That's funny, ;D
Some years ago, I have imagined a similar design for an european 5th gen fictionnal fighter called Squale.
Some years ago, I have imagined a similar design for an european 5th gen fictionnal fighter called Squale.
Ogami musashi said:jjnodice said:Are these presentations online? I have tried a search but did not find anything. Thanks for any links.
Unfortunately...nothing seems online.
Kryptid said: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?
sublight said:"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
AAAdrone said: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.
ouroboros said: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.
bobbymike said: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.)
flateric said:fresh news, as always...
Thorvic said: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 said:Thorvic said: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.
F-14D said: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.
sferrin said:F-14D said: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?
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)
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.
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.
Demon Lord Razgriz said:What's your thoughts on what that 6th Gen Barrier Breakthrought factor will be?