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

[bobbymike]

From Inside Defense

As part of a scathing review of the House's proposed fiscal year 2020 defense policy bill, the White House Office of Management and Budget told House lawmakers this week a proposed $500 million cut to the Next-Generation Air Dominance program would delay the program by three years.
———————————————————-
Some have no interest in defending this nation

 

[bobbymike]

The Growing Threat to Air Force Mission-Critical Electronics: Lethality at Risk: Unclassified Summary |The National Academies Press

Download a PDF of "The Growing Threat to Air Force Mission-Critical Electronics" by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine for free.

www.nap.edu

 

[Desertfox]

I do wonder what the JSFs would have looked like had all three services gone their separate ways. Who pushed for stealth?

I could see the Air Force going with either a F-16XL derivative or the McD JSF design (supposedly the best one, killed by its VTOL version?). Could the Navy have gone with an Americanized Rafale (Would Dassault even work with say Boeing?)? Would the Marines have been stuck with an improved Harrier?

 

[TomcatViP]

Given their extensive research on Canards prior to anything similar in Europe, it would sound obvious to me that they were not expecting much of the Dassault concept. As I have wrote plenty of time earlier, insight (by itself) is the high stake of the 21st century in aero design... and sadly it's a given resulting only from past public/mil research expends and corporate scientific culture.

 

[SpudmanWP]

No B or C if history is any indicator. The A would have survived since the USAF, Partner, and FMS sales has enough juice to sustain it on it's own.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

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.

Wasn't one of the engine types being considered for A/F-X some development of the F119 optimized for lower altitudes? I'd agree that whatever they came up with would likely be more expensive than the finalized F-35C but it might be more capable too.

Of course some of the delays to the original JSF program schedule pretty much necessitated further Super Hornet production, the most recent buys however seem to be nothing more than orders to keep Boeing busy. From what I've been told here NATF wasn't intended to replace the Super Hornet, rather the Super Hornet was supposed to be an interim strike aircraft prior to A/F-X. I'd like to see more progress with F/A-XX but comments over the past few years make it seem like the Navy is once again being indecisive and uncertain about what they want.

I could see the Air Force going with either a F-16XL derivative or the McD JSF design (supposedly the best one, killed by its VTOL version?). Could the Navy have gone with an Americanized Rafale (Would Dassault even work with say Boeing?)? Would the Marines have been stuck with an improved Harrier?

I think the USAF would end up with a fighter that is similar to the F-35A in many ways. Large single engine and stealthy with room for internal carriage of at least 1,000 lb class munitions. Perhaps it would be a bit longer and more aerodynamically refined. Perhaps a V-tail instead of separate horizontal and vertical arrangements.

Navy would hopefully get something out of the A/F-X program, maybe a further development of the variable sweep Lockheed-led design. Yet considering it is the Navy I wouldn't be surprised if they screwed the whole thing up.

Marines would almost certainly be left out in the cold without a Harrier replacement because nobody wants to budget for that in the "post-Cold War" environment.

 

[bobbymike]

The US Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance program is key to mission success

America’s air-superiority capability is exceedingly fragile. Here's what two readers say must be done.

www.airforcetimes.com

 

[rooster]

I have a background in software and electronic modules. Let me say the unmanned fighter is still a ways away. Unlike the "bombing" mission and altering navigation to deal with pop-up threats that had not been planned for, the "fighter" mission is infinitely more complicated. Not just with maneuvering but the mission complexities. Friend and foe identification. Changing scenarios. Changing mission priorities.

You need a human in the loop. It needs to be totally unjammable if the human is offboard.

Cheapest most reliable solution is to keep a human in the cockpit.

Some missions like cruise missile defense I can see those not needing a human in the cockpit. But what does that buy you?

Serious question. What does it buy us to take the human out of the airframe? To design an optionally manned platform.

Totally unmanned takes out life support and some space savings. Optionally manned fighters though will still have that equipment.

Is the technology there to allow unmanned fighters operate over conus? Risky without reward I think.

 

[Grey Havoc]

No B or C if history is any indicator. The A would have survived since the USAF, Partner, and FMS sales has enough juice to sustain it on it's own.

Possible, though it likely would have been a significantly different design.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Not sure how "different" it would have been. It would still have been a single-engine, internal bombload fighter. Those two items dictated the "chubby" appearance more than anything else.

 

[TomcatViP]

Does that looks chubby (bomb bay and single engine)?

 

[TomS]

Ok, now replace the turbojet with a turbofan (even a low-bypass one like the F135). And enlarge the bomb bay to two or three times the size of the F-105's bay. It ends up looking more like this:

Tell me that isn't a bit chunky looking...

 

[TomcatViP]

Dimensions of the carrier lift had greater impact on the chunky/chubby aspect of that airframe that the choice of a WB and engine configuration. I am inclined to think that this is similar with the 35 (Marines).

 

[LowObservable]

The Buccaneer's overall length was close to that of the F-105.

There are all kinds of what-ifs concerning what might have happened had the JSF been structured from the outset as a three-airplane, common-parts (engine core, avionics, LO systems &c) program.

Spud is right (no comment) on one consequence: the STOVL version would have been seen as very costly on a PAUC basis. However, this does not mean that the common program made STOVL cost less - it just amortized the non-recurring costs (including SWAT and its fallout) over the total buy.

I somehow doubt that a separate program would have been successful, particularly as it became apparent that the advantages of Harrier STOVL (small carriers and off-concrete operations) were very difficult to attain with a much larger, supersonic aircraft.

On the other hand, a common-parts USAF/USN program could have been much less costly (no new engine, for starters) and less technically challenging. Think of a bigger Rafale with an internal bay.

 

[sferrin]

I somehow doubt that a separate program would have been successful, particularly as it became apparent that the advantages of Harrier STOVL (small carriers and off-concrete operations) were very difficult to attain with a much larger, supersonic aircraft.

And yet look at how many countries are signing up for Bs. The UK could have bought Cs for their carriers but elected for Bs. South Korea is going to build at least one carrier for them. Japan is modifying a class of ship for them, etc.

 

[sferrin]

Does that looks chubby (bomb bay and single engine)?

Put the same length restrictions on it that the F-35B had and it sure will.

 

[LowObservable]

And yet look at how many countries are signing up for Bs.

Well, yes, but you, Spud and I have already paid the STOVL-attributable non-recurring costs, so it's not the same calculus at all,

 

[sferrin]

And yet look at how many countries are signing up for Bs.

Well, yes, but you, Spud and I have already paid the STOVL-attributable non-recurring costs, so it's not the same calculus at all,

Pretty sure they're not paying the same price for a B that they'd pay for an A.

 

[LowObservable]

1 - Of course not.

2 - However, that has nothing to do with the point I made. The B costs more to manufacture.

 

[sferrin]

1 - Of course not.

2 - However, that has nothing to do with the point I made. The B costs more to manufacture.

Yes, it does, but is there any evidence that the big chunk of STOVL-specific NRE cost is NOT part of the B's sale price?

 

[kaiserd]

1 - Of course not.

2 - However, that has nothing to do with the point I made. The B costs more to manufacture.

Yes, it does, but is there any evidence that the big chunk of STOVL-specific NRE cost is NOT part of the B's sale price?

Presumably the STOVL aspects (lift fan etc.) took up a significant part of the R&D cost of the JSF/ F-35 project while a significant part of the extra cost of each F-35B is the “per item” manufacturing cost of those STOVL components.
As contributors so far have not offered any figures on the split it appears likely that (largely but not necessarily exclusively, generalizing here) the r&d aspects got allocated to the overall program (hence to some extent to each F-35 irrespective of which version) while the per plane cost of the F-35B is carrying cost of the associated set of STOVL components, but none of the contributors currently know the precise split.
Perhaps better we can agree that much rather then getting into existential arguments about having to produce evidence to prove each other theories are wrong, versus the more common expectation of producing evidence to support theories in the first place.

 

[LowObservable]

KaiserD is correct. R&D of the STOVL version has never officially been broken out, and the entire program cost was split between the Navy and USAF, plus partner contributions.

My own analysis suggests that a USN/USAF aircraft to roughly comparable specs could have performed adequately with existing or derivative engines, would have needed a much simpler dem-val or TMRR phase, and wouldn't have run into the same weight problems as afflicted the F-35 - and would therefore have avoided the consequent manufacturing problems and delays. That's a lot of money right there. There's an alternative view that the STOVL requirement constrained the size of the airplane and therefore saved money, but I don't believe it.

 

[sferrin]

KaiserD is correct. R&D of the STOVL version has never officially been broken out, and the entire program cost was split between the Navy and USAF, plus partner contributions.

That would seem to suggest that all F-35 customers subsidized the developement of the F-35B.

There's an alternative view that the STOVL requirement constrained the size of the airplane and therefore saved money, but I don't believe it.

Considering the F-35C tops out at 70,000lbs it didn't constrain it very damn much. I'd have thought LHA elevator size would be the constraint but Spudman said it was some other factor that escapes me at the moment.

I remember your argument of 2 F414s instead of one F135. Without STOVL it might have been a J-31 with better engines, avionics and fineness ratio. EPE engines could have bumped thrust up to 53k or so. Doubt it would have ever had 3-stream engines but maybe it wouldn't have needed them. Still, no F-35B so. . .

 

[bobbymike]

DARPA Seeks Active Flow Control Aircraft | Aviation Week Network

DARPA's goal is to demonstrate an aircraft that can fly and maneuver with no moving control surfaces.

m.aviationweek.com

 

[Desertfox]

Assuming the JSF program is three different aircraft and the McDonnell Douglas JSF wins the Air Force contract, does McD survive or do they still get bought out by Boeing? They would also be the front runners for an improved Harrier since the Marines would not likely get a new aircraft.

 

[rooster]

KaiserD is correct. R&D of the STOVL version has never officially been broken out, and the entire program cost was split between the Navy and USAF, plus partner contributions.

That would seem to suggest that all F-35 customers subsidized the developement of the F-35B.

There's an alternative view that the STOVL requirement constrained the size of the airplane and therefore saved money, but I don't believe it.

Considering the F-35C tops out at 70,000lbs it didn't constrain it very damn much. I'd have thought LHA elevator size would be the constraint but Spudman said it was some other factor that escapes me at the moment.

I remember your argument of 2 F414s instead of one F135. Without STOVL it might have been a J-31 with better engines, avionics and fineness ratio. EPE engines could have bumped thrust up to 53k or so. Doubt it would have ever had 3-stream engines but maybe it wouldn't have needed them. Still, no F-35B so. . .

Weren't there 2 engine STOVL concepts in the 80s?

 

[sferrin]

Yes but getting a shaft-driven lift fan to work with TWO engines would be a giant pain in the backside.

 

[rooster]

Yes but getting a shaft-driven lift fan to work with TWO engines would be a giant pain in the backside.

I distinctly recall 2 engine supersonic harrier replacement concepts in the 80s. No shaft driven fans.

If the shaft driven fan was 'required', why was it not in the JSF requirements?

 

[marauder2048]

Even in the mid-90's, Air Force and general DOD concern about runway vulnerability was very much there.
And it's (in part) why you've seen some recurring AF interest in the F-35B since the 90's.

If STOL had made it on the F-22 it might have been a different story. But it didn't so here we are...with runways
that are more vulnerable that ever to conventional weapons.

 

[sferrin]

Yes but getting a shaft-driven lift fan to work with TWO engines would be a giant pain in the backside.

I distinctly recall 2 engine supersonic harrier replacement concepts in the 80s. No shaft driven fans.

If the shaft driven fan was 'required', why was it not in the JSF requirements?

Where did I say it was required?

 

[jsport]

CAS requirement:

Numero Uno - Be there when required (persistence, response time)

Numero Two-O - C2 between the team on the ground and the airplane. "I want to see your TDP video so you're not targeting us". That is, ROVER and follow-ons.

Numero Three-O - Precision low-yield weapons

PS - if you're penetrating the IADS, you're not CAS. And if you're doing CAS, LO means silent.

Bombers have other jobs like winning the strategic battle.

What really is needed is a F/A-XX like the F-111.

https://fighterjetsworld.com/2018/09/20/the-a-10-is-not-a-real-tank-killer-its-forgotten-f-111-aardvark/

Given the number of threats 2030+ CAS "plinking" and CAS supporting SEAD will need to be near simultaneous and accomplished by the generally the same the craft

If there are dedicated pure SEAD supporting Deep, Medium range (BAI) and Close battle (CAS) they would need to carry as many UAS/msles as possible internally and/or stealth conformal ..but these craft would be required to attack vehicles as far from troops as possible as well (Assaultbreaker/Warbreaker like).. so not pure SEAD either. The end of pure SEAD as a mission the new emphasis defeating APS and Counter-PGM at standoff takes ex/internal space and volume for these munitions.

The F-111 was the first turbofan so if these ADVENT Turbofans w/ advanced bypass are all that a F-111-like size/weight FBA-XX needs. Modern wing and material science could allow an F-111 size plane to even possess decent maneuver and at speed. Yeah F-111 tried to do too much for too many but it taught alot.

;The Martin Marietta T-16 (Assault Breaker) was an experimental ground or air-launched missile based on the MIM-104 Patriot anti-aircraft missile.
The T-16 "had a range of about 100 km. It carried guided Brilliant Anti-Tank (BAT) submunition as payload. Ten launches were conducted."

 

[jsport]

The T-16 carried something better than BAT. If DARPA is bring back Warbreaker, the an FA-XX should be carrying RPA/missiles which carry RPAs/missiles and improve on the ERAM concept with more miniaturization and high energetic for explosives and munition range.

 

[sublight_]

Looks like NGAD is continuously evolving....

"B-21s With Air-To-Air Capabilities," Drones, Not 6th Gen Fighters To Dominate Future Air Combat

The Air Force's vision of the future of aerial combat has evolved greatly as of late and has moved away from plans for new, costly manned fighters.

www.thedrive.com

 

[rooster]

Looks like NGAD is continuously evolving....

"B-21s With Air-To-Air Capabilities," Drones, Not 6th Gen Fighters To Dominate Future Air Combat

The Air Force's vision of the future of aerial combat has evolved greatly as of late and has moved away from plans for new, costly manned fighters.

www.thedrive.com

So if someone happens to destroy 1 bomber, we lose 6 to 8 drones along with it? That's the future of an offensive A2A capability?

I don't see the logic in removing a human from the airframe. The only cost savings is in the life support as all else as far as airframe, engines, sensors and flight control systems remain in place. You save a few thousand pounds of weight removing a cockpit, but that doesn't translate into that much of a greater range. You still need to write the requirements, design, proto it, flight test it, and do everything else like a manned aircraft. How does removing the human suddenly make an allegedly unaffordable aircraft affordable when it's not the life support systems creating the bulk of the costs?

 

[Sundog]

So if someone happens to destroy 1 bomber, we lose 6 to 8 drones along with it? That's the future of an offensive A2A capability?

I don't see the logic in removing a human from the airframe. The only cost savings is in the life support as all else as far as airframe, engines, sensors and flight control systems remain in place. You save a few thousand pounds of weight removing a cockpit, but that doesn't translate into that much of a greater range. You still need to write the requirements, design, proto it, flight test it, and do everything else like a manned aircraft. How does removing the human suddenly make an allegedly unaffordable aircraft affordable when it's not the life support systems creating the bulk of the costs?

Because that unmanned fighter can now pull 20Gs and if it gets downed over enemy territory you don't have a pilot trapped behind enemy lines. Also, that "bomber" will have much greater stand off capability. Basically, what they've found is that the best way to avoid being shot down by a missile is to stay out of the missile's range. Of course, you also save money by not requiring as much avionics on the drone/unmanned vehicle, since a lot of that information can be sent to it via other platforms.

 

[jsport]

"If anything, a heavily upgraded “F-35E” variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is far more likely to serve in the role of a future manned tactical fighter for the USAF based on fiscal constraints alone. "

Norman Augustine

Law Number XVI: In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3-1/2 days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.

IHMO the pilot culture is still quite necessary, needs curbing a bit, but not too much.

 

[rooster]

So if someone happens to destroy 1 bomber, we lose 6 to 8 drones along with it? That's the future of an offensive A2A capability?

I don't see the logic in removing a human from the airframe. The only cost savings is in the life support as all else as far as airframe, engines, sensors and flight control systems remain in place. You save a few thousand pounds of weight removing a cockpit, but that doesn't translate into that much of a greater range. You still need to write the requirements, design, proto it, flight test it, and do everything else like a manned aircraft. How does removing the human suddenly make an allegedly unaffordable aircraft affordable when it's not the life support systems creating the bulk of the costs?

Because that unmanned fighter can now pull 20Gs and if it gets downed over enemy territory you don't have a pilot trapped behind enemy lines. Also, that "bomber" will have much greater stand off capability. Basically, what they've found is that the best way to avoid being shot down by a missile is to stay out of the missile's range. Of course, you also save money by not requiring as much avionics on the drone/unmanned vehicle, since a lot of that information can be sent to it via other platforms.

Then a manned platform also does not need as much electronics as the information is coming from other platforms. Again the only difference is that multiple unmanned drones can be disabled by going after the "mother ship". Unmanned can be jammed. Unmanned cannot.

This I think is as bad an idea as leaving the gun out of the Phantom.

Leaving a human out of the cockpit can take a decade to correct with something manned. Very bad idea. At least at bare minimum make it optionally manned or this could be a very costly mistake in more ways than dollars.

 

[kaiserd]

The point is that manned and unmanned combat aircraft (currently, and probably for short-medium term) need to complement each other.
And it’s important to distinguish between different classes of UCAVs; as they get larger and more sophisticated and autonomous they are increasingly no more vulnerable to jamming and related activity than manned aircraft.
So while thoughts approx. a decade ago that unmanned was about to take over completely proved to be exaggerated equally UCAVs are not going away as they become increasingly important and are set to become a larger and larger part of the mix.

 

[rooster]

Agree unmanned is intelligent to develop and field. But it scares me when I hear about ditching an f22 and f15 replacement with unmanned drones controlled by Raiders. Good grief, just imagine when congress cuts the Raider back or caps it to 100. 100 raiders serving as bombers also tasked with air superiority will spread things thin. Loyal Wingman, good idea. Totally unmanned future fighter fleet, bad idea. I am actually disappointed the US didn't do anything with the x47.

 

[marauder2048]

I don't see the logic in removing a human from the airframe. The only cost savings is in the life support as all else as far as airframe, engines, sensors and flight control systems remain in place. You save a few thousand pounds of weight removing a cockpit, but that doesn't translate into that much of a greater range. You still need to write the requirements, design, proto it, flight test it, and do everything else like a manned aircraft. How does removing the human suddenly make an allegedly unaffordable aircraft affordable when it's not the life support systems creating the bulk of the costs?

Removing the human opens up a large volume for fuel. And canopy/windshield drag can be a very non-trivial chunk of overall drag.
Their removal permits an optimal inlet placement.

I've seen claims that total pilot interface/support equipment cost is around 10% of overall vehicle cost.

Not sure I've ever seen estimates on how much pilot interface/safety adds to design or DT/OT testing costs though
surely not being exposed to redesign/re-qualification costs for human interface systems (OBOGS, ejection seats, HMDS etc)
is a large advantage of unmanned systems.