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

[Airplane]

For the new fighter-type-aircraft, all they need to do is dust off a couple of the ATF proposals like Northrop's refined F-23 design and Boeing's concept, and fill with the obligatory new engines, sensors, and avionics. Honestly, looking at the new Russian and Chinese a/c, a couple of the ATF designs, updated, would be more than a sufficient countermeasure.

But those ATF designs don't offer the increased range or weapon payload that is desired. By the time you're re-jigging the configurations to accommodate those, you might as well start from scratch.

If they're using the ADVENT based powerplants, they do have increased range. Whether or not it's enough of a range increase one can't say without knowing the actual mission requirements and the powerplant's spec's. The F-23 seems like it would meet the range requirements with those engines, based on the latest designs, size wise, from Northrop-Grumman. Of course, those aren't the actual configurations they would use, since they're showing them to us. The ATF designs just don't have the increased weapons load, at least not without a combination of weapons bay redesigns and weapon redesigns.

Boeing's design also offered good range. It was seen as too risky with concerns over the inlet design. There used to be more info online than what is now out there.

8 aams aren't enough? If its a true family of systems approach and other a/c (manned or not) are lugging aams to the battle then why not?

 

[sferrin]

Boeing's design also offered good range. It was seen as too risky with concerns over the inlet design. There used to be more info online than what is now out there.

IIRC they were concerned that airflow problems in one engine might lead to losing functionality in the other since they shared an inlet.

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-backs-off-sixth-gen-fighter-in-quest-for-air-423994/

 

[Sundog]

8 aams aren't enough? If its a true family of systems approach and other a/c (manned or not) are lugging aams to the battle then why not?

Those designs didn't carry 8 aams, they carried 6. They're working on fitting 6 modified aams in the main bay of the F-22, which would make a total of 8, but I don't know if that's actually happened on the fleet yet.

 

[kaiserd]

8 aams aren't enough? If its a true family of systems approach and other a/c (manned or not) are lugging aams to the battle then why not?

Those designs didn't carry 8 aams, they carried 6. They're working on fitting 6 modified aams in the main bay of the F-22, which would make a total of 8, but I don't know if that's actually happened on the fleet yet.

As far as I am aware it is widely understood and accepted that the F-22s carry 6 AMRAAMs in its main bay (plus a sidewinder in each of its side bays).

http://www.f22fighter.com/weapons.htm

 

[sferrin]

8 aams aren't enough? If its a true family of systems approach and other a/c (manned or not) are lugging aams to the battle then why not?

Those designs didn't carry 8 aams, they carried 6. They're working on fitting 6 modified aams in the main bay of the F-22, which would make a total of 8, but I don't know if that's actually happened on the fleet yet.

They've been doing that almost as long as the F-22 has been flying. That's why the AIM-120C got its wings clipped. You can see the ejectors for each of the 6 AIM-120s below:

 

[totoro]

A question. original f-22 design (not yf-22, right?) had in mind aim120B with its wide fins. Then smaller amraams came. But the design remained unchanged? Or did they redesign the f-22 afterwards to use up the additional real estate (depth of the weapon bay) when amraam C came?

 

[LowObservable]

The C was designed alongside the F-22 bay. It was a complicated trade that ran through Dem/Val and ended in a compromise - no folding surfaces but more compact than the standard weapon.

 

[totoro]

So f-22 bays WERE redesigned and made less deep once it was clear amraam C would come?

 

[TomS]

Not just AIM-120C though. The 1000-lb JDAM is a bit larger across than the AIM-120C "box," so it might actually be the main driving factor in how deep the bay had to be.

 

[flateric]

So f-22 bays WERE redesigned and made less deep once it was clear amraam C would come?

nope

 

[LowObservable]

To be quite specific: by the time the EMD designs were submitted, they were based on the AIM-120C.

 

[Sundog]

Thanks, I hadn't realized it was a feature from the start of EMD.

 

[Steve Pace]

Speaking of EMD, the first EMD F-22A known as Raptor 01, first took wing on September 7, 1997 which is now more than 18 years ago! Hell, the F-22 didn't meet its IOC until December 2005 which was more than eight years after that. I certainly hope its replacement matures faster. -SP

 

[sferrin]

Speaking of EMD, the first EMD F-22A known as Raptor 01, first took wing on September 7, 1997 which is now more than 18 years ago! Hell, the F-22 didn't meet its IOC until December 2005 which was more than eight years after that. I certainly hope its replacement matures faster. -SP

Pretty sure China and Russia will ensure that. If we're paying attention anyway. (Not always a given lately.)

 

[flateric]

Speaking of EMD, the first EMD F-22A known as Raptor 01, first took wing on September 7, 1997 which is now more than 18 years ago! Hell, the F-22 didn't meet its IOC until December 2005 which was more than eight years after that. I certainly hope its replacement matures faster. -SP

F-35 stats says that hopes are rather optimistic. We need more powerpoint mojo.

 

[Airplane]

This mid-80s McDonnell Douglas ATF design, to me, resembles the Northrop 6th gen artwork if the intakes were flipped to the top-side. At one time there was information about this concept that was published, but it was a PIA even locating this pic. In it's more advanced development iteration, the single vertical tail was replaced with dual verticals located on the outboard wing sections. The wind tunnel models didn't look so much like an F-15 in this artist rendering - it was a real beauty.

 

[Sundog]

This mid-80s McDonnell Douglas ATF design, to me, resembles the Northrop 6th gen artwork if the intakes were flipped to the top-side. At one time there was information about this concept that was published, but it was a PIA even locating this pic. In it's more advanced development iteration, the single vertical tail was replaced with dual verticals located on the outboard wing sections. The wind tunnel models didn't look so much like an F-15 in this artist rendering - it was a real beauty.

It's the McDD SF-1302.

 

[bring_it_on]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyFpv9lHsSE

 

[Airplane]

This mid-80s McDonnell Douglas ATF design, to me, resembles the Northrop 6th gen artwork if the intakes were flipped to the top-side. At one time there was information about this concept that was published, but it was a PIA even locating this pic. In it's more advanced development iteration, the single vertical tail was replaced with dual verticals located on the outboard wing sections. The wind tunnel models didn't look so much like an F-15 in this artist rendering - it was a real beauty.

It's the McDD SF-1302.

Wow, thanks. The wind tunnel models were much more "real" than the drawing in your link and not quite as f15 looking in the cockpit section. Also most definitely not powered by f404 engines. McDD definitely morphed that smaller airplane into a larger variant.

 

[sferrin]

Navy Seeking ‘Family of Systems’ to Replace Super Hornets, Growlers; Sheds F/A-XX Title

https://news.usni.org/2016/04/21/navy-seeking-family-of-systems-to-replace-super-hornets-growlers-sheds-fa-xx-title

 

[bobbymike]

Building a Family of Systems


— Will Skowronski

4/22/2016

​JB Langley-Eustis, Va. — Plans to develop the capabilities called for in the Air Superiority 2030 study will be in place this summer, Gen. Herbert J. “Hawk” Carlisle, commander of Air Combat Command, told Air Force Magazine on Thursday. Some capabilities already being developed—including layered aerial networking—will be ready sooner than others, Carlisle said, and will be put to use on legacy systems before a new penetrating, counter-air platform that will derive from the Air Superiority 2030 plan is fielded. Speaking before the audience at the Air Force Association Langley Chapter's Airpower Symposium at JB Langley-Eustis, Va., Carlisle said everything the US military does is predicated on air superiority and the year-long study found penetrating and stand-off capabilities are needed to maintain dominance. Early on in development, he said, planners will consider how to keep the “family of systems” networked across mission space rather just platform to platform. “Think about it,” he said. “F-22, F-35—vacuums of information, greatest airplanes in the world. If we could off-board everything those airplanes know in real-time into [command and control] and the common operating picture, think of the value of that.” Planners, Carlisle said, will also work to rapidly develop the new capabilities. “As we look at our threat out there, and we look at the challenges we’re facing, we’re doing everything in our power to figure out how to attack it and how get better at it, and how to do things differently to affect the battlespace,” he told Air Force Magazine.

 

[NeilChapman]

Would it make sense to separate NGAD from F-X in the forum yet?

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20160426-f35.html

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/04/27/new-focus-air-superiority-must-include-ground-cyber-and-space-assets-official-warns/83561046/

 

[bring_it_on]

Air Force to consider penetrating counterair capabilities as part of 2030 air superiority strategy


The Air Force plans to launch an analysis of alternatives in 2017 to explore penetrating counterair capabilities, according to an unclassified report from the service's "Air Superiority 2030" developmental planning team.

The AOA will focus on identifying the right mix of range, payload, survivability, lethality and affordability for a future PCA capability that would provide key data to a variety of weapon systems as well as perform strike missions, according to the report released May 26. It's unclear whether the capability would be a new platform or a payload that could be hosted on a number of platforms, but the service notes that the analysis will explore options for rapid development.

"Consistent with an agile acquisition mindset designed to deliver the right capability on the required time line, this AOA will include options to leverage rapid development and prototyping in order to keep ahead of the threat," the report states.

The report is the unclassified result of the service's first enterprise capability collaboration team -- a new step in the service's capability development process meant to consider options for addressing future threats and technology gaps. The first ECCT focused on future air superiority, in the 2030 time frame, and briefed top service leadership on the results last week.

As part of the process, the team considered what future threats might look like and reviewed caps in defeating those threats. It then evaluated existing capability analysis and evaluated promising future capabilities, which led to the identification of 1,500 concepts that the team then evaluated. After analyzing those ideas, the team assigned specific strategic objectives to senior leadership who then narrowed those concepts.

The report does not identify specific new technologies, but rather outlines a framework for how the service will evaluate and consider what capabilities it needs to maintain air superiority against future threats. It also advocates for a "family of capabilities" approach rather than one that focuses on a "silver bullet solution," and decries the traditional path to develop next-generation platforms.

"The Air Force must reject thinking focused on 'next-generation' platforms," the report states. "Such effort often creates a desire to push technology limits within the confines of a formal program. Such efforts should be accomplished within the [science and technology] portfolio and proven through effective prototyping, harvesting when mature to a sufficient level for transition."

It continues: "Pushing those limits in a formal program increases risk to unacceptable levels, resulting in cost growth and schedule slips."

The service in its fiscal year 2017 budget sidelined earlier plans to launch a sixth-generation fighter in FY-18 and delayed an AOA until FY-17 in favor of first completing the ECCT process.

Outside of the PCA AOA, the report identifies several other capability-development efforts, including many known programs like the B-21 bomber and the arsenal plane. It also discusses experimentation campaigns to examine data fusion and multi-domain targeting and pushes for advances in electronic warfare, weapons, agile communication and intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities.

 

[NeilChapman]

Air Force to consider penetrating counterair capabilities as part of 2030 air superiority strategy


The Air Force plans to launch an analysis of alternatives in 2017 to explore penetrating counterair capabilities, according to an unclassified report from the service's "Air Superiority 2030" developmental planning team.

The AOA will focus on identifying the right mix of range, payload, survivability, lethality and affordability for a future PCA capability that would provide key data to a variety of weapon systems as well as perform strike missions, according to the report released May 26. It's unclear whether the capability would be a new platform or a payload that could be hosted on a number of platforms, but the service notes that the analysis will explore options for rapid development.

"Consistent with an agile acquisition mindset designed to deliver the right capability on the required time line, this AOA will include options to leverage rapid development and prototyping in order to keep ahead of the threat," the report states.

So basically the B-21 model - TRL6+ - as opposed to the F-35 model. Take mature tech and stick it in a new airframe with the "right mix of range, payload, survivability, lethality and affordability."

AF has requested $285M for the Adaptive Engine Transition Program for 2017. FlightGlobal's James Drew reported "the two American engine manufacturers expect follow-on contracts, each worth up to $1 billion, for the Adaptive Engine Transition Programme (AETP) by mid-year. The AETP demonstration phase runs through budget year 2021, with engine performance and durability tests expected in 2019 and 2020."

The AETP program, as I understand it, is to take engines from both P&W and GE to TRL7+ and get them to the acquisition realm. AETP runs parallel to the Penetrating Counterair (PCA) AoA with the AoA hopefully finishing in 2018/19. Pratt and GE will work alongside the three major aircraft primes to test different concepts.

This is the most hopeful part of the seemingly snail-paced NGAD process. There will be engines available for this PCA solution in the very early 2020's when they're needed.

 

[GeorgeA]

The PCA concept sounds somewhat similar to the USAF pre-ATF studies of the 1970s, which emphasized higher-speed penetration for both offensive counter-air and deep strike. The influence of stealth developments and the perceived priority of air superiority through supermaneuverability changed the requirements substantially, of course, eventually leading to the F-22. One assumes PCA would encompass air vehicles as well as missiles, PEA, comprehensive offboard targeting, and cyber.

This might also explain the sudden expressions of interest in an F-22 production restart. It might be seen as a way to fill the air superiority gap with a few more wings of very capable fighters without either waiting two decades for F-X or trying to add high-end air-to-air capability to a PCA that emphasizes range, speed, and payload. The question of cost-effectiveness and the impact of updating some systems that have gone out of production remains, of course, not to mention finding the money to pay for them.

And yes, it is refreshing to see a proposal that R&D efforts in specific technology areas be separated from programs with production intent. There are too many examples of cost growth (and eventual fleet cuts) that result from bundling multiple R&D efforts into a large-scale acquisition program.

 

[bobbymike]

The PCA concept sounds somewhat similar to the USAF pre-ATF studies of the 1970s, which emphasized higher-speed penetration for both offensive counter-air and deep strike. The influence of stealth developments and the perceived priority of air superiority through supermaneuverability changed the requirements substantially, of course, eventually leading to the F-22. One assumes PCA would encompass air vehicles as well as missiles, PEA, comprehensive offboard targeting, and cyber.

This might also explain the sudden expressions of interest in an F-22 production restart. It might be seen as a way to fill the air superiority gap with a few more wings of very capable fighters without either waiting two decades for F-X or trying to add high-end air-to-air capability to a PCA that emphasizes range, speed, and payload. The question of cost-effectiveness and the impact of updating some systems that have gone out of production remains, of course, not to mention finding the money to pay for them.

And yes, it is refreshing to see a proposal that R&D efforts in specific technology areas be separated from programs with production intent. There are too many examples of cost growth (and eventual fleet cuts) that result from bundling multiple R&D efforts in to a large-scale acquisition program.

The article, for some reason, made me imagine 400+ F-23s and the originally planned 132 B-2s

 

[Airplane]

The PCA concept sounds somewhat similar to the USAF pre-ATF studies of the 1970s, which emphasized higher-speed penetration for both offensive counter-air and deep strike. The influence of stealth developments and the perceived priority of air superiority through supermaneuverability changed the requirements substantially, of course, eventually leading to the F-22. One assumes PCA would encompass air vehicles as well as missiles, PEA, comprehensive offboard targeting, and cyber.

This might also explain the sudden expressions of interest in an F-22 production restart. It might be seen as a way to fill the air superiority gap with a few more wings of very capable fighters without either waiting two decades for F-X or trying to add high-end air-to-air capability to a PCA that emphasizes range, speed, and payload. The question of cost-effectiveness and the impact of updating some systems that have gone out of production remains, of course, not to mention finding the money to pay for them.

And yes, it is refreshing to see a proposal that R&D efforts in specific technology areas be separated from programs with production intent. There are too many examples of cost growth (and eventual fleet cuts) that result from bundling multiple R&D efforts in to a large-scale acquisition program.

The article, for some reason, made me imagine 400+ F-23s and the originally planned 132 B-2s

With an AMRAAM replacement.

 

[NeilChapman]

The PCA concept sounds somewhat similar to the USAF pre-ATF studies of the 1970s, which emphasized higher-speed penetration for both offensive counter-air and deep strike. The influence of stealth developments and the perceived priority of air superiority through supermaneuverability changed the requirements substantially, of course, eventually leading to the F-22. One assumes PCA would encompass air vehicles as well as missiles, PEA, comprehensive offboard targeting, and cyber.

This might also explain the sudden expressions of interest in an F-22 production restart. It might be seen as a way to fill the air superiority gap with a few more wings of very capable fighters without either waiting two decades for F-X or trying to add high-end air-to-air capability to a PCA that emphasizes range, speed, and payload. The question of cost-effectiveness and the impact of updating some systems that have gone out of production remains, of course, not to mention finding the money to pay for them.

And yes, it is refreshing to see a proposal that R&D efforts in specific technology areas be separated from programs with production intent. There are too many examples of cost growth (and eventual fleet cuts) that result from bundling multiple R&D efforts into a large-scale acquisition program.

I agree that F-22 restart rumblings are probably related as you state. Congress is spooked. Makes you wonder what they know.

I'm just not convinced that we're in the "two decade" mode anymore - for several reasons.

1. Lessons were learned w/F-35. No one wants to go down the rathole of "too much development" again. It's just too risky. B-21 is really the 1st iteration of how acquisition in the "new mode" can work. They basically say as much in the "2030" plan.

2. Quantum leaps in computing power, software, rapid prototyping using 3D printing tools and multi-axis robots has fundamentally transformed how quickly ideas can be moved from design to production.

3. NG, for example, has created a manufacturing line for F-35 center fuselage which has dramatically cut production times. Supposedly they're planning to use the same line to build a 2nd airframe should the opportunity arise.

NG built and flew the YF-23 in 48 months - in 1990. B-21 IOC is expected 10 years from contract award - and that will be hardened for nuclear capabilities.

It's conceivable, if engines are ready, that a new airframe, using COTS tech, can achieve IOC in 10 years. The testing and working out the kinks is the bitch.

Perhaps this is why F-22 is being discussed. Congress wants to know if F-22 restart would be faster, cheaper, better than NGAD in 10 years. I don't think anyone believes that an F-22 restart would be faster, cheaper, better than NGAD in 10 years. Everything has moved on - EWS, RAM, engine tech, sensor fusion, etc, etc. They just want the political cover of someone else saying it would be a mistake. My guess is that's why they want the report so quickly so a decision can be made as soon as the AoA is finished. We shall see!

In the mean time, I need a new airframe to drool over. If someone with Scaled will grant me an audience to see the T-X design I'd be much obliged. Don't think this is all one sided though. I'm willing to share some very good bourbon and sticks as we sit on the ramp, admire her lines and discuss the expected performance! Have booze, will travel. ;D

 

[NeilChapman]

The article, for some reason, made me imagine 400+ F-23s and the originally planned 132 B-2s

You're cruel!

Gawd I love watching the video of the F-23's flying. What a beautiful machine.

 

[bobbymike]

The article, for some reason, made me imagine 400+ F-23s and the originally planned 132 B-2s

You're cruel!

Gawd I love watching the video of the F-23's flying. What a beautiful machine.

My imaginary USAF

 

[bobbymike]

DARPA Keeps CODEing

6/7/2016

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency awarded Lockheed Martin and Raytheon contracts to continue their work on the Collaborative Operations in Denied Environment program. The goal of CODE is to enable a single pilot to command a team of unmanned aircraft systems while they perform complex missions, including target search, identification, and engagement through the use of collaborative autonomy, according to a DARPA release. Lockheed will receive $7.4 million to perform its work on phase II of the program, which will focus on maturing the algorithm suite required to enable new services, according to a Pentagon release. The total investment in the program thus far will be $11.7 million. DARPA also plans to conduct live flight tests with two actual and several virtual aircraft during the program’s second phase, according to its release. The “potential value of collaborative autonomy among UASs at the tactical edge” was demonstrated During Phase 1, program manager Jean-Charles Ledé said, according to the release. A video of an interface test is available here. The Air Force plans to use autonomous small UASs to reduce the number of pilots it needs, but leave decision making for airstrikes up to the human controllers.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1676085-air-force-envisions-future-fighter-jet-2030

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navys-plan-dominate-the-sky-the-2030s-beyond-16479

 

[NeilChapman]

If the current AoA results in a new air superiority airframe I'd like to understand the potential for quickly bringing it to IOC.

It seems that the US has made great strides in digital design, prototyping & manufacturing techniques. Is there anyone that can shed some light on the newer techniques or systems for the initial flight testing and verification processes? The F-35A is going to end up being 11 years. Surely steps can be taken or modified processes can be used to drastically cut that time.

I'd even consider it beneficial to build an airframe with existing F135 engines if it's possible to, perhaps, lot upgrade to new ADVENT tech once it's matured.

 

[bring_it_on]

Air Force weighing whether to scrap 'next-gen' label from fledgling F-22A follow-on project


The Air Force may re-brand its fledgling sixth-generation fighter development program as a "penetrating counterair" capability, a new moniker that eschews the implied promise of leap-ahead technological advancement in the current project's formal name -- Next-Generation Air Dominance -- but retains focus on identifying how to prevail against anticipated threats in the 2030s.

The service's new blueprint for how it plans to ensure air superiority, published May 26, makes no explicit reference to the project it launched two years ago to figure out a follow-on capability to the F-22A, the Next-Generation Air Dominance research and development project.

Instead, the document -- "Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan," written by a team commissioned by the Air Force chief of staff in early 2015 -- identifies a "penetrating counterair" capability the service will explore as part of an Analysis of Alternatives it is seeking funding for in its fiscal year 2017 budget request under the Next-Generation Air Dominance project, according to a service spokeswoman.

"While the Air Force may change the name of the Next-Generation Air Dominance Analysis of Alternatives to de-emphasize 'next-gen' thinking, the Air Force must explore platform, sensor and weapon combinations that optimize operational range, payload, survivability, and affordability, including experimentation on concepts like arsenal planes, loyal wingmen, and others," Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said.

"As part of this effort, the Air Force will proceed with a formal Analysis of Alternatives for an offensive counterair capability in 2017," she added. "Consistent with the agile acquisition mindset designed to deliver capability sooner, our focus is less on generational leaps and more on options to leverage rapid development and prototyping in order to keep ahead of the threat."

The service's FY-17 budget request seeks $20.5 million for the Next-Generation Air Dominance project, building on $27 million in prior funding.

The new Air Force blueprint, prepared by a wide-range of service experts convened to bring a holistic perspective to the air superiority requirement, concluded the service "must reject thinking focused on 'next-generation' platforms" because such focus can create "a desire to push technology limits with the confines of a formal program." Such objectives drive risk and can lead to cost growth and schedule delays.

As an alternative, the document advocates leveraging experimentation and prototyping "to more rapidly infuse advanced technologies into the force," an acquisition approach Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work has encouraged as part of his campaign to orchestrate a hunt for a so-called Third Offset Strategy that would identify new capabilities to bolster conventional deterrence.

 

[NeilChapman]

Development may be further along than we've realized...

 

[thefrecklepuny]

And don't tell me, the Russians have Tie Fighters under development (MiG), The Europeans have prototype Battlestar Gallactica Vipers and the Chinese have Captain Scarlet Angel Interceptors on the drawing board. ;D