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

jsport said:
aircraft designed to avoid detection by low-frequency tracking radars. Led by Northrop Grumman B-21s
Click to expand...

I dont think this is correct, unless B-21 looks completely different than the notional representation we have been shown.
 
Judging by this article I’d say there was a case for splitting this thread up for USN & USAF going their separate ways.

Future US Navy fighter will not be joint effort with USAF

The USN’s next-generation fighter won’t be jointly developed with the USAF. That’s because the USN does not plan to use its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) aircraft on penetration missions in highly-contested air space as the USAF aims to do with its next-generation fighter, says Angie Knappenberger, USN deputy director of air warfare, at the Navy League Sea-Air-Space conference in National Harbor, Maryland.
Click to expand...
 
Sounds like they're looking for an NATF with a bit more range.
 
The carrier mafia should watch out as they may just talk themselves out a mission/job. If one can't assist SEAD from day one and can't play till after day 20 or more, what value do you (carrier aircraft) provide? The USN better have 1000mile guns on ships or no SEAD and no game.

Here’s how improving enemy anti-aircraft threats put pilots and crews at risk


www.airforcetimes.com

Here’s how improving enemy anti-aircraft threats put pilots and crews at risk

The Air Force will not be able to roll over a peer adversary's air defense network in a matter of days. But the service must still be prepared to provide close-air support on Day One of the campaign.
www.airforcetimes.com www.airforcetimes.com
 
Last edited:
Based on the nose gear in those pics, and what appears to be a wing fold section, it appears to be a design for the Navy. It's also interesting in that the nose is similar to the original YF-23 design. Now they need to release good drawings with cross sections so I can model this in flight simulator. ;)

Also, based on the statement that the Navy isn't looking for the same kind of plane the USAF is, I'm betting the Navy is planning to go unmanned and/or something with more persistence than range; i.e., something that cruises at subsonic speeds, versus supercruise.
 
Last edited:
Sundog said:
Also, based on the statement that the Navy isn't looking for the same kind of plane the USAF is, I'm betting the Navy is planning to go unmanned and/or something with more persistence than range; i.e., something that cruises at subsonic speeds, versus supercruise.
Click to expand...
They could have gone ahead with UCLASS if they wanted that. Even with such an aircraft they should have something with high performance for the defense of the carrier battle group, air-to-air combat, interception, etc.
 
Sundog said:
Based on the nose gear in those pics, and what appears to be a wing fold section, it appears to be a design for the Navy. It's also interesting in that the nose is similar to the original YF-23 design. Now they need to release good drawings with cross sections so I can model this in flight simulator. ;)

Also, based on the statement that the Navy isn't looking for the same kind of plane the USAF is, I'm betting the Navy is planning to go unmanned and/or something with more persistence than range; i.e., something that cruises at subsonic speeds, versus supercruise.
Click to expand...

Yuk. If Boeing, I'd rather this one:

613734
 
Sundog said:
Based on the nose gear in those pics, and what appears to be a wing fold section, it appears to be a design for the Navy. It's also interesting in that the nose is similar to the original YF-23 design. Now they need to release good drawings with cross sections so I can model this in flight simulator. ;)

Also, based on the statement that the Navy isn't looking for the same kind of plane the USAF is, I'm betting the Navy is planning to go unmanned and/or something with more persistence than range; i.e., something that cruises at subsonic speeds, versus supercruise.
Click to expand...

I’ve got the impression in recent times, especially from the MQ-25 program, that the USN is more resistant to unmanned than the USAF.
 
Justifiably so. The USAF and US Army UAV programs overall haven't yet come anywhere near producing the return on (extensive) investment that was promised.
 
...
 

Attachments

  • US8690097.pdf
    964.4 KB · Views: 134
  • US9874144.pdf
    977.6 KB · Views: 94
  • US9908633.pdf
    932.5 KB · Views: 91
  • US20170066527A1.pdf
    986.5 KB · Views: 102
jsport said:
The carrier mafia should watch out as they may just talk themselves out a mission/job. If one can't assist SEAD from day one and can't play till after day 20 or more, what value do you (carrier aircraft) provide?
Click to expand...

Remarkably little value which, incredibly, they do acknowledge.

“A penetrating fighter, the Navy doesn’t have to do that. So some of that inherent design of the aircraft it does drive costs and if you don’t need that for our mission area then you don’t necessarily want to pay for it,” she says, noting the shape of a highly stealthy penetrating fighter, presumably without a vertical stabliser, would be more expensive to develop.
Instead, the USN would conduct penetrating airstrikes against an advanced adversary with long-range standoff missiles or the mission would be deferred to the USAF, says Knappenberger.
Click to expand...

My emphasis.
 
marauder2048 said:
jsport said:
The carrier mafia should watch out as they may just talk themselves out a mission/job. If one can't assist SEAD from day one and can't play till after day 20 or more, what value do you (carrier aircraft) provide?
Click to expand...

Remarkably little value which, incredibly, they do acknowledge.

“A penetrating fighter, the Navy doesn’t have to do that. So some of that inherent design of the aircraft it does drive costs and if you don’t need that for our mission area then you don’t necessarily want to pay for it,” she says, noting the shape of a highly stealthy penetrating fighter, presumably without a vertical stabliser, would be more expensive to develop.
Instead, the USN would conduct penetrating airstrikes against an advanced adversary with long-range standoff missiles or the mission would be deferred to the USAF, says Knappenberger.
Click to expand...

My emphasis.
Click to expand...
Depending on expensive long range standoff missiles from ships w/ limited magazines to accomplis SEAD is pretty questionalble bet IMHO. IADS are mobile and will themselves be protected w/ terminal intercept defenses. USN will need to be using their magazines to protect themselves, little room left JSEAD. Better a capable carrier aircraft in common w/ the USAF. Carring drones, maybe a big gun, a deep mag DEW etc. Something the DOD gets economy of scale in large sophisticated and expensive craft. No more lacking capability fighters please.
 
bobbymike said:
breakingdefense.com

Roper Calls For New Air Force Planes Every Five Years; Recalls X Plane Days - Breaking Defense

PARIS AIR SHOW: During an unusual public appearance in the US Chalet, Will Roper called for a large expansion in the number of companies doing business with the Air Force so more new planes can be built — and be built much more quickly as was done in the 1950s and ’60s when a new…
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...

I wonder if it will come true though, because back in the 1950's and 1960's the US had many more military aviation companies than they do now since amalgamation or being forced out of business.
 
Planes are too complex and we are too risk averse to try and do a new plane every 5 years. Then there is the increased cost associated with such low economy of scale builds.

Now, if he is only talking drones, nothing is keeping them from doing that now, except it's really expensive. On the drone front, it's really hard to justify to the board that you spent a bunch developing a drone that nobody wants to buy.. chicken & egg thing and all that.
 
bobbymike said:
breakingdefense.com

Roper Calls For New Air Force Planes Every Five Years; Recalls X Plane Days - Breaking Defense

PARIS AIR SHOW: During an unusual public appearance in the US Chalet, Will Roper called for a large expansion in the number of companies doing business with the Air Force so more new planes can be built — and be built much more quickly as was done in the 1950s and ’60s when a new…
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
I'm quite sure that the defense establishment won't say "no" if the DoD gives them a couple of billions each year with no questions asked other than to play around with new designs.
 
MihoshiK said:
bobbymike said:
breakingdefense.com

Roper Calls For New Air Force Planes Every Five Years; Recalls X Plane Days - Breaking Defense

PARIS AIR SHOW: During an unusual public appearance in the US Chalet, Will Roper called for a large expansion in the number of companies doing business with the Air Force so more new planes can be built — and be built much more quickly as was done in the 1950s and ’60s when a new…
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
I'm quite sure that the defense establishment won't say "no" if the DoD gives them a couple of billions each year with no questions asked other than to play around with new designs.
Click to expand...

Until somebody points out the whole thing could turn upside down if the White House changes parties.
 
Multiple programs as a whole are less risky than a single large effort. The economy of scale argument works only if we produce the quantities originally specified but which program does that? Both the B-2 and F-22 were truncated well before any economy of scale in their production was realized. The few programs on their way to achieve a quantity of scale benefit are the F-35 and F/A-18E/F. The KC-46 appears to be a case unto itself and a rather poor example of a program. The Skunk Works has been successful in producing leading edge aircraft with a high degree of complexity for their times in small quantities. It's a matter of how you learn to mitigate risk and manufacture in relatively small quantities. What are the breakpoints in aircraft production where economy of scale becomes beneficial? Is it between 100 and 250, 200 and 600 or 250 and 1000 aircraft? What it entails is close attention to designing something that is easy to build, utilizes tooling efficiently and uses common parts such as engines and avionics. If they can do that then it will work. As for the politics they would have to bill it as a "jobs program". Both parties like to see those. Don't know if Will Roper will be successful but his approach in my opinion has merit.
 
The goals of having a "joint" in JSF were three fold:
1. Spread the cost of dev across multiple programs
2. Increased Economy of Scale in production and support costs
3. Ensure that the small program benefited from the larger's need.

#3 is an important one. Do you think that the F-35B/C would have happened (in their entirety) if it were not for the largest customer, the F-35A, being part of the deal?
 
SpudmanWP said:
3. Ensure that the small program benefited from the larger's need.

#3 is an important one. Do you think that the F-35B/C would have happened (in their entirety) if it were not for the largest customer, the F-35A, being part of the deal?
Click to expand...

Not a friggin' chance. Despite the hysteria to the contrary this was the best way to do it.
 
One of the main reasons Congress mandated a "joint" program was to ensure the survival of the B and C.

Do you think ASTOVL had a better chance of survival on it's own?

All you had to do was to look at the history of failed prior programs like NATF, A-12, etc to see that without some serious economic pressure, smaller programs fall to the budget ax way too easily.
 
I don't know if either NATF or the A-12 could be considered small programs. It seems to me like the Navy really didn't fight that hard for NATF and with the A-12 they dug themselves into a deep hole.

I do wonder if the goals of JSF could have been achieved with different aircraft but all using common engines, avionics, and other subsystems. Perhaps it was necessary to have a CTOL and STOVL aircraft as variants of the same design but the CATOBAR requirement may have been a step too far.
 
NATF & A-12v2 were "small" in that they were single-service, single-use airframes both destined for a service where all must bow to the Gods of the Flattops.

Without the C then the A would have only had a 1k bomb bay instead of 2k, the B would not have had SWAT, and both the A & B would have ended up heavier than they did.

In a "common avionics & engine" scenario, the C would still be limited to the performance of the F135 so I am not sure of what benefit separate programs would have been. In either case, costs would have only gone up as most development would have to be duplicated and parts economy of scale goes out the window for anything not avionics or engine related.
 
SpudmanWP said:
NATF & A-12v2 were "small" in that they were single-service, single-use airframes both destined for a service where all must bow to the Gods of the Flattops.

Without the C then the A would have only had a 1k bomb bay instead of 2k, the B would not have had SWAT, and both the A & B would have ended up heavier than they did.

In a "common avionics & engine" scenario, the C would still be limited to the performance of the F135 so I am not sure of what benefit separate programs would have been. In either case, costs would have only gone up as most development would have to be duplicated and parts economy of scale goes out the window for anything not avionics or engine related.
Click to expand...
As far as I know without the C variant the whole airframe layout would have been much different anyway so I don't think you can make a direct comparison about weight like that.

616158
From https://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_article.html?item_id=137

The F135 wouldn't really be optimal for a twin-engine fighter so perhaps something closer to an updated F119 using as many improvements as possible from the F135 would make sense if we detach cost from the picture for a second.

While I feel that the F-35C will certainly be a useful asset for the carrier air wing there is a lot of overlap in the overall characteristics of the F-35C and F/A-18E, especially once they upgrade the latter with CFTs and whatever else they're planning. In an ideal world the Navy would have gotten something larger than the F-35C with greater performance although it would inevitably cost somewhat more. Alternatively the F-35C and some sort of "F-14E" would probably have complimented each other pretty well in an alternate reality.
 
The F119 is too large for a twin engine "strike fighter" that the USN was looking for. They would have had to go with two separate engine types instead of a single which leads to even higher costs.

Of course that is overlap in the mission of the F-35C & F-18E/F, that is one of the reasons that they SHOULD NOT have kept buying the E/F. Having the same mission is NOT having the same capability and now the USN is stuck with newer SHs for the next 30+ years. What they should have done was stick to the original plan for the F-35C and also finally do the F/A-XX to replace the SH, you know, the original goal of NATF. Remember that the F-35C was designed to replace the Classic Hornet, not the Super Hornet so it would not have been a large airframe that required two F119-class engines.

My comments on weight were due to LM's screw-up on calculating the "weight of empty space" that lead to SWAT which would likely have happened regardless of the configuration chosen.
 
If the replacement for the Air Force's F-16 had not been part of a joint program would its attributes be different? The design points for internal weapon load weights, the capability for super cruise, unrefueled range and radar cross section. Think there were a lot of trades to create the JAST/JSF aircraft. Not saying it would have been better but it would certainly have been different. Have wondered if the McDonnell Douglas JAST proposal had been a CTOL only design would it have been a very stealthy super cruising strike aircraft?
 
Mark S. said:
If the replacement for the Air Force's F-16 had not been part of a joint program would its attributes be different? The design points for internal weapon load weights, the capability for super cruise, unrefueled range and radar cross section. Think there were a lot of trades to create the JAST/JSF aircraft. Not saying it would have been better but it would certainly have been different. Have wondered if the McDonnell Douglas JAST proposal had been a CTOL only design would it have been a very stealthy super cruising strike aircraft?
Click to expand...

What was the point? The F-22A was already in production and they could have simply just bought more if they wanted those attributes. Of course, that would have done nothing for the USAF modernization plans given the need to replace a massive number of F-16's in the future. The Navy too was looking at something to replace the Classic Hornet and the F-35C does that and then some. Had they wanted something at the higher end of the spectrum they would have stuck around on the N-ATF. This was their third bite at the apple when it came to a new clean sheet combat aircraft program after one that just didn't go anywhere (NATF) and the other which was a failure.
 
Mark S. said:
If the replacement for the Air Force's F-16 had not been part of a joint program would its attributes be different? The design points for internal weapon load weights, the capability for super cruise, unrefueled range and radar cross section. Think there were a lot of trades to create the JAST/JSF aircraft. Not saying it would have been better but it would certainly have been different. Have wondered if the McDonnell Douglas JAST proposal had been a CTOL only design would it have been a very stealthy super cruising strike aircraft?
Click to expand...

Not sure what the real question is. If the usaf had a F-16 replacement program it would likely still be very similar to the f-35a with the exception being the aircraft would have been or could have been more slender and therefore more likely to have some higher cruise speed than the f-35a. A clean F-16 can exceed mach 1 without reheat. I think the only difference is that a dedicated F-16 replacement might be a few thousand pounds lighter empty weight and able to cruise over 1 mach. And it might be a prettier aircraft.

During the atf days, the airforce began planning the Agile Falcon. Look it up.

My observations
There was no dedicated F-16 replacement with stealth and supercruise because it would have killed the atf.
The F-16 is a strike fighter. The JSF is be definition a strike fighter. The usaf got a direct F-16 replacement.
The JSF lead to the early termination of the f22.
There used to be some limited but official artwork from late 80s and early 90s of a stealthy F-16 replacement. Don't recall the contractor. Kind of looked like the French eurocanard minus the canards and upright tail. I imagine it would have been something like that. Definitely wasnt a Lockheed piece. Some of the guys here in the industry may know of this.
 
Thanks Rooster. I always wondered if there was a program prior to the JAST and what it would have been. I remember a conversation in the mid-90's in which I was told that the planned procurement of the F-22 would be cut due to the ending of the cold war. Think at that time the plan was for 750 F-22's.
 
SpudmanWP said:
The only F-16 replacement "pre JAST" program that I know of is "Multi-Role Fighter (MRF) 1990-1993"


Multi-Role Fighter (MRF) 1990-1993

www.globalsecurity.org www.globalsecurity.org

They were stealthy bu not so sure on super-cruise ability.
Click to expand...

Yup, forgot the program name. There were a few sexy designs floating around you can't find online.

Supercruise to be useful needs a twin engine fighter. At least in those days. You need to carry enough fuel to be useful thus would grow weight and then the need for another engine.

Having reread this, I recall a MDD twin design with cranked wings about hornet sized. Not stealthy but probably fast.
 
Just that it would be clear to all, "slenderness" has nothing to do with max speed and drag. The X-3 is "slender" but didn't go as fast has the X-1E that has a bulky fuselage.

One of the fastest plane down low over Europe was the Buccaneer that isn't really "slender".

The bulky Orbiter was one of fastest winged aircraft to fly...

Efficiency comes in many way. There are no one single solution to all problem. And one thing that we can say is that the 35 is Uber efficient.
 
TomcatViP said:
Just that it would be clear to all, "slenderness" has nothing to do with max speed and drag. The X-3 is "slender" but didn't go as fast has the X-1E that has a bulky fuselage.
Click to expand...

Because it had crap engines. Stick a pair of afterburning F125s (used in Taiwan's F-CK-1 Ching Kuo) back there and see how fast it goes. (I don't disagree with the rest of your post. :) )
 
TomcatViP said:
Just that it would be clear to all, "slenderness" has nothing to do with max speed and drag. The X-3 is "slender" but didn't go as fast has the X-1E that has a bulky fuselage.

One of the fastest plane down low over Europe was the Buccaneer that isn't really "slender".

The bulky Orbiter was one of fastest winged aircraft to fly...

Efficiency comes in many way. There are no one single solution to all problem. And one thing that we can say is that the 35 is Uber efficient.
Click to expand...

I recall some issues with the F-102 versus solved on the F-106 because of the "coke bottle" effect.

But really, the F-35 isn't a slick airplane. If it were, you would not hear pilots reporting that pulling back on the throttle is like slamming on the brakes on a sports car. When you pull the throttle back and the plane has think about it for a few minutes, if it wants to slow down, that's a slick plane.

The Orbiter also had more thrust for an airplane than any other airplane in the world.

Come on, we're talking about the reality of all other things being equal from one aircraft with one powerplant to another different aircraft with the same powerplant. Please don't make me look up GA aricraft speeds that are powered by an O-360 to prove my point.
 
TomcatViP said:
The bulky Orbiter was one of fastest winged aircraft to fly...
Click to expand...

LOL - you must be joking......a D10 bulldozer will go mach 25 with with over 6.5 million lbs of thrust as long as you put a point on the plow! Also, high fineness ratio (long and slender) has a huge amount to do with supersonic drag - the higher the ratio, the lower the drag. Coupled with area ruling, this makes for efficient supersonic cruise. I know, the retort is that the F-22 does not have a good fineness ratio, and to some degree that is correct although not terrible. But, it is area ruled with a huge amount of thrust. Even the F-23 sort of proves the concept. We can all agree that the F-23 was marginally faster than the F-22 - less several Lockheed skunkworks test pilots. The F-23 is longer and has a better fineness ratio as well as being area ruled. Additionally, comparing the X-3 with the X-1e is a bad comparison. The X-1e is rocket powered which means whether is is standing still or going mach 1 the thrust is the same. Sferrin is right, the X-3 was turbojet powered that were not very good. More importantly, a turbojet decreases in thrust as a function of velocity and density - i.e. - bad engine at high speed and altitude means marginal performance.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom