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

[Dragon029]

Perhaps they could look at air-launched SM-6's that ditch the booster motor.

 

[marauder2048]

Given that IRSTs will be able to detect missile launch, I'd expect that the USAF would need a missile with a range > 150 - 200nm. It'd definitely have to be longer range than the PL-15 or R-37.

The FB-21 missileer scheme really resembles that Stillion CSBA proposal (posted up-thread) which coincidentally called for a missile with a 170 nm range. But as you point out, Stillion didn't really explore passive ranging MLDs which could in turn facilitate a sufficiently large Red return volley that might have to be defeated kinetically i.e. MSDM/KICM.

 

[Moose]

Perhaps they could look at air-launched SM-6's that ditch the booster motor.

Too big, the AF wants new missiles to either increase performance in roughly the same size airframe or keep the performance of AMRAAM while shrinking the weapon. Sure B-21 can likely handle larger weapons, but then you're either shorting the fighters or you're paying for the Air-Launch SM-6 and an AMRAAM replacement.

 

[bring_it_on]

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

Excerpts from an AvWeek article

ACC vice commander Maj. Gen. Jerry Harris adds in written testimony presented to a special congressional hearing at the National Museum of the Air Force in Dayton, Ohio, on June 18 that “aircraft payloads and deeper magazines will be a driving requirement for our next-generation aircraft.”...

Carlisle rejected any suggestion that PCA will be automatically based on the Raptor and handed to Lockheed, suggesting instead that it will be a competitive tender based on “agile acquisition” practices. Aircraft might be delivered in incremental lots of 50-100 airframes, with each lot building upon the next.

“I don’t think it’s a giveaway to anybody. I really don’t,” he told reporters after the hearing. “We’re going to engage all of industry and we’re going to look at what it takes to develop them.”

..

“PCA, we believe, is an airframe that has broad-spectrum stealth, that has long range and long endurance and we’re talking about technologies from the outer mold line to the engines to the suppression of infrared, to everything else you can think of to give it that broad-spectrum stealth and penetrate and deliver weapons on its own or be the sensor suite that brings weapons in from standoff,” Carlisle says.

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-sixth-generation-f-xx-fighter-just-super-super-17128

 

[Airplane]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-sixth-generation-f-xx-fighter-just-super-super-17128

Maybe they want a side order of Corsairs to go with those Hornets?

 

[kaiserd]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-sixth-generation-f-xx-fighter-just-super-super-17128

The US Navy does seem very prone to "I want what I already have, but only slightly better" and for too many pilots being too partisan about their own aircraft and pro a particular manufacturer.
Examples like nearly buying the A-6F come to mind, there's a limit to how much you can warm up an existing design before it gets potentialy embarrassing (and ultimately deadly for the pilots that will have to fly & fight in them).
As a pure airframe the Super Hornet's was always somewhat marginal (inferior transonic/ supersonic performance than a classic Hornet), radical surgery to further reduce radar cross section and other "stealth" features, and to start addressing these performance issues won't be straight forward or cheap.
US Navy could easily end up a pricier duplicate of the F-35; only Boeing wins.

 

[sferrin]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-sixth-generation-f-xx-fighter-just-super-super-17128

"The United States Navy does not appear to have a coherent plan for how its carrier-based tactical aircraft"

Sounds like business as usual at the USN. (Since the 80s anyway.)

 

[DrRansom]

Here's a problem for the USN, do they design the carrier air-wing for high intensity battles, where the carrier can only do about 24 hours of sorties, with half the wing pulling carrier air defense duties. Or, is the air-wing designed for sustained combat operations.

In the former case, only half the aircraft really need to be stealthy, the bombers. The air defends fighters need long range, big radars, and big missiles. In the latter case, everything should be stealthy because the carrier needs to put the entire air-wing into hostile airspace to keep up sortie numbers.

Really, the solution is a super-long range UAV for strike, replicating A-5/6 capability, plus a heavy fighter for air defense, and a multirole for air defense / attack. Where have we seen that before?

 

[marauder2048]

Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, Redondo Beach, California, has been awarded a $39,339,172 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for Self-Protect High Energy Laser Demonstrator (SHiELD) Turret Research in Aero-Effects (STRAFE) program. Contractor will develop and deliver an advanced beam control system for integration as part of a complete laser weapons system into a tactical pod on an Air Force fighter aircraft. STRAFE will increase the knowledge and understanding of aero-optic disturbances in a supersonic environment by collecting data during engagement scenarios. Work will be performed at Redondo Beach, California; and Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, and is expected to be complete by Aug. 31, 2021. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition with three offers received. Fiscal 2016 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $9,230,916 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Research Laboratory, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, is the contracting activity (FA9451-16-C-0007).

 

[bring_it_on]

Air Boss: Unmanned tanker performance will help inform next-gen fighter

The lessons the Navy garners from bringing the unmanned tanker to the carrier air wing should help the service inform the way ahead on a next-generation fighter to eventually replace its tactical aircraft, according to the head of naval aviation.

Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker, the chief of naval air forces, said he hasn't been intimately involved in the Navy's F/A-XX Next-Generation Air Dominance Analysis, an ongoing effort to analyze potential replacements for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and E/A-18G Growlers when they retire in the 2030s. But he indicated the MQ-25A unmanned tanker -- slated to be the Navy's first unmanned aircraft in the carrier air wing -- will help shape F/A-XX requirements.

"When you talk about whether that future platform will be manned or unmanned, the value of bringing unmanned to the air wing, to the ship, to the carrier environment, quickly and learning from that is key, because I think that will help inform the future for that next-generation air dominance," Shoemaker said during an Aug. 18 think-tank event in Washington.

"We'll build on obviously F-35, all the attributes that that brings, plus I think what we learn from the manned-unmanned teaming with MQ-25," he added.

Last March, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter should be the last manned fighter the service ever buys.

"As good as it is, and as much as we need it and look forward to having it in the fleet for many years, the F-35 should be, and almost certainly will be, the last manned strike fighter aircraft the Department of Navy will ever buy or fly," Mabus said April 15, 2015, in his prepared remarks for the Navy League's annual exposition in National Harbor, MD.

In its fiscal year 2017 budget request, the Navy dialed back its plans for F/A-XX, Inside Defense has previously reported. The Navy was expected to complete its requirements documents in early 2014, but the FY-17 budget request indicates the requirement for a follow-on capability to the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G is not complete.

Instead, the request seeks just $1.2 million to "continue an [analysis of alternatives] to establish cost and capability trade spaces described by the capability requirements . . . in the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Initial Capabilities Document and the signed NGAD Study Plan."

The Air Force, meanwhile, is requesting $20 million in advanced component development and prototype funding for its Next Generation Air Dominance project in FY-17. Rather than seeking a material development decision for the next-generation fighter by the end of FY-16, as the service had indicated in previous budget plans, the Air Force's FY-17 request outlines plans to update senior policymakers with an annual presentation of "strategic planning choices."

Asked whether the Navy will collaborate with the Air Force on their respective next-generation fighter projects at the Aug. 18 event, Shoemaker said he didn't know. But he pointed to "growing pains" with the joint F-35 program, which began with largely common aircraft but has since "devolved into three different platforms," Shoemaker added.

"There's benefits of doing that and probably when we can partner with the Air Force, we certainly will," he said. "When we've got to look at unique capabilities for the carrier environment as a replacement for our eventual Super Hornets, we need to make sure we're considering that as well."

 

[NeilChapman]

Next Generation Jammer is supposed to IOC in 2021. Will this tech be mature enough to be incorporated into the PCA platform?

