- Joined
- 9 November 2008
- Messages
- 1,070
- Reaction score
- 160
sferrin said:No love for ADVENT? :'(
Yes I do, which is why I said use the F135.
That way if & when they make a production ADVENT engine, the F-35 won't be left behind
sferrin said:No love for ADVENT? :'(
CiTrus90 said:Just for the fun of it: would it be of interest if i opened a thread in either "Theoretical and Speculative Projects" or "Alternative History and Future Speculation" (i think the latter would be the most apt section) and offered to model a 3d representation of what we could come up with as a future speculative F-X?
Obviously every aspect of the design would have to be motivated, sort of like a team project.
Ten years from now we could look at what we made and think how close/far we were from the real deal
Regards.
sferrin said:Airplane said:But I really don't see the need for more AAMs beyond the 8 carried internally by the -22.
The whole point of a larger aircraft is more range and persistence. I'll bet the F-X ends up with 10-12 AIM-120 sized missiles.
marauder2048 said:sferrin said:Airplane said:But I really don't see the need for more AAMs beyond the 8 carried internally by the -22.
The whole point of a larger aircraft is more range and persistence. I'll bet the F-X ends up with 10-12 AIM-120 sized missiles.
I think the real wrinkle in the magazine depth discussion is if you elect to incorporate a High Energy Pulsed System (HEPS) like a 150 kW laser. Doing so means you have to design the aircraft around that weapon.
Ex: An ESAV-style, supersonic cruising, HEPS discharging LO design probably exceeds the power generation and thermal management capacity of JP-8; some of the AFRL proposals carry a cryogenic fuel (LNG)
to power and cool the HEPS, PAO loop and the JP-8 which as you can imagine comes with its own volume and weight (and logistical) implications.
I suspect the Navy needs more of a high altitude, long endurance, mostly subsonic deep magazined (high HEPS discharge frequency) two-man fighter that can be deployed in echelon to attrit the ASCM stream raids and their launch platforms
along with doing terminal work against ASBMs.
Rhinocrates said:So far we've seen individual company concepts, whereas the USAF/Navy have yet to issue any parameters. I'd assume that as with the LRS-B, the actual NGAD may be system-based rather than one platform. This is already implied by linking the F-22 with an "arsenal plane."
sferrin said:I think the USAF is going to go for supercruise for reaction time. Think stealth F-108, with better internal weapons carriage and maybe Mach 2 supercruise with Mach 2.5 excursions. And 75,000 feet altitude.
sferrin said:marauder2048 said:sferrin said:Airplane said:But I really don't see the need for more AAMs beyond the 8 carried internally by the -22.
The whole point of a larger aircraft is more range and persistence. I'll bet the F-X ends up with 10-12 AIM-120 sized missiles.
I think the real wrinkle in the magazine depth discussion is if you elect to incorporate a High Energy Pulsed System (HEPS) like a 150 kW laser. Doing so means you have to design the aircraft around that weapon.
Ex: An ESAV-style, supersonic cruising, HEPS discharging LO design probably exceeds the power generation and thermal management capacity of JP-8; some of the AFRL proposals carry a cryogenic fuel (LNG)
to power and cool the HEPS, PAO loop and the JP-8 which as you can imagine comes with its own volume and weight (and logistical) implications.
I suspect the Navy needs more of a high altitude, long endurance, mostly subsonic deep magazined (high HEPS discharge frequency) two-man fighter that can be deployed in echelon to attrit the ASCM stream raids and their launch platforms
along with doing terminal work against ASBMs.
I think the USAF is going to go for supercruise for reaction time. Think stealth F-108, with better internal weapons carriage and maybe Mach 2 supercruise with Mach 2.5 excursions. And 75,000 feet altitude.
marauder2048 said:sferrin said:I think the USAF is going to go for supercruise for reaction time. Think stealth F-108, with better internal weapons carriage and maybe Mach 2 supercruise with Mach 2.5 excursions. And 75,000 feet altitude.
Yep. Which in turn means that your thermal management system becomes a first order design constraint and dictates a lot of what follows.
* Could you really do 75,000 feet without resurrecting pressure suits? The studies have had more modest cruise altitude of 60,000 ft.
