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

[sferrin]

Nothing more useless than a handsome vehicle that doesn't perform.

Sure there is: an ugly vehicle that doesn't perform. *cough* X-32 *cough*

 

[chuck4]

Nothing more useless than a handsome vehicle that doesn't perform.

Sure there is: an ugly vehicle that doesn't perform. *cough* X-32 *cough*

The X-32 version with horizontal tail is not nearly as ugly as the F-35. F-35 sitting on the ground looks like a pig with a pointy snout.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Has someone been wearing the beer goggles?

 

[chuck4]

I am a sucker for under chin air intakes and thrust vectoring nozzles

 

[sferrin]

I am a sucker for under chin air intakes and thrust vectoring nozzles

Yeah but it's the rest of it that makes it look bad. Lipstick on a pig and all that.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I would say the same about the Boeing design. The airflow to top-mounted intakes would be very limited in high AOA.

It might have auxiliary ventral intakes to alleviate this problem. Since most of the time it will be flying straight and level the dorsal intakes will be masked from ground radar to improve low observability.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Sure there is: an ugly vehicle that doesn't perform. *cough* X-32 *cough*

Doesn’t perform? It lost the contest but this doesn’t mean it didn’t perform.

Of course there is the ‘amateur’ level analysis of having to remove some exterior doors in order to hover for the STOVL requirement. Which would be all well and good if the X-35 wasn’t carrying around a crap less weight, like not a single bomb bay component, in order to meet its own hover requirement.

But just like this “its ugly” level of analysis its based entirely on looking at a couple of photos and thinking that is all one needs to draw a conclusion. Ahh its an amazing relativist world we live in.

 

[Triton]

Heaven forbid that the services would buy an aircraft that pilots would be embarrassed to fly.

 

[chuck4]

There might indeed be a correlation between the look of the plane and the type of pilots who would be drawn to fly them, at least when the plane first enters service.

 

[sferrin]

Sure there is: an ugly vehicle that doesn't perform. *cough* X-32 *cough*

Doesn’t perform? It lost the contest but this doesn’t mean it didn’t perform.

Of course there is the ‘amateur’ level analysis of having to remove some exterior doors in order to hover for the STOVL requirement. Which would be all well and good if the X-35 wasn’t carrying around a crap less weight, like not a single bomb bay component, in order to meet its own hover requirement.

But just like this “its ugly” level of analysis its based entirely on looking at a couple of photos and thinking that is all one needs to draw a conclusion. Ahh its an amazing relativist world we live in.

Had to leave parts on the ground, had to go down to sea-level even then (the X-35 did it's work at Edwards at 2,300ft), had to go with a completely different configuration to even pretend to meet the requirement, less margine for inevitable weight gain. Yeah, it inspired confidence all over the place.

 

[sferrin]

Heaven forbid that the services would buy an aircraft that pilots would be embarrassed to fly.

Nobody's suggested "ugly" equals "bad". It's an ugly as hell design that happened to also suck. Both the Warthog and Phantom were ugly and good.

 

[Triton]

The Boeing NGAD concepts look like they are descendants of the X-36 design to me. I wonder how much MCAIR and the Phantom Works have influenced these designs.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Tidied up in a hurry...

 

[Sundog]

I would say the same about the Boeing design. The airflow to top-mounted intakes would be very limited in high AOA.

Actually, no. Northrop already demonstrated that you can design a high AOA dorsal inlet back in the late 70's, early 80's.

 

[SpudmanWP]

At high AOA?

 

[Triton]

Awesome, Rhinocrates! Thank you! B)

 

[SpudmanWP]

I blame the Sheeple.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Had to leave parts on the ground, had to go down to sea-level even then (the X-35 did it's work at Edwards at 2,300ft),

So if you carry more parts (ie deadweight) than the competition in the first place this doesn’t count? Kind of destroys the concept of benchmarking which one would imagine is pretty important in something like a comparison.

had to go with a completely different configuration to even pretend to meet the requirement,

You persist in this outrageous canard? Boeing had to add a tail to their JSF entry because the requirement was changed by the USN during the competition. Further the change to the actual structure of the aircraft was very minor. Even the PBS doco “Battle of the X-Planes” acknowledges this.

The real aircraft design related reasons Boeing lost to Lockheed were risks associated with hot air recirculation, much like this persistent attempt to defame the X-32.

 

[Sundog]

At high AOA?

Yes, at high AOA. It has to do with the interaction of the vortices coming off the strake at high AOA; They draw air into the inlet. But you have to work out the aero such that yaw angles don't cause the same vortex to be sucked into the inlet.

 

[chuck4]

At high AOA?

Yes, at high AOA. It has to do with the interaction of the vortices coming off the strake at high AOA; They draw air into the inlet. But you have to work out the aero such that yaw angles don't cause the same vortex to be sucked into the inlet.

I think even if you manage to keep the airflow from separating at high AOA and thus starving the ventral intake, you still have to deal with the fact that at high AOA, the ventral intake would be sucking in very low pressure air, thus causing the engine power to drop.

 

[sferrin]

The real aircraft design related reasons Boeing lost to Lockheed were risks associated with hot air recirculation,

Well it was certainly one of them.

 

[Rhinocrates]

<q>I think even if you manage to keep the airflow from separating at high AOA and thus starving the ventral intake, you still have to deal with the fact that at high AOA, the ventral intake would be sucking in very low pressure air, thus causing the engine power to drop.</q>


I imagine that while efforts were taken to mitigate that problem, there was a tradeoff, with the assumption that most combat would be beyond visual range, making use of advanced sensor systems, networks and missiles.


In a recent issue of Flight, looking at the need for a Long Range Bomber and elsewhere, the possibility that China would be a rival or adversary meant that the long ranges of the Pacific arena and China's industrial capacity meant that range and numbers were more important for consideration than one-to-one matches of ability. Hence, the NGB is replaced by a new bomber project with longer range and likewise, the next main fighter should emphasise speed, stealth, sensor,network ability and range ahead of one-to-one dogfighting ability in the design brief. The Boeing design looks like a long-range interceptor/strike aircraft. I'm actually surprised that they haven't gone further in that direction.

All real designs are tradeoffs, after all.

Now, whether those assumptions by Boeing are correct or not (considering that Lockheed appears to emphasise dogfighting ability a little more - but ironically with a rather YF-23-like design) is possibly the subject for debate. I remember that the F-4 didn't have a built-in cannon and that was a mistake while the F-15 did because the Air Force found by real combat experience that that was a mistake. Would it be a mistake now to make dogfighting ability secondary (though the Boeing concept might still include a cannon or a DEW)?

 

[Rhinocrates]

Whoops, sorry about all the greeblies in my post - still coming to terms with the protocols.

 

[flateric]

-

 

[flateric]

-

 

[dark sidius]

THis design can fly mach 3? Because the Fa/xx or F/x is multiple mach in order of mach 3 in the last iterations.

 

[flateric]

no, it can't

 

[sferrin]

THis design can fly mach 3? Because the Fa/xx or F/x is multiple mach in order of mach 3 in the last iterations.

Where'd you hear that?

 

[dark sidius]

Daryl Davis Boeing Phantom Works Director says on Defense tech, it will be capable to fly at higher mach number than today fighters. Today most of fighters fly at mach 2, so higher mach number says at minimum mach 3.

 

[sferrin]

Daryl Davis Boeing Phantom Works Director says on Defense tech, it will be capable to fly at higher mach number than today fighters. Today most of fighters fly at mach 2, so higher mach number says at minimum mach 3.

No it doesn't. Without specifics, the same could be said of the F-22. It cruises at higher mach numbers than the rest of today's fighters.

 

[dark sidius]

Another differents article speak about a speed of mach 3, but there is a thing we know, is the bones of the F/X will be the variable cycle engines devellop under the ADVENT program

 

[dark sidius]

The airframe in the pictures is very small for an air dominance fighter. Its the same size of the F-35

 

[Triton]

Nice find!

-

 

[Stargazer]

Today most of fighters fly at mach 2, so higher mach number says at minimum mach 3.

No it doesn't. The way I understand it, it could be Mach 2.1, 2.2, 2.3...

 

[dark sidius]

Why it can't do mach3, why we stay forever at mach 2 , no evolution in forty years.

 

[Avimimus]

Physics. Air resistance. Heat.

 

[Rafael]

Not really needed?

Shed some light on my ignorance. Having seen Blackbirds phase out.....

 

[sferrin]

Why it can't do mach3, why we stay forever at mach 2 , no evolution in forty years.

Going much past Mach 2.5 and now you have to start using things like titanium and stainless steel for your structure, both of which make composites look cheap. Add to that your engine cycle needs to change to one that isn't exactly fuel efficient at low speeds. Lastly, if you're cruising around at Mach 3 your time on station for CAP isn't going to be very long.

 

[flateric]

much closer up http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/6th-generation-combat-aircraft/

 

[Avimimus]

Why it can't do mach3, why we stay forever at mach 2 , no evolution in forty years.

Going much past Mach 2.5 and now you have to start using things like titanium and stainless steel for your structure, both of which make composites look cheap. Add to that your engine cycle needs to change to one that isn't exactly fuel efficient at low speeds. Lastly, if you're cruising around at Mach 3 your time on station for CAP isn't going to be very long.

At an even more practical level - your IR signature doesn't just give away your position - it calls in any sufficiently powerful ballistic weapons. Modern long range SAMs have... well:

48N6E2 (S-300) can track a mach 8 target (the missile itself peaks at Mach 5.7)

9M96E2 (S-400) can track a mach 14 target (although the missiles is somewhat slower - only Mach 2.8)

So, you don't want to be that easy to track and on a course that will take you within the NOZ of these things (even if you are fast enough to make the NOZ relatively small - you're turn radius will be huge).