed energy weapons is very much effected by weather and the ability of sensors to lock on and track targets.

What I'm trying to say is, maybe it isn't so ridiculous to design the plane for such high maneuverability. It isn't the first time high maneuverability was discarded as unnecessary. Just remember the design trends during the 60's (bigger, faster, lack of guns..etc.) that led to the F4 Phantom. In Vietnam the the more nimble F8 Crusader proved more effective against the small and maneuverable Migs.
 
Perhaps the age-old distinction between pursuit and attack was not so nonsensical after all. Some fighters are designed for speed to quickly intercept an enemy aircraft, others for maneuverability in close air-to-air combat, others to fly low, be bulky and sturdy and drop their weapons... Some demand STOL capability for aircraft carriers, others require VTOL for special ops missions...

Instead of looking for the proverbial chimera, an aircraft that could do everything and anything with one single airframe, be stealthy, highly maneuverable and very fast and be full to the brim with weapons, perhaps some day soon the top-notch decision makers in Washington will realize that using a series of separate, more specialized designs may not be so stupid.
 
It'll be highly maneuverable for two reasons: Quick dogfight kills and defensive maneuvering.

The Navy prefers an angles fight to an energy fight in ACM. It's faster and simpler.

And when people start shooting missiles at you, defensive break turns can make the difference between life and death.
 
I'm not saying that there's no need for maneuverability, just that sustained 9g is probably beyond the point of diminishing returns. It puts great strain on the airframe, which requires extra weight to be strengthend for it. it also wears out the aircraft sooner. One of the reason the USN started restricting the g that should be pulled on its fighters was to extend the life of the airframes. 9g also puts a bigger load on the crew, with the possible of momentary or (relatively) extended G-LOC. Both F-20s were lost because of this, and no doubt other a/c as well. 7-7.5g is probably enough.

We are coming through an age of technological surprise in air combat as great or greater than what the Argentinians experienced in the Falklands War with the introduction of the AIM-9L. Up to that point, air combat techniques dealt with primarily getting on an opponent's tail because (except for long range missile shots), you really needed to be there to get a good shot, be it missiles or guns. Defensive maneuver tactics focused on preventing your adversary from getting into that position. What AIM-9L did was allow someone to take a Sidewinder shot from any aspect, and the tactics of the time were not up to dealing with that.

Similarly, we have now seen the introduction of high-agility, high off-boresight missiles, often cued by a Helmet Mounted Sight (unless you're the F-22). These have large "no-escape" zones, wherein there is no maneuver the target aircraft can make that will defeat the missile. A defensive break turn is still something you need to do, but the effectiveness of sustaining it at 9g is probably not all that much better than what you will achieve with 7g against a weapon coming at you from any angle that can turn at 60g (or 25g for a long range missile), especially one that may still be under power at the time.

I'm not saying that the maneuverability of a 747 is good enough (unless he has a multi-shot trainable directed energy weapon :) and that's still in the future), just that 9g probably no longer justifies its cost.

BTW, the F-8 owed its best-of-the-war win/loss ratio mostly to tactics and training. F-4 crews had to learn ACM, but also long range intercept, various kinds of ground attack and in USAF's case nuclear strike. Plus, F-4 crews weren't trained that much in the concept of maneuvering combat in the first part of the war. F-8s did limited bombing, but first and foremost they lived, breathed and trained for air combat. Arguably that's why they had the best win/loss ratio up through 1968. F-4 got to be a lot better once the crews were trained to use the F-4 strengths, including acceleration, fighting in the vertical and to force the MiGs to sustain their turn (where they ran out of energy).
 
Regarding the maneuver requirements, I've read, but can't confirm, that the F-35 has some "automated" maneuvering capability. It might be that a future airframe may have a 9g maneuvering requirement or higher under automated control to take evasive action from a missile attack. I'm thinking from the standpoint that the NGAD is looking to be optionally manned, so without a man in it, it's maneuvering capability could be higher and the manned airframe would be built to the same requirements and therefore, the FCS could be built to maintain some of the defensive maneuver capabilities of the unmanned version. After all, the USAF has been pursuing advanced technology to determine whether or not a pilot is conscious. I don't know if the tech is there yet, but that, coupled with advanced automated systems could keep the requirement to withstand high accelerations. Just something to think about.

Of course, as you're all well aware of, with directed energy weaponry becoming more advanced, smaller, and more efficient it may be the maneuvering requirement is downgraded as these weapons become applicable as defense systems for air vehicles. We'll have to see how well it works out in the F-35. Of course, then you have to wonder if such systems are placed in every airframe, or if you just end up with a single "air defense" aircraft flying with the others, sort of like an ECM escort.
 
F-14D said:
BTW, the F-8 owed its best-of-the-war win/loss ratio mostly to tactics and training. F-4 crews had to learn ACM, but also long range intercept, various kinds of ground attack and in USAF's case nuclear strike. Plus, F-4 crews weren't trained that much in the concept of maneuvering combat in the first part of the war. F-8s did limited bombing, but first and foremost they lived, breathed and trained for air combat. Arguably that's why they had the best win/loss ratio up through 1968. F-4 got to be a lot better once the crews were trained to use the F-04 strengths, including acceleration, fighting in the vertical and to force the MiGs to sustain their turn where they ran out of energy.

I did read in an excerpt from a book on Constant Peg(I think), that after Joser Satrapa flew the F-4 for the 1st time against a VX-4 pilot(whom he bested), he was shocked at how much power and potential the Phantom had, compared to what he had heard prior to doing so.
 
SDN said:
F-14D said:
BTW, the F-8 owed its best-of-the-war win/loss ratio mostly to tactics and training. F-4 crews had to learn ACM, but also long range intercept, various kinds of ground attack and in USAF's case nuclear strike. Plus, F-4 crews weren't trained that much in the concept of maneuvering combat in the first part of the war. F-8s did limited bombing, but first and foremost they lived, breathed and trained for air combat. Arguably that's why they had the best win/loss ratio up through 1968. F-4 got to be a lot better once the crews were trained to use the F-04 strengths, including acceleration, fighting in the vertical and to force the MiGs to sustain their turn where they ran out of energy.

I did read in an excerpt from a book on Constant Peg(I think), that after Joser Satrapa flew the F-4 for the 1st time against a VX-4 pilot(whom he bested), he was shocked at how much power and potential the Phantom had, compared to what he had heard prior to doing so.

I may be remembering wrong, but I believe RADM Paul Gillcrist, who would be in a position to know, opined that the F-4, when flown by a properly trained crew was actually a better air-to-air vehicle than the F-8.
 
I heard from one of the main Rockwell engineers on HIMAT, that one of the results of the program was the realization that supermaneuvrability would cost too much in terms of structures; as previously mentioned in a post, you just hit a point of diminishing returns. We just looked at structures, but other aspects such as aerodynamics, controls, and propulsion might yield similar results.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom