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

bring_it_on said:
the way the UCLASS was handled

I´m still having a hard time accepting they turned that one into a non-VLO tanker.

bring_it_on said:
At this moment they have requested exactly ZERO dollars for a new fighter in their FY18 request.

Okay, I don´t follow the US military´s financials that much.
Budget allowing, I hope they´ll change their mind/strategy once J-20s are operational in numbers...
 
Hood said:
It might be supersonic or a super-cruiser but if its not a fighter and is a flying internet server then it doesn't need to be supersonic. I don't see PCA as being a mother-ship flying alongside its F-22s or F-35s, but something a little way back, basically a stealthy and pervasive mini-AWACS able to defend itself and cue others in.
I'm not so sure PCA is going to be a direct F-22 replacement or some kind of two-seat fighter/SEAD platform, such an aircraft might well form part of PCA later but PCA is a wider concept.

This is interesting. By "wider concept" are you referring to your previous paragraph describing a weaponized "pervasive mini-AWACS" or are you eluding to other capabilities?

If this is the case then PCA may only need supersonic speeds if required as part of the weapons employment tactics. Loiter time might be weighted heavily which would determine shape and subsonic speeds. This further makes the case to utilize a B-21 variant to manage costs and get the capability to the force more quickly - unless they can do all that with a drone.

Maybe we'll get three airframes. NGAD (F-22 replacement), F/A-XX (F-18 replacement), and PCA (sensor platform w/lots of weapons and long range to enable existing fighters). Can't see the USAF not wanting a F-22 replacement.

If I were LM I might be floating an F-35 variant. It's incredibly complex and requires extremely long lead times to build a stealthy aircraft. Ft. Worth will be assembling 17 F-35's per month in 2019 and that's after 10 years. Compare that to the two per month production of F-22's back when. And it's taken years to get to this production level.

Would a larger F-35C variant, still single engined but with modified center fuselage and wings, be capable of the deep magazine and range that's been discussed - especially as an F/A-XX solution? If so, is this something that could be available by the late 2020's?

I could see that as a boon for the CVW. Lot's of commonality for logistics and support but adding range and magazine depth discussed.

My guess is that the navy has their hands full. Integrating F-35C with it's capabilities is about all they can handle for the CVW. Too many other items on their plate. They'll wait for the new engine tech (2021-2025), and see what else has matured by then. Perhaps DE and hypersonic missiles? No F/A-XX by 2028 or even 2035. The emphasis will be on the USAF.
 
NeilChapman said:
This is interesting. By "wider concept" are you referring to your previous paragraph describing a weaponized "pervasive mini-AWACS" or are you eluding to other capabilities?

I'm basing my hypothesis off the article quotes Bring_It_On's posted on July 13 and 14; specifically
Coglitore noted that it's important to view PCA as one piece of a family of capabilities and not to bill it as a fighter or particular type of platform;
and
Rather than view NGAD as a single platform to replace the F-22 or F-35, he said, the service now thinks of it "more as a node in a network than as a fighter or a replacement;
and
Officials have said the system may not be a next-generation fighter jet, but rather a suite of capabilities that could be fielded on an existing platform.

PCA is what it says on the tin, Penetrating Counterair Capability, I see that as meaning getting as much leverage from existing platforms as possible and some kind of node seems to be central to channeling all the network-centric capabilities of the F-22 and F-35. The node would probably trade speed for loiter and defensive capability (stealth and weaponry), my hypothesis is something either in the command link between an AWACS and the fighters or something that could provide similar C&C were an AWACS can't go. PCA would also presumably cover some kind of air-air missile development and probably UAVs will play some kind of role.

I think a new fighter will arise in the longer term, the emphasis seems to be on getting the technology airborne in whatever platforms are currently flying. Whether NGAD has merged into PCA I'm not sure, that might just be smoke and mirrors to politically deflect from a fighter label given the F-35 Vs Super Hornet political hot potato. After all, it makes no sense to say PCA isn't a fighter but a blend of "technologies" and then talk about looking into restarting the F-22 line in the next breath if NGAD really is dead.

I agree a NGAD and PCA mix would be the longer-term outcome, whether F/A-XX can be afforded too I'm not so sure. I agree with you that it makes sense to make maximum leverage from the F-35, especially for F/A-XX, but whether it has that much growth potential without expensive redesign is open to question.

Anyway, as we've seen with the A-X discussion, a lot can change in a short period of time. NGAD/PCA could well be renamed or recast several more times yet and could out radically different to what we think it might be.
 
Thanks Hood

I agree that a lot can change quickly. There's no doubt that a redesign of the wings, center and aft sections would be a new design and would be expensive. It would be a different plane. The advantage would be the utilization of the assembly line.

There's some good videos that show how the line works and the mating of the four sections. NG creates the center section today and I believe LM builds the wings and BAE the aft section. Integrating a new variant would be difficult but not as time consuming as a new plant for a completely new jet.

Perhaps the Navy isn't pumping money into F/A-XX yet because they're waiting on the F-35C review by SecDef. One outcome could be that the C is better than F-18 but "new factors" require range and depth of magazine. That would require moving forward with F-35C but 2019 money for F/A-XX.

On the other hand, the Navy seems open to unmanned systems as well. Just not for the strike mission, today.
 
It seem that the Navy will lost the air dominance in a near futur , F-35C is at a century to be a air dominance fighter and the Super Hornet is a 80 s years fighter with-out stealth attribute or supercruise .
 
Perhaps the Navy isn't pumping money into F/A-XX yet because they're waiting on the F-35C review by SecDef. One outcome could be that the C is better than F-18 but "new factors" require range and depth of magazine. That would require moving forward with F-35C but 2019 money for F/A-XX.

Navy was actually much farther along on their AOA than the AF. Their lack of funding request for FY18 is more a function on it being a lack of priority than a lack of need or the lack of an understanding regarding where their trade space lies. Under a finite budget with limited growth prospect they have to move money around to support new starts. As the UCLASS proved they don't want to committ on a large capability increase in support of their carrier aviation. For good or bad that is what it is so short of a significant increase in funding this won't change since they have sub surface and surface warfare priorities that they would like to probably address first. Even in those areas they will be taking significant risk. This is a risk they are going to have to live with in the 20s and possibly through the 30s.

And this isn't just about air to air but also about the EA mission. The Growler has poor combat radius and is ill suited for the large distances of the Pacific, where it may have to escort F/A-18Es that will be performance limited on account of a permanent 480 gallon fuel tank on the centerline.
 

Attachments

  • NavyIRST.png
    NavyIRST.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 359
Sundog said:
I can hear structural engineers all across the country laughing their a$$es off when they see that design. "Hmmm, what if we made it as structurally inefficient as possible to make it much heavier than it needs to be?"
It's obviously made for outer space operations. :eek:

From Inside Defense

NGAD Reprogramming

The Defense Department is asking Congress to approve a $91 million reprogramming request to accelerate the Air Force's Next-Generation Air Dominance effort. The service is conducting an analysis of alternatives for a future Penetrating Counterair capability, and the funds would support the effort by enabling "focused acceleration" of risk-reduction and technology development for key PCA mission systems. The reprogramming would also help close capability gaps in areas such as advanced backplane technology, tactical cluster computing, advanced engine technologies and air vehicle integration.
 
Speed and range could be key for Navy's next fighter jet


WASHINGTON — The Navy is knee deep in an analysis on how best to replace its Super Hornet and Growler aircraft. Though much work is still left to be done, the resulting platform could look a lot different than both those jets, with a much higher priority on range and speed.

The service kicked off its “Next Generation Air Dominance” analysis of alternatives in January 2016 to study potential replacements for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler. (Confusingly, the Air Force has used the NGAD term to describe its own analysis of alternatives for an F-22 follow-on aircraft, but the services’ efforts are not connected and there are no plans to pursue a joint fighter).

Now, after about a year and a half, the Navy team feels they have a complete understanding of what capabilities the future carrier strike group needs to have and, importantly, what threats it will face, Capt. Richard Brophy, who is working the AoA effort as part of the service’s air warfare division, said during a panel at the Office of Naval Research’s science and technology expo.

“The tradespace is completely wide open as we look at what is going to replace those airplanes,” he said, adding that the “family of systems” that replace the Super Hornet and Growler could include a fighter jet , but perhaps also include shipboard systems or multiple aircraft working together.

Although the study is not slated to wrap up until at least April, Brophy offered his thoughts on some key capabilities for NGAD.

For one, it could be unmanned or optionally manned, as was the hope of former Navy Secretary Ray Mabus.

“It is not lost on us that A.I. [artificial intelligence], unmanned, it’s coming and it’s out there, and we need to be able to incorporate that into what we’re looking at out there,” Brophy said.

One key attribute that NGAD will likely incorporate is a longer range — something Brophy says is a significant limitation for the current carrier air wing.

“I tend to think of it not only as range, but as reach. Not only how far my airplane flies, but how far do my weapons go on top of that,” he said. “Reach also gets into propulsion, and when we look at propulsion, I’m looking for efficiency. The longer I can fly without having to go get gas, the better.”

Another critical capability is a throwback to the F-14 Tomcat-era of flight operations: the need for high speed.

Brophy said the Navy, which has historically been more skeptical of stealth than the Air Force, will likely incorporate some low observable capabilities into its future NGAD capability. But it is still undetermined as to whether it becomes as high of a priority as it was for the F-35 joint strike fighter.

“We certainly need survivability. Stealth is just one piece of the survivability equation,” he said. “I kind of look at stealth as sort of like chaff and flares. It’s not going to defeat [the enemy] every time, but it will help. Stealth is part of what any future design — if you look at any country, they’re going that way. So, yes it would probably be part of it.”

Bill Nickerson, a program officer for ONR’s division of aerospace sciences, added that the office is investing in stealth as well as other technologies that would improve survivability, such as ultra-lightweight armor and counter-directed energy capabilities.

As the AoA progresses, the Navy will look at multiple options to replace the Super Hornet and Growler. The first option — to do nothing — will likely be quickly ruled out because the service will need capacity as those aircraft begin retiring in the mid 2030s, Brophy said.

The team will also consider whether Navy can meet the threats it encounters in the 2040 timeframe with simply by buying more Super Hornets, Growlers and F-35Cs, or whether it could upgrade versions of those platforms could accomplish those missions.

Finally, the Navy will look a starting a new program that includes some “transformational capabilities.” However, Brophy acknowledged that the service will need to keep cost low enough to buy a high volume of air vehicles.

“Numbers matter. We’ve got to be able to have enough aircraft out there,” he said.
 
Air Force awards $1.2B in engine technology contracts


The Air Force this week awarded General Electric a $409 million contract to support next-generation engine technology development, the latest in a string of awards to airframe and engine developers.

Since June 30, the service has awarded more than $1.2 billion in indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts to three companies -- GE, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman -- for the Next-Generation Thermal Power and Controls program. To date, each contract has been worth up to $409 million, service spokesman Daryl Mayer told Inside the Air Force July 13. The program expects additional awards in the near future.

Pratt & Whitney will likely receive one of those future awards -- the service on July 11 announced an award to the company, but retracted the announcement July 12 saying "the contract has not yet been awarded."

The program's goal is to "develop revolutionary and innovative technologies" by the 2024 time frame and to improve the Air Force's understanding of the thermal, power and controls requirements for future propulsion systems, according to the contract announcements. The notices state the work will help "prove technological feasibility and assess operability and producability of thermal, power, and controls components and architectures through proof of principal demonstrations."

Program officials would not provide much detail about the scope or the number and value of future awards, but the contract announcements note the service received seven bids for the effort.

More Information on the Next-Generation Thermal Power and Controls (NGT-PAC) :

Next generation fighter aircraft are likely to require an unprecedented level of advanced capabilities in order to ensure air superiority in contested environments. These capabilities, which include advanced electronic attack, high-power laser, and future low-observability features, are expected to require as much as 10x higher power levels than current tactical systems.

These power system demands requirements present multifaceted electrical and thermal challenges in an integrated flight worthy system. Modern vehicle design factors including composite aircraft skins, higher efficiency engines, and highly embedded vehicle systems compound these challenges. This solicitation seeks research in order to better understand the challenges and opportunities of, and advance the state of the art in, next generation aircraft thermal, power, and controls.
 

Attachments

  • FA8650-17-S-2001.pdf
    223.9 KB · Views: 28
Background:
In order to better optimize future aircraft, it will be necessary to analyze and evaluate all aspects of the aircraft as an integrated system from conceptual design through prototype demonstration. Desired system capabilities exceed what can be provided by superposition of individual mission subsystems into an air platform and engine(s) designed purely for individual component performance. Technologies for power, thermal, and control must be developed as part of the integrated air platform and engine system. This ability for continued refinement through- out the aircraft design cycle, from system concepts into detailed design validation to demonstration and test, will allow development of a more capable and efficient aircraft.

Airframer Objective:

The objective on NGT-PAC is to conduct research to study, develop, demonstrate, integrate and transition power, thermal and controls technologies coupled with vehicle propulsion. Advances in these technologies will allow the development of the next generation of UAVs and manned aircraft. The goal of this effort will be to conduct basic, applied, and advanced development research on UAVs, Air Dominance, ISR, hypersonic and mobility platforms. Offerers will be required to examine the aircraft impacts of integrating a high power laser into an existing fighter or bomber aircraft. The best scientific and technological solution is required for this acquisition.

Engine Objective:

The objective of NGT-PAC is to conduct research to study, develop, demonstrate, integrate and transition power, thermal, and control technologies for air platforms that take advantage of capabilities offered by, and minimize the limitations of, existing and future engine technologies. Advances in these technologies will allow the development of the next generation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and manned aircraft to be fielded. The goal of this effort will be to conduct basic, applied, and advanced development research and demonstration on UAVS, Air Dominance, ISR, hypersonic, and mobility platforms. Offerers will be required to examine how dual spool power extraction (DSPE) would be retrofitted into a current fighter or bomber engine. The best scientific and technological solution is required for this acquisition.
 

Attachments

  • RFI-AFRL-RQKPA-2016-0001.pdf
    88.1 KB · Views: 40
This may help in understanding what they are trying to do

An Engine with High Power Extraction Potential for a Half-Scale Model of a Joint Strike Fighter


https://www.scribd.com/document/354431141/2011-Ugrad-Team-Engine
 
https://www.investors.com/news/lockheed-skunk-works-sees-this-making-huge-difference-in-future-fighter/
 
bobbymike said:
https://www.investors.com/news/lockheed-skunk-works-sees-this-making-huge-difference-in-future-fighter/

Everything in that article indicates it is not a subsonic flying Dorito.
 
Beautiful, Northrop , Lockheed , and Boeing the 3 concept are realy sci-fi design impatient to see it on the ramp :eek:
 
http://aviationweek.com/aviation-week-space-technology/next-steps-stealth-hopeless-diamonds-cranked-kites?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20170801_AW-19_540&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=11135&utm_medium=email&elq2=54b977d3355c4d0a9f8c2b85efa2155e
 
http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-picks-key-technologies-f-22-follow
 
dark sidius said:
Same paywall article.

I'm assuming it says basically a high degree of stealth, with speed (so as not to rely on stealth), and significantly longer range than -22. Maybe someone can give us a summary of the article with a few bullet points.
 
dark sidius said:
Same paywall article.
You what, don't have email to register for FREE access to non-AWIN stuff at AWST site? Yikes.
 

Attachments

  • awreg.jpg
    awreg.jpg
    55.1 KB · Views: 339
Last time the AF had an intercontinental escort fighter, it was the F-88, aka the F101 Voodoo
 

Attachments

  • MDD XF-88.jpg
    MDD XF-88.jpg
    403.6 KB · Views: 272
sferrin said:
Doesn't really say anything new.
Found this interesting

The Air Force for the first time revealed a funding line for a secretive “Air Dominance Air-to-Air Weapon” in fiscal 2018 budget documents this year, requesting $1 million to stand up the project. Little is known about the next-generation air-to-air capability, but it may be a successor to the Raytheon-built AIM-9X Sidewinder and AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile the Raptor currently carries, or possibly a longer-range version of those weapons. A longer-range air-to-air missile also could equip future non-stealthy aircraft that have to stand off from surface-to-air missile threats.
 
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
Doesn't really say anything new.
Found this interesting

The Air Force for the first time revealed a funding line for a secretive “Air Dominance Air-to-Air Weapon” in fiscal 2018 budget documents this year, requesting $1 million to stand up the project. Little is known about the next-generation air-to-air capability, but it may be a successor to the Raytheon-built AIM-9X Sidewinder and AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile the Raptor currently carries, or possibly a longer-range version of those weapons. A longer-range air-to-air missile also could equip future non-stealthy aircraft that have to stand off from surface-to-air missile threats.

Hmmm. Could be anything from guided bullets (not probable) to Lockheed's Cobra.
 
Some degree of AI is likely. Research at BAE Systems that is likely being duplicated by Lockheed et al:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2144601-inside-the-fighter-jet-of-the-future-where-ai-is-the-pilot/

Pilots’ helmets already have visors that augment their view with additional information. With a few modifications, they could replace instrument-panel displays altogether.

It has been a long time since fighter pilots have been in control of the cockpit. In most jets, basic forms of artificial intelligence are already the co-pilot.

In future AI will play an even bigger role, from working out what information to show the pilot to taking full control of the plane. Bowman thinks that humans will be managers rather than being replaced. He envisions a human controlling a swarm of 20 drones while on board a plane being flown by AI.
 
Airplane said:
dark sidius said:
Same paywall article.

I'm assuming it says basically a high degree of stealth, with speed (so as not to rely on stealth), and significantly longer range than -22. Maybe someone can give us a summary of the article with a few bullet points.

It's pretty much that, yes. Here are some citations:

Extended range will be a key feature... to allow the new fighter to self-deploy and to accompany the new B-21 bomber on deep penetration missions. Increased range drives increased airframe size and engine power, Holmes explained. PCA’s engine will need to be more fuel efficient, have more thrust and more cooling air to support a longer-range and even stealthier airframe than current technology allows, he said.

The Air Force ...have been working on a new class of combat aircraft propulsion systems based on three-stream engine technology that might fit this bill.


Stealth also will be a key requirement for the new aircraft, despite potential tradeoffs such as speed, and the advancement of counterstealth radars that some argue make stealth obsolete, Holmes said.

The Air Force for the first time revealed a funding line for a secretive “Air Dominance Air-to-Air Weapon” in fiscal 2018 budget documents this year, requesting $1 million to stand up the project.
it may be a successor to the Raytheon-built AIM-9X Sidewinder and AIM-120.... or possibly a longer-range version of those weapons.
 
Triton said:
Is the “Air Dominance Air-to-Air Weapon” continuation of the DARPA T3 (Triple Target Terminator) missile project?

Too early to tell but likely no. T3 was supposed to have been a means to de-risk the JDRADM and since the JDRADM was terminated the project (T3) went nowhere post completion. What the FY18 program asks for is just about enough money to stand up a study to begin looking for a weapon. The next couple of years will probably provide more information but at the moment this is a lot of the pre-program work to get a weapon properly defined and program created.
 
bring_it_on said:
Triton said:
Is the “Air Dominance Air-to-Air Weapon” continuation of the DARPA T3 (Triple Target Terminator) missile project?

Too early to tell but likely no. T3 was supposed to have been a means to de-risk the JDRADM and since the JDRADM was terminated the project (T3) went no where post completion. What the FY18 program asks for is just about enough money to stand up a study to begin looking for a weapon. The next couple of years will probably provide more information but at the moment this is a lot of the pre-program work to get a weapon properly defined and program created.

It's insane that it's taking so long. It's not like they've never thought, "hmmmm, what should be our next AAM?"
 
They terminated JDRADM primarily for cost reasons as part of the trades the had to make to accommodate the budget cuts that came due to the BCA. The reason the T3 survived was likely because it was with DARPA (hence somewhat protected) and because it did not consume a lot of money in the test phase. Going forward they likely want to study the requirements to determine what the capability needs are likely to be for the late 2020s and beyond. There are programs funded that will help mature some of the technology areas already that are independent of this particular program but I guess it will grow to encompass all of those once it is up and running. It is a relatively young effort so we'll need a bit of time to develop some clarity on where the AF is headed with this and whether it is something the AF wants to jointly pursue.
 
AARGM-ER is also eating into part of the target set that T3 was designed to cover.
 
marauder2048 said:
AARGM-ER is also eating into part of the target set that T3 was designed to cover.

Assuming it gets any further than mockups that is.
 
http://aviationweek.com/aviation-week-space-technology/us-air-force-next-generation-fighter-taking-shape New article :D
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom