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

[drakken]

That's funny, ;D
Some years ago, I have imagined a similar design for an european 5th gen fictionnal fighter called Squale.

 

[sublight]

"Miss February" is never gonna happen. We went from 5% of all the planes in our military being drones in 2005 to over 30% today. We have 10,767 piloted aircraft right now and that number is falling quickly.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/77662547/1105-001

 

[jjnodice]

Are these presentations online? I have tried a search but did not find anything. Thanks for any links.

Unfortunately...nothing seems online.

Thank you for your reply.

 

[Kryptid]

About Miss February; perhaps it really is as skinny as it looks in the original image. It may look stretched compared to modern designs, but if the future of aircraft implies even higher kinematic advantages than the F-22, then increasing the fineness ratio of the aircraft is one way to help attain that. I know that has its own disadvantages (less fuel volume unless the aircraft is extra long) but there may be ways of dealing with it (higher efficiency engines, for example). Might the relatively small nose imply that LM expects high performance radars to be compact enough to fit in such a small space in the future?

Those inlets greatly interest me. I would have figured that having a sharply-chined portion of the aircraft going straight down the inlet throat would be an invitation to vortex ingestion. Perhaps 6th generation engines will have better tolerance to turbulence?

 

[AAAdrone]

About Miss February; perhaps it really is as skinny as it looks in the original image. It may look stretched compared to modern designs, but if the future of aircraft implies even higher kinematic advantages than the F-22, then increasing the fineness ratio of the aircraft is one way to help attain that. I know that has its own disadvantages (less fuel volume unless the aircraft is extra long) but there may be ways of dealing with it (higher efficiency engines, for example). Might the relatively small nose imply that LM expects high performance radars to be compact enough to fit in such a small space in the future?

Those inlets greatly interest me. I would have figured that having a sharply-chined portion of the aircraft going straight down the inlet throat would be an invitation to vortex ingestion. Perhaps 6th generation engines will have better tolerance to turbulence?

If the control surfaces that actually are present on the tail are large like the F-23A's then having a long aircraft will certainly allow for a large moment arm and coupled with the lift generated by these butterfly tails (that might be able to vary their orientation like the F-23A's) will allow for a very strong pitching moment. If the fineness ratio is large enough and the wings are on a good moment arm then roll rates will be quite good considering the moment of inertia about the rolling axis being so small.

About the nose, I didn't remember it in one of my earlier posts on here but I was reminded that the radar will likely not be centralized in a nose anymore. The array will be distributed across the surface in a way not too dissimilar to the F-35's DAS and EOTS suites. There may be a large number of small AESA radar arrays embedded all throughout that airframe. In that article I posted in my previous post the distributed array is mentioned by Boeing and NG but LockMart didn't seem so fond of the concept at first due to the issues of maintaining something so heavily integrated into the structure.

The inlets do indeed confuse me as well. I don't see what looks like a typical boundary flow diverter so I initially thought DSI but apparently I was wrong. I can't quite exactly visualize where the initial oblique shock on the inlets are supposed to form for initial supersonic flow compression and retardation and I ultimately just don't see those inlets as being efficient without some way to obtain and maintain good laminar flow if those are supposed to be a return to the days of wing-root intakes like the HP Victor or Sea Vixen sans boundary layer flow diverters. DSI used a pressure field generated by a bump to cause the boundary layer to spill away from the inlet throat but I don't see a bump of any sort.

Perhaps LockMart is assuming the aircraft's fuselage will have a newfangled way to suck all boundary layers off of the fuselage via some magical porous multi-spectral stealth material to obtain the holy grail of perfectly laminar flow all around the aircraft? If so, what about having that chine going into the intake? Why would LockMart do that?

 

[Sundog]

Just for ref, don't forget that the GD submission for the ATF had the RADAR located in the forward end of each chine on either side of the fuselage and would have had the IRST in the nose.

 

[Kryptid]

Having several smaller arrays distributed around the aircraft sounds good for covering all look angles, but what would that mean for long distance detection? Can a series of small radars see as far away as a single, larger radar? Or would these aircraft rely on a combination of ultra-low RCS and data-linking to insure that they see the enemy first?

 

[donnage99]

And also maintainance issues as well. A skin of intergrated sensors of different types may sound futuristic and cool but having the radar in a form of large solid disk is alot easier to maintain and fix than having numerous of tiny arrays covering all over the aircraft.

 

[Dragon029]

"Miss February" is never gonna happen. We went from 5% of all the planes in our military being drones in 2005 to over 30% today. We have 10,767 piloted aircraft right now and that number is falling quickly.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/77662547/1105-001

I was a bit wary of that quote, so I looked up some approximate Wikipedia numbers - the drones that make up that 30% include smaller vehicles like the RQ-7 and RQ-11; drones that I wouldn't entirely consider a "warplane", especially with hobbyists making RC planes larger than them. That's just pure opinion though and those drones are a lot more advanced than something you'd find at a store.

Still, if we did cut out the drones that weren't turboprop / turbofan powered, but also included all the turbo___ ones that are planned (not including the RQ-170), they would only make up about 6% of the US armed force's flying fleet. I'll have to try and do some more number comparisons. I just think that the notion of 1/3 is silly.

 

[sanjeev.k]

morphing wings or (dare I say it) switchblade style forward folding wings?

I originally thought they were morphing, but then I was skeptical about whether the wings would have to increase in mass in order to change like what may be shown in the drawing assuming camber thickness and other airfoil properties aren't changed. It's kind of hard to tell exactly how the change in span and aspect ratio occurs.

What I can tell is that in both pictures the wings have a point on the span where there is a line indicating where the wing could fold about but it is also worth noting that the aircraft shape looks completely consistent across both graphics in terms of how the fuselage looks and the wings look from the roots to the "folding line". It appears to be the wingtips that are the only variable in the equation in terms of looks, camber thickness, span, chord length, etc.

There doesn't appear to be any glove housing the necessary mechanisms for rotating the wings forward and where the wing folds into isn't shown anywhere. That and folding wings are an old idea that have their share of problems such as increased weight, maintenance intensity, etc. As for morphing, I may have to side with morphing after recently looking at various ideas for how a wing could morph in a Materials and Design paper.

It is possible that the "folding line" is actually a sheathe for a telescoping material that is free to elongate itself at the push of a switch. This would mean that the increase in span would decrease the camber thickness in order to conserve mass and allow the wing to fit inside of itself in a telescope manner. The changes in the wingtip shape from a tapered wingtip to a trapezoid can also be attributed to various smart materials, piezoelectric actuators and other wing-morphing technologies.


Wing morphing is just the future way to achieve this without the complexity and weight penalties associated with complex folding mechanisms.

Interestingly enough, there is an old artists impression of a MiG 1.42 concept (quite prevalent in the 1990's) that seems to depict
an aircraft with slightly downturned wingtips (along with higly blended intakes and a sharply canted inward tails). See
http://www.aviation.ru/MiG/39/MiG-1.42.gif (its the 2nd image from the top).

I am not sure if MiG ever intended morphing wings for this particular 1.42 concept (assuming of course that its a valid engineering artists impression from the Mikoyan SDB and not someone's artistic fantasy)

 

[bobbymike]

Speaking of drones this was inserted into the last paragraph of a Yahoo News story:

The need for faster and more nimble combat drones will likely only climb, though, with the Air Force specifically mentioned as having a sound barrier smashing "super/hypersonic" remote fighter already in development.

 

[Ogami musashi]

Head of Skunk works answers the question:
@dewline


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROHyfpeiom4&feature=player_embedded

 

[ouroboros]

Wasn't there some work a while back for an inlet device that sort of subdivides the inlet volume into a dense pack of converging tubes/channels to emulate a single larger converging inlet, but allowed both finer control of the overall air stream, allowed a potentially shorter inlet, and doubled as a radar blocker? Looked from the front like a grid of square or hex channels. That might provide the means of suppressing the vortexes coming off the chines once past the inlet lip. Doesn't solve the inlet lip initial shock issues though.

 

[Sundog]

Wasn't there some work a while back for an inlet device that sort of subdivides the inlet volume into a dense pack of converging tubes/channels to emulate a single larger converging inlet, but allowed both finer control of the overall air stream, allowed a potentially shorter inlet, and doubled as a radar blocker? Looked from the front like a grid of square or hex channels. That might provide the means of suppressing the vortexes coming off the chines once past the inlet lip. Doesn't solve the inlet lip initial shock issues though.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2420.msg95075.html#msg95075

 

[Deino]

Just found at the facebook-page from the "Combat Aircrfat Monthly" and posted by "Jantex Airlines" alias the "SR-38 Black Mamba" !

Deino

 

[bobbymike]

Our Limited Horizon:

The Air Force has its "hands full" with delivering on a few key programs and staving off financial problems, leaving little room for inventing the next generation of air dominance fighter, said the service's leadership."We need to focus on [generation] five before we start investing heavily in Gen 6," Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said in a press conference Feb. 24 at AFA's Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Fla. "That's what requires our maximum management attention,” he added. Technology efforts are underway in stealth, apertures, propulsion, electronic warfare, and other "key areas," and "we'll keep the seed corn going," said Schwartz. "But we're not going to get this programmatic definition" of a sixth generation fighter, he said. "I just don't see that as being a valuable use of our limited 'bandwidth,'" he added. At the same event, Secretary Michael Donley said a sixth generation fighter is a "good question for a couple of Chiefs and Secretaries after us."

 

[dark sidius]

I think we see the 6th g fighter after USAF invest in the new bomber. It will be the programm priority after the LRS-B in 2025.

 

[Woody]

Here's a bit of PS manipulation of Deino's picture, to show the wraparound nature of the Black Mamba engine inlets.

Cheers, Woody

 

[bobbymike]

Thinking Beyond the F-22: Research into a sixth generation fighter to succeed the F-22 is "going forward," according to Lt. Gen. Hawk Carlisle, Air Staff lead for operations, plans, and requirements. "We're learning a lot . . . but we're in a learning stage," said Carlisle, answering a question on this after his AFA-Air Force Breakfast Program address in Arlington, Va., on Tuesday.As with the new long-range strike bomber, the Air Force will "freeze" requirements at some point in order to get a defined capability going, he said. Service officials would then focus on "spiraling in" new capabilities as they become necessary or affordable, said Carlisle. Because funds are so tight, "we have to have very high technology readiness levels and also manufacturing levels" in order to "produce an airplane that is affordable for the American people," he said. Carlisle noted that the next generation of aircraft would be "extremely low observable" rather than simply "very low observable." The difference is not simply the addition of electronics, networking, and cyber, he said. "There is active [stealth], passive [stealth] as well as other techniques that aid in that capability,” he explained. (See also Requirements Discipline and Sixth Gen and Our Limited Horizon.)

 

[BDF]

Thinking Beyond the F-22: snip ...


Carlisle noted that the next generation of aircraft would be "extremely low observable" rather than simply "very low observable." The difference is not simply the addition of electronics, networking, and cyber, he said. "There is active [stealth], passive [stealth] as well as other techniques that aid in that capability,” he explained. (See also Requirements Discipline and Sixth Gen and Our Limited Horizon.)

Very interesting in that this is the first public mention of ELO from the USAF or a contractor to my knowledge. I think Sweetman puts that threshold at -70dBsm. What is interesting is the mention of active measures which I believe is also a first mention publicly. I wonder if they're aiming for active to counter low frequencies and more traditional shaping/materials approach for high frequencies.

 

[Sea Skimmer]

The number one place to use active stealth methods would be to hide the aircraft's own radar antenna. This would also require far less power and raw performance and technology then attempting to do anything about the signature of the entire aircraft.

 

[LowObservable]

Good point, Sea Skimmer. Raises the prospect of plasma - as discussed by ITAE - particularly since the bomber is likely to be a high-altitude type).

 

[hesham]

Hi,


http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/aircraft-pictures/2010/05/boeing-unveils-fa-18ef-replace.html

 

[flateric]

fresh news, as always...

 

[sferrin]

fresh news, as always...

Sarcasm? ;D

 

[flateric]

kind of...

 

[Thorvic]

I noted in a summary report of a recent meeting discussing the F-35 that the USN reiterated that it was still studiying the NGAD.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/no-more-money-to-cover-f-35-delays-says-usaf-369838/
Nice to see that after the JSF program was touted as the last manned combat aircraft when UCAV appeared to be the only way forward, focus is now going towards both the Navy's NGAD and the USAF New Bomber projects, that should breath a bit more life into the US Defence industry
As to the F/A-XX i doubt we'll see much requirement definition untill the end of the decade, for now thay are seeing what technology is on offer or under development, and what the potential opposition are working on to determine what sort of threat they will ahve to deal with. They will also disect the F-22/F-35 & F-18 E/F programs to see wheres those programs succeeded and where they failed.
I wonder if the state of the F-35C program will have some impact on how and when the FA-XX program is run, would they set a stronger focus on Carrier capability so we don't see the Arrestor hook farce of the F-35C repeated, would they look to start the program earlier as a more relaistic timetable, or would they delay it to allow the operational performance of carrier based F-35C to be assessed so that data can be used to refine their requirements.

 

[F-14D]

I noted in a summary report of a recent meeting discussing the F-35 that the USN reiterated that it was still studiying the NGAD.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/no-more-money-to-cover-f-35-delays-says-usaf-369838/
Nice to see that after the JSF program was touted as the last manned combat aircraft when UCAV appeared to be the only way forward, focus is now going towards both the Navy's NGAD and the USAF New Bomber projects, that should breath a bit more life into the US Defence industry
As to the F/A-XX i doubt we'll see much requirement definition untill the end of the decade, for now thay are seeing what technology is on offer or under development, and what the potential opposition are working on to determine what sort of threat they will ahve to deal with. They will also disect the F-22/F-35 & F-18 E/F programs to see wheres those programs succeeded and where they failed.
I wonder if the state of the F-35C program will have some impact on how and when the FA-XX program is run, would they set a stronger focus on Carrier capability so we don't see the Arrestor hook farce of the F-35C repeated, would they look to start the program earlier as a more relaistic timetable, or would they delay it to allow the operational performance of carrier based F-35C to be assessed so that data can be used to refine their requirements.

At least part of the F-35 (and F-22) program problems can arguably be assessed as coming from the lack of experience in design teams nowadays. As Ben Rich once said, he and people of his vintage would get to work on the design of 4-6 operational aircraft plus others that don't make it to production over their careers, mentored by senior engineers with lots of experience. By the time he was speaking, new people coming on then might get to work on two if they were lucky. He said that the ones starting out following them may only get to work on one in their whole career, being mentored by people who only worked on two. His worry was not that the new generation wasn't as smart, but that they wouldn't get the experience base needed to avoid situations that were intuitiely obvious to those with more background. He cited examples he had encountered such as younger designers running hydraulic lines above electrical circuits, etc.; things that weren't covered in textbooks, you had to learn from experience. The arrestor hook fiasco sounds like just what he was talking about.

Given how long it now takes to get something into service, given our risk-averse development philosophy, I worry if we wait too long for the next generation. Waiting until there is a lot of F-35C experience means you probably wouldn't see something before 2040 or beyond. This could make the situation I describe even worse.

 

[tacitblue]

I noted in a summary report of a recent meeting discussing the F-35 that the USN reiterated that it was still studiying the NGAD.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/no-more-money-to-cover-f-35-delays-says-usaf-369838/
Nice to see that after the JSF program was touted as the last manned combat aircraft when UCAV appeared to be the only way forward, focus is now going towards both the Navy's NGAD and the USAF New Bomber projects, that should breath a bit more life into the US Defence industry
As to the F/A-XX i doubt we'll see much requirement definition untill the end of the decade, for now thay are seeing what technology is on offer or under development, and what the potential opposition are working on to determine what sort of threat they will ahve to deal with. They will also disect the F-22/F-35 & F-18 E/F programs to see wheres those programs succeeded and where they failed.
I wonder if the state of the F-35C program will have some impact on how and when the FA-XX program is run, would they set a stronger focus on Carrier capability so we don't see the Arrestor hook farce of the F-35C repeated, would they look to start the program earlier as a more relaistic timetable, or would they delay it to allow the operational performance of carrier based F-35C to be assessed so that data can be used to refine their requirements.

At least part of the F-35 (and F-22) program problems can arguably be assessed as coming from the lack of experience in design teams nowadays. As Ben Rich once said, he and people of his vintage would get to work on the design of 4-6 operational aircraft plus others that don't make it to production over their careers, mentored by senior engineers with lots of experience. By the time he was speaking, new people coming on then might get to work on two if they were lucky. He said that the ones starting out following them may only get to work on one in their whole career, being mentored by people who only worked on two. His worry was not that the new generation wasn't as smart, but that they wouldn't get the experience base needed to avoid situations that were intuitiely obvious to those with more background. He cited examples he had encountered such as younger designers running hydraulic lines above electrical circuits, etc.; things that weren't covered in textbooks, you had to learn from experience. The arrestor hook fiasco sounds like just what he was talking about.

Given how long it now takes to get something into service, given our risk-averse development philosophy, I worry if we wait too long for the next generation. Waiting until there is a lot of F-35C experience means you probably wouldn't see something before 2040 or beyond. This could make the situation I describe even worse.

+1
Think the state of affairs of fixed wing aircraft is dismal in that engineers only work on one program? Look at the rotary wing aircraft: Cobras serving since Vietnam, and Apaches older than even the F-15 fleet; then there are the CH-47s.... The only thing to come along in over 30 years is the Osprey, and the Blackhawk (which itself is long in the tooth). Mankind is inherently flawed in that we learn by doing things for ourselves, rather than reading textbooks. There's not a lot of opportunity these days to learn by doing, and improving your work on the next project, and so on and so forth... Contractors and engineers have got one chance to get it right. Rightly or wrongly, the state of affairs dictate that the F-35 is what we've got to make due with for at least the next 20 years because even if a new program were kicked off yesterday, it would take until 2030 before it could make it into production.

 

[sferrin]

Given how long it now takes to get something into service, given our risk-averse development philosophy, I worry if we wait too long for the next generation. Waiting until there is a lot of F-35C experience means you probably wouldn't see something before 2040 or beyond. This could make the situation I describe even worse.

Not only that, you run into the mentality of, "okay design is done, we can lay those guys off now. We'll just staff up again the next time we need them." Seen it first hand. Then they staff up - with guys who use to design washing machines or cars or bridges. It's all the same right?

 

[AeroFranz]

Tacitblue, i wholeheartedly agree with your post. I take small exception to
"Mankind is inherently flawed in that we learn by doing things for ourselves, rather than reading textbooks."

The problem is even worse than that! Even reading all the books/reports you can find wouldn't be enough (although it would help).
A lot of the engineering knowledge is tribal and leaves the company when the old guys who retire. If you don't have a good mentor to pass along informationyou're screwed. Hard learned lessons are as good as never happened, and we make the same mistakes again (and re-learn...)

 

[F-14D]

Given how long it now takes to get something into service, given our risk-averse development philosophy, I worry if we wait too long for the next generation. Waiting until there is a lot of F-35C experience means you probably wouldn't see something before 2040 or beyond. This could make the situation I describe even worse.

Not only that, you run into the mentality of, "okay design is done, we can lay those guys off now. We'll just staff up again the next time we need them." Seen it first hand. Then they staff up - with guys who use to design washing machines or cars or bridges. It's all the same right?

This is so true, and extends beyond a/c. Britain, for example, put off and put off developing their next generation of SSNs until they woke up one day and found out they didn't have enough experienced people left to do it by themselves. Fortunately, we still had the expertise and were able to assist in the design of their latest class. It is said by some that the main reason Bill Clinton consented to the production of SSN-23 was because if he didn't the gap would be so long before the Virginias got into serious development that we might lose the design and production ability to build SSNs.

This is one of those things that doesn't make the news.

 

[yasotay]

I suspect the USAF Bomber and the DoD Future Vertical Lift / Joint Multi-Role rotorcraft initiatives are going because someone got the decision makers to realize that the better part of the experiance base is within a decade of full retirement. Good news for the US rotorcraft industry is that there is some new blood in the arena.

 

[bobbymike]

Concept Plane Eye Candy: Boeing’s F/A-XX


While we’re on the topics of new Boeing jets, let’s take a look at the latest evolution of Boeing’s concept for a 6th-generation manned, carrier-launched strike fighter dubbed F/A-XX.


We saw the first drawings of the concept jet in 2010 during the Navy League’s annual Sea, Air, Space conference in National Harbor, Md. This year’s conference saw the Chicago-based company unveil a model of the plane.


Click through the jump for more pics (forgive the quality, I took them with an iPhone)

http://defensetech.org/2012/04/16/concept-plane-eye-candy-boeings-fa-xx/#ixzz1sFHuLzre
Defense.org

 

[Reaper]

Nice pictures! Sadly everything shown beforehand will never be build, anyway!

 

[flateric]

Navy issues RFI for F/A-XX or whatever should come as follow-on to Super Bugs and Growlers
http://defensetech.org/2012/04/16/the-navy-kicks-off-the-search-for-its-next-fighter/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89726577/Navy-FA-XX-RFI-1

The intent of this research is to solicit Industry inputs on candidate solutions for CVN based aircraft to provide multi-role capability in an A2AD operational environment. Primary missions include, but are not limited to, air warfare (AW), strike warfare (STW), surface warfare (SUW), and close air support (CAS). Also consider the ability of your concept to provide other capabilities currently provided by strike fighter aircraft, such as organic air-to-air refueling (AAR), Tactical Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition (RSTA), and airborne electronic attack (AEA). The trade space refinement activity will characterize a broad tradespace, to include unmanned, optionally manned and manned aircraft. System attributes and system capabilities will be considered in the context of cost and affordability. Concepts that are derived from legacy aircraft, “clean sheet” new design aircraft, as well as innovative technology concepts specifically tailored for the operational context are all relevant. Please provide a separate white paper for each technology concept or family of related and complementary technology concepts; multiple white papers may be provided.

 

[flateric]

from a new DEW Line blog's master - Dave Majumdar
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/04/fa-xx-at-the-navy-leagues-sea-.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/04/us-navy-issues-fa-xx-rfi.html

 

[Demon Lord Razgriz]

I have looked & looked and I have yet to find a decent explanation as to what separates 5th Generation Fighter from 6th Generation fighters. All I've seen is people suggesting things that are just better ways to get the 5th Generation factor, stealth; but nothing truely revolutionary to leap to that next level. Frankly, only 2 things I can think of that could break that barrier: a Cost Reduction breakthrough to go back to $20-30 mil for a top of the line fighter, or Smart AI for UCAVs.

What's your thoughts on what that 6th Gen Barrier Breakthrought factor will be?

 

[flateric]

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/01/picture-lockheed-reveals-conce.html

it is time to start looking at the technologies that will provide the next quantum leap in capabilities for the next generation of fighters (IOC ~ 2030+). Simply removing the pilot from an aircraft or introducing incremental improvements in signature and range does not constitute a generational leap in capability. These improvements are already being looked at for our 5th generation fighters.

Future fighter requirements are not set and will depend on assessments of future threats that may emerge in the 2030 time frame. Greatly increased speed, longer range, extended loiter times, multi-spectral stealth, ubiquitous situation awareness, and self-healing structures and systems are some of the possible technologies we envision for the next generation of fighter aircraft. Next generation fighter capabilities will be driven by game changing technological breakthroughs in the areas of propulsion, materials, power generation, sensors, and weapons that are yet to be fully imagined. This will require another significant investment in research and development from a standpoint of both time and money. We will continue to investigate technologies that demonstrate great promise, and work closely with our customers to define the future operational concepts and requirements that the next generation of fighter aircraft must fulfill.

 

[tacitblue]

What's your thoughts on what that 6th Gen Barrier Breakthrought factor will be?

More maintainable low observable materials/coatings than the F-22; sensor fusion on par with the F-35, along with 1.8M cruise speed; suitable for the USN and the USAF. The rest of the "breakthroughs" will be in the guise of missiles and standoff a2g munitions. Don't expect anything too gee-whiz since history proves the DoD prefers to take a conservative approach to fighters as indicated by the conservatively designed YF-22 winning against the more radical YF-23, and the conservatively designed X-35 winning over the X-32.