Steve Pace said:I can't see a fighter pilot wearing a pressure suit - too restrictive for quick reaction times. -SP
sferrin said:Steve Pace said:I can't see a fighter pilot wearing a pressure suit - too restrictive for quick reaction times. -SP
Nobody is going to be dog-fighting at 75,000 feet. Think of it as something that can sit up high, play quarterback, can react and reposition quickly, over a large area. An aircraft worthy of the name "Valkyrie".
DrRansom said:Something I wonder if USAF will look at making it a two person plane. If the F-X will have a role in managing UAVs, then having two people would make management task much easier.
TomS said:DrRansom said:Something I wonder if USAF will look at making it a two person plane. If the F-X will have a role in managing UAVs, then having two people would make management task much easier.
Alternatively, adding some autonomy to the "mother" might be useful -- let the plane fly itself for routine stuff while the pilot manages the UCAVs, then let the pilot take over for demanding phases of the aircraft's own flight. Basically an enhanced autopilot, not full-fledged combat autonomy.
Rhinocrates said:AFAIK, no formal requirements have been issued. We are seeing internal company proposals, not what the Pentagon considers to be the threat and what they require to meet it. How someone goes about meeting that threat comes afterwards, so once formal requirements are issued, the concepts will change radically.
Consider likely theatre of operations - many are assuming confronting China in the Pacific, requiring long range and the assumption numerical superiority on the opposing side. The air dominance fighter plus arsenal plane makes sense there.
How about tensions in the Arctic over resources and borders?
One of the reasons for the cancellation of the NGB and succession of the LRSB is that it was rapidly turning into a Battlestar Galactica, expected to do everything and thus pricing it out of existence.
While it will be its own platform and high altitude, long range and speed will be favoured over dogfighting ability, (hat tip sferrin), might the expectation that it work in synergy with other aircraft types be essential to the requirements? Therefore it might not have every 'nice to have' quality to keep costs down.
Rhinocrates said:I'm trying to think like a congressman who wants a cheap plane. Admittedly this involves depriving my brain of oxygen.
Steve Pace said:I can't see a fighter pilot wearing a pressure suit - too restrictive for quick reaction times. -SP
quellish said:Northrop could.
ATF-23. The YF-23. -SPDrRansom said:quellish said:Northrop could.
What program is that from? I tried to read the patch, but the glare covered it. It was a Northrop / McDonnell Douglas AT??3.
Steve Pace said:ATF-23. The YF-23. -SPDrRansom said:quellish said:Northrop could.
What program is that from? I tried to read the patch, but the glare covered it. It was a Northrop / McDonnell Douglas AT??3.
sferrin said:marauder2048 said:sferrin said:I think the USAF is going to go for supercruise for reaction time. Think stealth F-108, with better internal weapons carriage and maybe Mach 2 supercruise with Mach 2.5 excursions. And 75,000 feet altitude.
Yep. Which in turn means that your thermal management system becomes a first order design constraint and dictates a lot of what follows.
* Could you really do 75,000 feet without resurrecting pressure suits? The studies have had more modest cruise altitude of 60,000 ft.
60,000 still requires a pressure suit IRRC. (Thought anything over 50k did.)
bobbymike said:—a successor to the F-22 and F/A-18—
kagemusha said:bobbymike said:—a successor to the F-22 and F/A-18—
And to the F-15C/D/E ?
TomS said:Just because it says "a replacement" don't think that means a single aircraft, it's a reference to the overall "family of systems" approach. I think this follows logically from Holmes' comments last week about the USN and USAF not using the same aircraft.
sferrin said:Saying the F-X (the USAF program) would replace any Hornet variant makes no sense.
Seems like he was just talking 'Air Dominance' in general? Wasn't there a joint office set up between USAF and USN to discuss common technologies?sferrin said:TomS said:Just because it says "a replacement" don't think that means a single aircraft, it's a reference to the overall "family of systems" approach. I think this follows logically from Holmes' comments last week about the USN and USAF not using the same aircraft.
Still, the F-X and F/A-XX are separate programs with the latter being the Super Hornet replacement. Saying the F-X (the USAF program) would replace any Hornet variant makes no sense. Also re. the "family of systems" simply means it won't JUST be a new fighter they're looking at. I guarantee you, they aren't pouring all that money into ADVENT (and others) just so it can sit on a shelf and collect dust somewhere, while they replace the F-22 with blimps and SAMs. The F-X program will have an F-22 replacement aircraft in addition to other things. Perhaps the "family" includes a long range interceptor AND a fighter, with them having common everything except the airframe (which largely determines aerodynamic characteristics).
bobbymike said:USAF wants $73M for air dominance studies, experiments across FYDP
As the Air Force eyes an analysis of alternatives next year for a future air dominance family of systems, the service's fiscal year 2017 budget submission calls for $73 million to support continued experimentation and planning for the effort over the next five years
Plus my guess is that the Black World is full of avionics, radar, stealth coatings/materials, weapons etc. in the billions as well.marauder2048 said:bobbymike said:USAF wants $73M for air dominance studies, experiments across FYDP
As the Air Force eyes an analysis of alternatives next year for a future air dominance family of systems, the service's fiscal year 2017 budget submission calls for $73 million to support continued experimentation and planning for the effort over the next five years
To put these amounts in perspective, the Adaptive Engine Transition Program (now Advanced Engine Development) won't award until October but they plan to spend $2.4 billion on it over the next five years.
Rhinocrates said:Opinion piece in AW about Next Gen fighter - oops, apparently I shouldn't say that. It's paywalled, so I can't get more than the first paragraph.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-defining-next-fighter
"The first thing to do about the sixth-generation fighter is to stop calling it a sixth-generation fighter. Ever since Lockheed Martin borrowed the “fifth-generation” brand from the Russians a decade ago, it has muddied the debate. It is at best an example of begging the question—that is, assuming as fact (“high-band stealth is worth the money and everything else is obsolete”) what needs to be demonstrated. Labels aside, it is becoming popular to talk about what ..."
I'll be interested to see what follows, and hang around my local library more.
sferrin said:Just by reading that first paragraph I knew who'd written the article. He claims some marketers copied the concept of "generations" from the Russians but that is incorrect. It's been around for decades. Here's one from 1990 (just a tad further back than "a decade ago"):
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj90/win90/1win90.htm
And I'm certain that's not the first time it was ever mentioned. I'd swear, as far back as the 80s I'd seen the Tomcat referred to as "the first of the 4th generation aircraft". There are several sources online that claim the Russians first coined the "generations" concept in the mid 90s but by then it was already old.
I first came across the use of generations, IIRK, in Soviet Military Power, the Pentagon's annual review of USSR's military advancements. I seem to recall 'generations' being also used for SSNs, SSBNs, SLBMs and ICBMs.marauder2048 said:sferrin said:Just by reading that first paragraph I knew who'd written the article. He claims some marketers copied the concept of "generations" from the Russians but that is incorrect. It's been around for decades. Here's one from 1990 (just a tad further back than "a decade ago"):
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj90/win90/1win90.htm
And I'm certain that's not the first time it was ever mentioned. I'd swear, as far back as the 80s I'd seen the Tomcat referred to as "the first of the 4th generation aircraft". There are several sources online that claim the Russians first coined the "generations" concept in the mid 90s but by then it was already old.
And FFS, the RAND/USAF "Next-Generation" fighter studies of the mid-90's that helped inform JAST/JSF use "fourth-generation" and "fifth-generation."
bobbymike said:I first came across the use of generations, IIRK, in Soviet Military Power, the Pentagon's annual review of USSR's military advancements. I seem to recall 'generations' being also used for SSNs, SSBNs, SLBMs and ICBMs.marauder2048 said:sferrin said:Just by reading that first paragraph I knew who'd written the article. He claims some marketers copied the concept of "generations" from the Russians but that is incorrect. It's been around for decades. Here's one from 1990 (just a tad further back than "a decade ago"):
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj90/win90/1win90.htm
And I'm certain that's not the first time it was ever mentioned. I'd swear, as far back as the 80s I'd seen the Tomcat referred to as "the first of the 4th generation aircraft". There are several sources online that claim the Russians first coined the "generations" concept in the mid 90s but by then it was already old.
And FFS, the RAND/USAF "Next-Generation" fighter studies of the mid-90's that helped inform JAST/JSF use "fourth-generation" and "fifth-generation."