 

[bring_it_on]

Why would you want to do that specifically? There are plenty of other R&D efforts aimed at feeding other tactical aircraft and focused at EW, you'd hardly require integrating a stand-off jammer into a penetrating aircraft.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/311798433/Next-Leap-Ew?secret_password=rzgUVEc4Pyi2BVRys5kx

Regardless, the Tech maturity (as measured in TRL) is already quite advanced on the NGJ (Its been prototyped and is in EMD phase) and is significantly more advanced than many other technology that are likely to find their way into the platform.

 

[bring_it_on]

Electro-Optical Combined Hyperspectral Imaging, Infrared Search and Track, and Long Range Imaging R&D (EO-CHIL)

The objective of this contract is to conduct Research and Development to advance and mature the Air Force Research Laboratory's (AFRL) portfolio of electro-optical sensors and related technology for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), targeting and situation awareness for manned, remotely piloted, and autonomous aircraft

 

[NeilChapman]

Why would you want to do that specifically? There are plenty of other R&D efforts aimed at feeding other tactical aircraft and focused at EW, you'd hardly require integrating a stand-off jammer into a penetrating aircraft.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/311798433/Next-Leap-Ew?secret_password=rzgUVEc4Pyi2BVRys5kx

Regardless, the Tech maturity (as measured in TRL) is already quite advanced on the NGJ (Its been prototyped and is in EMD phase) and is significantly more advanced than many other technology that are likely to find their way into the platform.

Why specifically...

If PCA is going in w/B-21's or B-2's then it's an opportunity to identify, target and destroy A2/AD installations.

The new engines will also have plenty of power for the electronics.

You will probably be able to handle the job w/1 pilot.

The system-of-systems will allow the PCA to transmit located targets to sea or other air platforms.

...

 

[bring_it_on]

How does any of that require NGJ level capability which for all intents and purposes is designed around providing stand off (among others) EA for the joint forces? B

 

[NeilChapman]

How does any of that require NGJ level capability which for all intents and purposes is designed around providing stand off (among others) EA for the joint forces? B

Perhaps that's not the only mission.

 

[bring_it_on]

None of the other capabilities are however unique to it or don't have an AF program already developing it both at a similar TRL but also at a much higher (longer term) level. For those missions where you have Cyber and Electronic Warfare you already have the AF investing heavily in that. It will be the Navy that would be interested in getting the NGJ to somehow integrate with a NG platform that eventually replaces the Rhino. Northrop and BaE have been constantly working on AF R&D with multiple platforms and have been fielding CEW capability on manned and unmanned assets.

 

[bring_it_on]

Air Force Prepares to Hash Out Future Fighter Requirements

WASHINGTON — After undergoing a yearlong effort that explored the tactics and technologies needed to control the skies in the future, the Air Force is taking its first steps toward making its next fighter jet a reality.

The service has already begun preliminary work ahead of a 2017 analysis of alternatives that will shape the requirements and acquisition strategy for the F-35 follow on, which the Air Force been termed Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) or Penetrating Counter Air (PCA).

But Brig. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, who led the Air Superiority 2030 enterprise capability collaboration team (ECCT), emphasized that there are two major differences between the NGAD effort and its that of legacy fighter jets. The first is the relatively rapid method of acquiring it.

“We need to have something by the late 2020s,” he said in an interview with Defense News. “I think a realistic timeline is somewhere around 2028 with key investments in some key technology areas, you’d be able to have some initial operational capability of a penetrating counter air capability.”

The second difference relates to the recently concluded Air Superiority 2030 study, which made the case that the Air Force’s future dominance will rest not on a single platform, such as a sixth generation fighter jet, but on an integrated, networked family of systems. That combination of penetrating and stand-off capabilities includes a fighter plane, but also a number of space, cyber and electronic warfare assets.

What that means is that the fighter jet of the future might look more like a sensor node than the dogfighters of the past, Grynkewich said. The service currently is conducting pre-AOA work at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, to explore emerging technologies and hammer out potential NGAD requirements.

“They’re looking at all of the tradespace of the various attributes,” including lethality, survivability, range and payload, he said.

That team is also evaluating how the service can meet its requirements as quickly as possible. The Air Superiority 2030 ECCT found that the Air Force wouldn’t be able to field an exquisite sixth-generation fighter through the normal procurement process any faster than 2040. By using rapid acquisition processes and parallel development, Grynkewich hopes to field an initial capability about a decade earlier. Parallel development — where technologies such as an advanced engine, sensors and weapons progress on separate paths and later integrated into the fighter jet — will likely be key to the effort, he said. Once technologies are matured in the early stages of the program, the service could then use modeling and simulation to test whether those systems will generate the desired effects.

Integrating the various systems into the larger platform would be the most difficult and risky aspect of the process, but that risk can be minimized by prototyping, Grynkewich said.

“I would make them operationally realistic, relevant prototypes. 'Fieldable' prototypes is the term I would like to use. Whether we go there or not will be another tradespace discussion,” he said. “You get it as mature as you can. You get these prototypes, you fly them around for a while. You do some testing on them.

“If you do something like that, if you don't change your requirements, if you don't set your sights on technologies that you know aren't going to mature on the timeline required,” he said, “then you'll be in decent shape."

Penetrating Counter Air

The Air Force is trying to flush the words “sixth generation fighter” from its lexicon, Grynkewich said. Even the service’s initial terminology for an F-35 follow on — Next Generation Air Dominance — is being eschewed in favor of the label “Penetrating Counter Air.”

“You start to have an argument over what does 'sixth gen' mean. Does it have laser beams, is it hypersonic? What is it? What does it look like? That’s not a useful conversation,” he explained. “The more useful conversation is, what are the key attributes we need in order to gain and maintain air superiority in 2030?”

The Air Force is looking at incorporating sophisticated, cutting edge technologies like directed energy in the initial version of Penetrating Counter Air (PCA) or a future block upgrade. But ultimately, the service does not want to hold up the program so that a particular sensor or weapon can mature.

The outcome may not turn out to resemble a traditional fighter jet, Grynkewich said.

“I’ve gotten into a little hot water with my fighter pilot brethren over this, because I say things like, ‘Hey, it may not necessarily be a fighter,’” he said, adding that the aircraft will likely still receive the “F” designation reserved for fighter jets. “A typical fighter pilot for air superiority would say you need 9Gs, two tails, a gun, short range. That’s what fighters are. This is something that’s a little bit different and has some different attributes in my mind.”
Requirements are not set in stone and could change during the AOA process, but Grynkewich believes that range and payload will be two of the most important attributes of the aircraft. NGAD, like other fighter jets, will need to be able to penetrate enemy air defenses and enter contested spaces, but it will also need to be able to operate at greater distances than current platforms, he said.

“And then, what’s the maneuverability, what’s the acceleration, what’s the top speed? There’s a whole host of attributes in the trade space to be explored,” he said. “How exactly they play off each other and do we need something that can dogfight in the classical sense? I’m a little skeptical that’s where the tradespace will lead us.”

The Air Force is off to a good start, but still has much work to do in terms of establishing what performance variables will take priority, said Mark Gunzinger, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Like Grynkewich, Gunzinger mentioned payload and range as two key characteristics of the aircraft.

“When you consider the kinds of geography that our future fighter aircraft may have to operate in, such as the Western Pacific, overcoming that tyranny of distance means that we probably will need combat aircraft for longer ranges,” he said. A larger payload would also be vital in such scenarios because the jet will likely have to stay in the area of engagement for longer durations and have enough weapons capability to make an impact on enemy assets.

Both of those factors must also be weighed against the affordability of the aircraft and the speed to delivery.

“It won’t help if you come up with a perfect solution but it is so expensive we can’t afford to buy enough of them,” Gunzinger said. “The Air Force needs to start buying new jets as swiftly as it can, and a future Penetrating Counter Air aircraft, a future fighter that isn’t going to deliver until the mid 2030s, isn’t going to help now. So that’s why I think something that can be delivered sooner than the 2030s and certainly is affordable is a very important factor.”

Experimentation Efforts

In May, the Air Superiority 2030 enterprise capability collaboration team released classified and unclassified flight plans that detail desired technologies, their predicted funding requirements and potential concepts of operation. Although the ECCT stood down after former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh signed off on its findings in May, officials charged with executing portions of the flight plan will continue to brief the Air Force secretary and top generals on their progress, Grynkewich said.

The study spawned a number of experimentation efforts that could help inform future programs or concepts of operations. The first of those, Data to Decision, kicked off this spring and will run anywhere from three to five years, depending on its success, he said. The campaign will evaluate how the Air Force intakes data from its various sensors and communications devices, processes that information, analyzes it and shares it in order to better inform real time operations.

“We want to put that data into a cloud-like architecture,” he said. “Then you have this application layer on top of that, and that layer is where I can build an app, just like I would for my iPhone. But now it’s in my F-22, where I go, ‘I need targeting information,’ and that app goes into the cloud, pulls the relevant information forward and off we go.” The first stages of the effort will be conducted through modeling and simulation, he said. “As you move forward, there will invariably be some opportunities to actually fly sensors, look at data links, look at communication links and see how they can network that family of capabilities together.”

The second experimentation campaign, called Defeat Agile and Intelligent targets, will start in the next several months. During that effort, the Air Force will evaluate how it can use its inventory to take out highly maneuverable and lethal targets.

“I suspect, as they identify difficult targets that are part of an integrated air defense system, they’ll do some modeling and sim,” he said. Live events may also be on the table, if funding permits.

If capability gaps are found through either experimentation campaign, that could inform future requirements for its next fighter or other technologies listed in the Air Superiority 2030 flight plan, he said.

 

[bobbymike]

My favorite paragraph:

“You start to have an argument over what does 'sixth gen' mean. Does it have laser beams, is it hypersonic? What is it? What does it look like? That’s not a useful conversation,” he explained. “The more useful conversation is, what are the key attributes we need in order to gain and maintain air superiority in 2030?”

General Grynkewich, "No more 6th Generation, laser, hypersonic talk the question is what key attributes the system should have....."
"Lasers, hypersonic?"
"That's better"

 

[Airplane]

Penetrating counterair. By the time gen 6 is flying there will be ground based laser threats dotting across the battlespace. Its one thing to dodge a missile or to have laser jammmers on board to deal with missile threats. Its one thing to have dedicated DEAD assets disabling SAM sites while other assets go on to attack command and control, but when the threat is a popup laser that no one knows is there until after it has downed several aircraft, "penetrating" evaporates. Perhaps it should be called standoff counterair? Standoff out of range of the indigenous laser threats and use a new breed of long range AAM to attack aerial threats while over their own homeland. Better yet, bring back the shuttered deathstar. Missiles can fail, can be jammed, can be evaded, but a beam of light is instant death. Penetrating counterair is a myth, is a throwback to the current threats of today that the ATF was designed to defeat.

 

[sferrin]

Penetrating counterair. By the time gen 6 is flying there will be ground based laser threats dotting across the battlespace. Its one thing to dodge a missile or to have laser jammmers on board to deal with missile threats. Its one thing to have dedicated DEAD assets disabling SAM sites while other assets go on to attack command and control, but when the threat is a popup laser that no one knows is there until after it has downed several aircraft, "penetrating" evaporates. Perhaps it should be called standoff counterair? Standoff out of range of the indigenous laser threats and use a new breed of long range AAM to attack aerial threats while over their own homeland. Better yet, bring back the shuttered deathstar. Missiles can fail, can be jammed, can be evaded, but a beam of light is instant death. Penetrating counterair is a myth, is a throwback to the current threats of today that the ATF was designed to defeat.

With lasers, stealth becomes even more important. Even with a laser you still can't hit what you can't see.

 

[bring_it_on]

Advances in stealth, range expected under NGAD

The Pentagon's next-generation air dominance (NGAD) effort to develop follow-on technologies to the US Air Force's (USAF's) and US Navy's (USN's) Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter and the USN's Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet is taking shape and will include improvements to low-observable capability and aircraft range, according to the service's top scientific research and technology official.The USAF in May released its "Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan" announcing that it would rapidly develop a programme that mates cyber warfare, electronic warfare, and even space capabilities to advance the state of the art in air-to-air and air-to-ground warfare. While the new programme is expected to harness disparate capabilities, NGAD is defined by improvements in two key areas - stealth and range - according to USAF chief scientist Greg Zacharias.

"I think stealth is a key issue at more frequencies than we have it now," Zacharias told IHS Jane's on 19 August. "And I think range is the other one." He added that one means of achieving greater range could be the development of penetrating aerial refuelling capability. "If I can get a tanker to fuel closer into an [anti-access/area denial] A2/AD environment, it might be more important to get the tanker protected" from advanced air defence systems, he said. "If you can get a tanker closer in, you don't need as much range on the aircraft. I think strategists are looking at a more holistic solution. Maybe I don't need a fighter with big tanks on it, maybe I need tanker."

The description bears a striking resemblance to the USN's about-face on its Unmanned Carrier-Launched Aerial Surveillance and Strike system. The successor to that effort, known as the MQ-25A Stingray, will be an unmanned carrier-based tanker aircraft. The navy, however, has insisted that its new aircraft will not be a low-observable platform.

Zacharias added that some type of "cyber attack" capability could also be developed to improve ability to penetrate integrated air defences. "The word 'enterprise' is a major shift in thinking on these things," he added. "It's not platform-centric. It's about putting enough sensors on board and enough [communications capability]." He added that NGAD is addressed "in terms of distributed transmit-and-receive and possibly even using passive signals [in order to] put the burden of detecting and tracking on the computational side rather than on the sensor-receiver side."

The USAF expects to conduct an analysis of alternatives for NGAD in 2017, so programme development is likely to proceed at a rapid pace. Although the USAF's 'flight plan' cites a 2030 fielding goal, senior USAF officials have said that time line could be abbreviated.

While advanced propulsion is not the centerpiece of the new system, according to Zacharias, the Pentagon's Adaptive Engine Technology Program to field a new variable-cycle engine that will be 35% more fuel-efficient than legacy jet engines remains important. In fact, the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) is making yet another push on basic research for the effort, despite already having passed off its earlier work to Pratt & Whitney and General Electric aviation, the two contractors working under billion-dollar development contracts awarded in May. "AFRL is still pushing forward its [science and technology] programme on… things like better thermal management and operation at higher mach numbers," he said.

COMMENT

Advanced propulsion can improve on legacy combat aircraft in two ways: by increasing range and by powering more onboard systems. So it can also be seen as a critical element of the new design.

 

[Ogami musashi]

Am i the only one that has noticed that the NGAD is now referenced as the follow on to F-35 and not F-22??

 

[sferrin]

Am i the only one that has noticed that the NGAD is now referenced as the follow on to F-35 and not F-22??

No doubt because the F-35 is just a baby seal in the air. :

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/208489/vicious-cycle-f-35a-continues-5th-gen-tradition-bullying-legacy-aircraft

 

[Airplane]

Am i the only one that has noticed that the NGAD is now referenced as the follow on to F-35 and not F-22??

Because if it's a follow on to the F-22, then by default it's a silver bullet force of ~200 airframes. They have to frame it in the F-35 to get real numbers. Had the F-22 actually been bought in significant quantities, they would not be referencing to the F-35.

It has nothing to do with capability and everything to do with Washington politics.

 

[bring_it_on]

It went from F-22 replacement --> 'what comes after the F-35' (Frank Kendall) --> F-35 follow on ..

 

[NeilChapman]

Advances in stealth, range expected under NGAD

1. The navy, however, has insisted that its new aircraft will not be a low-observable platform.


2. Zacharias added that some type of "cyber attack" capability could also be developed to improve ability to penetrate integrated air defences. "The word 'enterprise' is a major shift in thinking on these things," he added. "It's not platform-centric. It's about putting enough sensors on board and enough [communications capability]." He added that NGAD is addressed "in terms of distributed transmit-and-receive and possibly even using passive signals [in order to] put the burden of detecting and tracking on the computational side rather than on the sensor-receiver side."

3. The USAF expects to conduct an analysis of alternatives for NGAD in 2017, so programme development is likely to proceed at a rapid pace. Although the USAF's 'flight plan' cites a 2030 fielding goal, senior USAF officials have said that time line could be abbreviated.

4. While advanced propulsion is not the centerpiece of the new system, according to Zacharias, the Pentagon's Adaptive Engine Technology Program to field a new variable-cycle engine that will be 35% more fuel-efficient than legacy jet engines remains important. In fact, the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) is making yet another push on basic research for the effort, despite already having passed off its earlier work to Pratt & Whitney and General Electric aviation, the two contractors working under billion-dollar development contracts awarded in May. "AFRL is still pushing forward its [science and technology] programme on… things like better thermal management and operation at higher mach numbers," he said.

1. Actually the Navy has stated that they'd be willing to take advantage of LO shapes. Sounds like stealth is a 'nice to have' - for the right price.

2. Is this incorporating some of the NGJ capabilities - or components, without the compute portion?

3. 2025-2028?

4. This is new to me. Didn't know AFRL was working on this piece. IIRC, the commercial engine work is to be done in 2021? Is this AFRL's bailiwick or a separation of duties to get everything done quicker - or both?

---

Is NGAD and PCA being used interchangeably here?

 

[bring_it_on]

2. Is this incorporating some of the NGJ capabilities - or components, without the compute portion?

For the USAF, they already have programs and capability in operation that fields cyber capability and they are in the works for the F-35. I don't see why they need to pipe into the NGJ program and not simply continue their own efforts in Cyber and EW that would be more suited for such a platform.

4. This is new to me. Didn't know AFRL was working on this piece. IIRC, the commercial engine work is to be done in 2021? Is this AFRL's bailiwick or a separation of duties to get everything done quicker - or both?

Its been documented here. Follow on to the VAATE is in the works, and there is AFRL's INVENT for thermal and other SwAP related activities.

Is NGAD and PCA being used interchangeably here?

YES

 

[marauder2048]

4. This is new to me. Didn't know AFRL was working on this piece. IIRC, the commercial engine work is to be done in 2021? Is this AFRL's bailiwick or a separation of duties to get everything done quicker - or both?

While the third stream is described as "cool" it's probably better described as relatively cool; It's still pretty warm (see below). So AFRL has been sponsoring efforts looking at unconventional thermal management systems.

This AFRL sponsored thesis describes (and there are associated AIAA papers behind paywalls) the use of cryogenically cooled LNG as a heat sink for a variety of vehicle systems including a 150kW laser.

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=wright1462460693&disposition=inlin

 

[sferrin]

Its been documented here. Follow on to the VAATE is in the works, and there is AFRL's INVENT for thermal and other SwAP related activities.

The latest in the alphabet-soup of engine programs seems to be ATTAM.

"The evolution to a broader-based research effort with ATTAM follows the trajectory established when VAATE took over in 2005 from the first such national propulsion program, called Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET). Launched in 1987, IHPTET for the first time gathered together government-supported research into turbine engine technologies aimed at doubling power-to-weight ratio. The effort, which was focused on “flange-to-flange” engine performance improvement, led to technology that was incorporated into the F119 and F135 engines used in the F-22 and F-35, respectively."

I had no idea IHPTET and VAATE were so old.

 

[Airplane]

It went from F-22 replacement --> 'what comes after the F-35' (Frank Kendall) --> F-35 follow on ..

The problem with that argument is that there won't be a follow on to the F-35 for another 30 years. Ol' stubby is gonna be in production for the next 30 years. If Gen 6 comes circa 2030 it's a 22 replacement. Unless they are secretly replacing stubby circa 2030 then it's replacing what's left of the 22s and 15s. I really hope it's not going to take until 2045 for a new 'fighter', which is about when the 35s will be phased out.

The follow on to the 35 in 2045 will probably have a variable cycle Tesla turbine for atmospheric flight, and heavy ion thrusters for outside atmospheric "flight". B)

 

[bring_it_on]

Any F-22 'replacement' would naturally have to replace the F-22 which is good till well into the 2040's if not beyond. Even the F-15's are going to be hanging around till the late 2030's. It may not replace anything at all and may just be a complementary capability.

 

[NeilChapman]

Am i the only one that has noticed that the NGAD is now referenced as the follow on to F-35 and not F-22??

Perhaps as it relates to technology, not mission/performance.

The F-22 is a 30 year old design. If you wanted IoC for a new PCA/NGAD airframe in 2028 it would have tech maturity much more similar to the F-35 than the F-22.

 

[bobbymike]

Thinking on these timelines (2028) and recall up the thread the NGAD/PCA speculated as possibly just a 'Super' F-35 leads me to surmise;

1) A larger (than F-35) advanced single engine (50k lb thrust class), with improved stealth, significantly longer range, a deeper magazine and possibly offensive EW and defensive DEW?

 

[bobbymike]

http://warontherocks.com/2016/08/the-looming-air-superiority-train-wreck/

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

Thinking on these timelines (2028) and recall up the thread the NGAD/PCA speculated as possibly just a 'Super' F-35 leads me to surmise;

1) A larger (than F-35) advanced single engine (50k lb thrust class), with improved stealth, significantly longer range, a deeper magazine and possibly offensive EW and defensive DEW?

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=26740&start=180

Could be on the way, in a "new-generation" F-16XL sort of form.

As for NGAD, these extra functions that are being expected in 6th gen like electronic attack and UCAV control are likely going to require a second crew member. In a way, I'm expecting the rise of "AWACS fighters" that are fully decked out in sensors and communications systems. Ideally they would hang back and direct the battle but they would essentially be an F-22, F/A-18E, and E-2 rolled into one very potent package.

 

[sferrin]

http://warontherocks.com/2016/08/the-looming-air-superiority-train-wreck/

If only somebody would have warned us about this train wreck back in the 90s. Oh wait, everybody did. Nobody listened.

 

[marauder2048]

http://warontherocks.com/2016/08/the-looming-air-superiority-train-wreck/

Meh. You could just as easily read the AF's 2030 paper as a call for increasing the F-35 buy rate (a constant refrain from the uniformed leadership)
so that the projected force structure in 2030 looks different.

But being a presidential election year, the AF is being deliberately vague, evasive and non-committal. And I tend to think they released that study, in part, to avoid a
Johnny Greenert scenario where the AF Chief of Staff is forced to resign for lacking (as Congress sees it) strategic vision.

 

[Airplane]

http://warontherocks.com/2016/08/the-looming-air-superiority-train-wreck/

If only somebody would have warned us about this train wreck back in the 90s. Oh wait, everybody did. Nobody listened.

After GWI the argument in the 90s was "no more aluminum airplanes" so production ceased and advanced 15s, 16s, and 14s never happened. Then it became "these composite planes aren't needed anymore; no threats out there." So no B2 and F22 except for a token 'throw a contractor a bone production run.' That's how you take down the world's mightiest air power. The final death knell will be if gen 6 is a revised F35.