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

[bobbymike]

Navy Offers Airplane-Building Advice to USAF

The Navy has three times as many airplane projects in production or on the drawing board as the Air Force, and it’s because of rigorous and painstaking efforts to reduce costs, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said. Speaking with defense writers on June 13 in Washington, D.C., Mabus acknowledged his service is buying three variants of the F/A-18, two variants of the F-35, the P-8 patrol plane, V-22 tiltrotors, and has both a new stealth remotely-piloted combat aircraft and a new-start advanced fighter underway. The Air Force, by contrast, is only buying F-35s and C-130Js. It also is preparing to buy tankers and has a bomber in the conceptual phase. Mabus said “we have done a good job, both in shipbuilding and aircraft programs” by using mature technology—“build the things you know how to build“— as well as should-cost methods, “firm fixed price contracts with incentives for bringing down cost and…overhead” and commercial derivatives “to the extent you can.” Getting foreign partners to buy the same aircraft also helps reduce unit cost, he said. The big money-saver, though, has been multi-year contracts in which the service agrees to buy a certain number and the contractor, with solid numbers to plan for, can most efficiently buy materials, hire labor, and schedule work. “Smooth the program out,” he advised, “then you’re able to do stuff like this.” He warned, however, that continued sequester would “start to break multi-years, which will mean you get fewer aircraft…for the same money.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See bolded - Yes I am speculating but the way this is worded seems to imply the Navy's next generation fighter is currently at a development stage beyond the Air Force's NGB? :-\

 

[Sundog]

I doubt that a new naval fighter program is anywhere near as far along as the NGB is so far. The NGB has contracts being made for development and "supposedly" has a program office already set up to direct development. To the best of my knowledge, the Navy isn't anywhere near that far along with regard to the development of a new fighter.

 

[bobbymike]

I doubt that a new naval fighter program is anywhere near as far along as the NGB is so far. The NGB has contracts being made for development and "supposedly" has a program office already set up to direct development. To the best of my knowledge, the Navy isn't anywhere near that far along with regard to the development of a new fighter.

My assumption was based on the language. Military men are usually precise in the words they use and to use the term 'new-start' for an aircraft program while using 'conceptual' for the NGB is curious IMHO.

 

[dark sidius]

Its impossible to know where is the Lrs-B, there is an office but all is classified and we don't know the real advance of this program or if there is soon a demonstrator in line.

 

[Dragon029]

Lockheed has uploaded a CG video commemorating their '70 years of mission driven innovation', featuring, at 1:32, a 3D model of it's Miss February 6th gen concept.

http://youtu.be/clW0qecco-0

 

[flateric]

Dragon029 wins ten internetz today!

 

[Sundog]

Based on the basic layout, it looks like we could have had tomorrow's fighter today, if the YF-23A had won the political battle.

 

[bobbymike]

Dragon029 wins ten internetz today!

Concur, also got excited over the 'Global Strike' platform seen just before they end with 'Top Secret Programs' ;D

 

[Sundog]

Concur, also got excited over the 'Global Strike' platform seen just before they end with 'Top Secret Programs' ;D

The Global Strike Platform is their 'Black Swift' design, which you can see here in the forums under the same title.

 

[donnage99]

Based on the basic layout, it looks like we could have had tomorrow's fighter today, if the YF-23A had won the political battle.

*Slow applaud*
On a side note, if the yf-23 won. It sure may have changed who won the JSF program. And on a grander scale of things, stealth fighter programs and concepts around the world today may have looked very different, as one can see the f-22 has set the bar on how modern stealth shaping looks like for other 5th generation aircraft.

 

[dark sidius]

Very exciting video, I love the end with th HTV-3X and the door close TOP SECRET. Awesome

 

[Ogami musashi]

Just because the LM 6gen concept has V tail doesn't make it an F-23!


Air flows from nose to tail and i can see so many different geometries there!


And well that's an art concept after all.


It looks for sure better in 3D, would love to have the model

 

[RSF]

*Slow applaud*
"On a side note, if the yf-23 won. It sure may have changed who won the JSF program. And on a grander scale of things, stealth fighter programs and concepts around the world today may have looked very different, as one can see the f-22 has set the bar on how modern stealth shaping looks like for other 5th generation aircraft."

I agree, the YF-32 winning would have changed many things. It also would have been a slightly better aircraft for a "Pacific Pivot" mission with a longer range than the Raptor, perfect for interception/interdiction of a production J-20.

 

[seruriermarshal]

Wow , TOP SECRET !

 

[F-14D]

Based on the basic layout, it looks like we could have had tomorrow's fighter today, if the YF-23A had won the political battle.

*Slow applaud*
On a side note, if the yf-23 won. It sure may have changed who won the JSF program. And on a grander scale of things, stealth fighter programs and concepts around the world today may have looked very different, as one can see the f-22 has set the bar on how modern stealth shaping looks like for other 5th generation aircraft.

I would opine that it really wouldn't matter if the F-23 would have won, MDD still would have been eliminated and Lockheed still would have beat Boeing. The more relevant program to F-35, I believe, was A/FX. Specifically, if A/FX hadn't died, there would have been no need for a tri-service F-35 type aircraft.

 

[donnage99]

I would opine that it really wouldn't matter if the F-23 would have won, MDD still would have been eliminated and Lockheed still would have beat Boeing. The more relevant program to F-35, I believe, was A/FX. Specifically, if A/FX hadn't died, there would have been no need for a tri-service F-35 type aircraft.

I agree with your second point. A/F-X were the high end, and the super hornet may have filled in the lower end. However, the first point I disagree. A win with the ATF for mcdonnell and northrop might have produced a different proposal for their JSF bid. Boeing bid also benefit from their involvement with the ATF program, in the fields of structural materials, electronics, and program management. Without it, Boeing may not have come through to the final round.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Just because the LM 6gen concept has V tail doesn't make it an F-23!


Air flows from nose to tail and i can see so many different geometries there!


And well that's an art concept after all.


It looks for sure better in 3D, would love to have the model

I agree with that. This is a different creature, with one similar feature.

I like it.

 

[donnage99]

I agree, the YF-32 winning would have changed many things. It also would have been a slightly better aircraft for a "Pacific Pivot" mission with a longer range than the Raptor, perfect for interception/interdiction of a production J-20.

To add to that, I think the YF-23 would have filled an emergent and very prommising mission much better than yf-22 - intercepting ballistic missile in its boost phase. We been seeing this concept throwing around in recent time. I think that requirements for 6th generation fighter will also have this in mind.

 

[bobbymike]

I agree, the YF-32 winning would have changed many things. It also would have been a slightly better aircraft for a "Pacific Pivot" mission with a longer range than the Raptor, perfect for interception/interdiction of a production J-20.

To add to that, I think the YF-23 would have filled an emergent and very prommission much better than yf-22 - intercepting ballistic missile in its boost phase. We been seeing this concept throwing around in recent time. I think that requirements for 6th generation fighter will also have this in mind.

So is a key feature of 6th Generation an 'Advent' type powerplant, loitering for long periods and then possibly a Mach 3 'dash speed' for the boost phase intercept role?

 

[lantinian]

I would like to point out that there is more similarity between Lockheed 6th Gen concept and Northrop 5th Gen one than V-tails.

This similarity is visually felt but its not a direct coping so much as its an answer to the same operational requirement.

Lets remember that for the ATF, USAF did have basic guidelines on performance but left tactical operational use to the contractors imagination. So in certain areas the two teams pushed quite beyond the requirement.
YF-22 pushed in agility, while YF-23 stressed speed and stealth.

Looking at Lockheed 6th gen concept, its clear that they vindicated Northrop's approach. What brought the F-22 such dominance in Red Flag was in large part speed and stealth, not agility.

To achieve high supercruise speed, this 6gen fighter has a very long area ruled airframe which likely features weapons bays only along the centerline. The wings feature a much higher sweep too.

To achieve LO, apart from using V-tails is has a extensive 360 deg leading edge coating. There is generally more attention to platform alinghtment. The inlet/fuselage integration is a step above the YF-23 one which itself was a step above the YF-23 one.

Very curiously Lockheed's 6 gen fighter also does not feature a traditional TVC of any kind. This alone is worth discussing. The presence of TVC in YF-22 showed no confidence in the the fighter deciding the battle in BVR only but it felt like its backwards compatible with existing USAF operating tactics. In other words; maneuver to the enemy's six o'clock and shoot him down.

That said, it does not mean that it does not use some advanced fluidic TVC, but it does mean that no compromise was made with the aircraft stealth and weight for a sake of operationally useless features. When you fly that fast, aerodynamic control are more than adequate.

Now this new fighter, just like the YF-23 was born to live in the supersonic regime and likely employs F-35 approach to surviving a flyby of an enemy aircraft: give the missile every bit of energy possible and let it do the turning, while you keep as much energy for yourself as well.

Spacing the engines a bit from one another is also advantageous in terms of providing a natural space for the internal bays; better damage tolerance, easier engine cooling and possibly maintenance too.

I'd be interested to hear about the advantages of the lambda wing though...

 

[dark sidius]

Surely a dash speed of mach 3 for 6th gen fighters withe Advent engine, very interesting the global strike concept on the video, may be still alive in black world who know?.

 

[sferrin]

I would like to point out that there is more similarity between Lockheed 6th Gen concept and Northrop 5th Gen one than V-tails.

This similarity is visually felt but its not a direct coping so much as its an answer to the same operational requirement.

Lets remember that for the ATF, USAF did have basic guidelines on performance but left tactical operational use to the contractors imagination. So in certain areas the two teams pushed quite beyond the requirement.
YF-22 pushed in agility, while YF-23 stressed speed and stealth.

Looking at Lockheed 6th gen concept, its clear that they vindicated Northrop's approach. What brought the F-22 such dominance in Red Flag was in large part speed and stealth, not agility.

I think the YF-23 leanings were too soon. Let's remember that at the time the Flanker was wowing the aviation world regularly with Cobra's, back flips, etc. I think that had an influence albeit small. Were the USAF to go with a fighter that couldn't do that the less informed with hands on the purse strings (i.e. the politicians) might not be too impressed. (And you can be sure the F-22's detractors would be pointing it out at every opportunity.) Also China hadn't made the run that it is now so it wasn't as obvious that there was going to be a switch to the Pacific and it's longer required ranges.

 

[lantinian]

True. But such political consideration were/are at the hearth of the push against the F-22/F-35 too. Both survived.

I am more inclined to believe that USAF itself and especially those within not familiar with the operational success of Stealth or the potential of supercruise were the real obstacle to adoption and the voices behind the "we need to do the cobra too" argument.

Back then, they just wanted a better F-15. Now they want a better F-22.

They shoul'd got the F-23 in the first place

 

[malipa]

You know all the modern fighters have the IRST systems which can detect the f-22 and f-35 from 50 nm distance even in bad weather conditions. The stealth materials absorb the radar-signals but they turn in into heat, so the coating or the radar-absorbing materials get hot and starts emitting, sometimes in great quantities, infra red.
So there position will be compromised somewhat and with the new satellites and stuff. In this case the importance of super-maneuverability increases dearly. Don't forget the T-50 has a greatly increased agility. Besides missiles get more and more sophisticated and can see through the chaffs and flares so these become useless.
A new way of protection is needed i guess. And you can't say the f-22 was a bad choice or the f-23 was a better choice. At that time the f-22 was the better aircraft. At this moment the other aircraft may seem to be a better choice but saying this afterwards is quite easy, but it doesn't matter. What does matter is making the right choice for a new aircraft.
So I would say start brainstorming and spreed your ideas!

 

[lantinian]

Sounds like you should read less T-50 propaganda and a bit more about infrared dissipation in the atmosphere.

The especially interesting part is that some infrared frequencies get dissipated real fast in the atmosphere while others don't and that you can convert heat from one type to the other which F-22's paint is know to do.

 

[Ogami musashi]

I would like to point out that there is more similarity between Lockheed 6th Gen concept and Northrop 5th Gen one than V-tails.

This similarity is visually felt but its not a direct coping so much as its an answer to the same operational requirement.

Lets remember that for the ATF, USAF did have basic guidelines on performance but left tactical operational use to the contractors imagination. So in certain areas the two teams pushed quite beyond the requirement.
YF-22 pushed in agility, while YF-23 stressed speed and stealth.

Looking at Lockheed 6th gen concept, its clear that they vindicated Northrop's approach. What brought the F-22 such dominance in Red Flag was in large part speed and stealth, not agility.

To achieve high supercruise speed, this 6gen fighter has a very long area ruled airframe which likely features weapons bays only along the centerline. The wings feature a much higher sweep too.

To achieve LO, apart from using V-tails is has a extensive 360 deg leading edge coating. There is generally more attention to platform alinghtment. The inlet/fuselage integration is a step above the YF-23 one which itself was a step above the YF-23 one.

Very curiously Lockheed's 6 gen fighter also does not feature a traditional TVC of any kind. This alone is worth discussing. The presence of TVC in YF-22 showed no confidence in the the fighter deciding the battle in BVR only but it felt like its backwards compatible with existing USAF operating tactics. In other words; maneuver to the enemy's six o'clock and shoot him down.

That said, it does not mean that it does not use some advanced fluidic TVC, but it does mean that no compromise was made with the aircraft stealth and weight for a sake of operationally useless features. When you fly that fast, aerodynamic control are more than adequate.

Now this new fighter, just like the YF-23 was born to live in the supersonic regime and likely employs F-35 approach to surviving a flyby of an enemy aircraft: give the missile every bit of energy possible and let it do the turning, while you keep as much energy for yourself as well.

Spacing the engines a bit from one another is also advantageous in terms of providing a natural space for the internal bays; better damage tolerance, easier engine cooling and possibly maintenance too.

I'd be interested to hear about the advantages of the lambda wing though...

I think it is a bit early to draw specifications on a conceptual design that may or may not be more than an art design. I also think that we are not qualified enough to say what the F-23 was really worth for and i employ the "F-23" because i encompass the fact that nothing tells the F-23A version would have been exempt of the shortcomings the F-22 suffered (I.E vastly increased weight, lower fuel volume) and that the lengthening of the plane wouldn't have had some consequences either.


On the TVC topic, LM recently submitted a patent for an integrated TVC system, either fluidic or mechanical with a conceptual fighter that shares a rear deck like miss February. (I think i posted it in this very thread)

 

[malipa]

Look at the infrared imaging at the farnborough airshow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58N6Plr17GU f-22
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrBGUgSBbUI eurofighter
The infrared signature is sometimes even brighter than that of the eurofighter. (compare it at the same distance and zoom...)

And I'm not a T-50 fan at all. I just think the TVC is better on the T-50 than on the F-22. I guess you're a great F-22 fan.

And IR has longer wave lengths and the light that beams on us makes up 40% of the light at the ground... That is more than the visable light and a lot more than the UV light, which has the shortest wavelengths of the three... And I see that the skies on the videos are quite dark which translates to low reflection and low dissipation...

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

You know all the modern fighters have the IRST systems which can detect the f-22 and f-35 from 50 nm distance even in bad weather conditions.

I don't know that actually.

And I'm not a T-50 fan at all. I just think the TVC is better on the T-50 than on the F-22. I guess you're a great F-22 fan.

define "better"

 

[malipa]

Less loss of thrust. The f-22 losses thrust at the sides when turned up or down, where the T-50 does.
Except the F-35 almost all the new aircraft have the IRST.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Less loss of thrust. The f-22 losses thrust at the sides when turned up or down, where the T-50 does.

sure why not

Except the F-35 almost all the new aircraft have the IRST.

I was more curious about the "detection range" claim and BTW the F-35 has IRST.

 

[malipa]

O my bad XD, sorry the mistake with the f-35 i though it was only downlooking... Big mistake ofc. Well the detection range is about 50 miles with the eurofighter and the F-22 being the "victim". I know it doesn't count for all the aircraft but it is some sort of indication.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

O my bad XD, sorry the mistake with the f-35 i though it was only downlooking... Big mistake ofc. Well the detection range is about 50 miles with the eurofighter and the F-22 being the "victim". I know it doesn't count for all the aircraft but it is some sort of indication.

That is like saying that since the eurofighter has control surfaces, and the B-52 has control surfaces, that the B-52 is as maneuverable as the eurofighter. What you are doing is taking one case, and then applying it universally. I have seen a solar eclipse, thus Solar eclipses must happen everyday because it did happen once afterall.

The circumstances of the eurofighters detecting the F-22 at 50KM require serious knowledge exactly what happened (these details are most likely, classified to protect both aircraft). You taking that and then applying it universally to every fighter with an IRST, in all weather conditions is a huge stretch, and I hope you see that.

 

[malipa]

No it's not the same comparison... The F-22 and the T-50 have a lot in common, really a lot. Eurofighter and the B-52 don't and have been designed and built in completely different decades... And furthermore the F-22 and the T-50 have been designed in a more similar time.

And I do see your point. But there are less variables in aircraft. The stealth aircraft being the J-20, J-31, T-50, F-22 and F-35, with the F-35 being the smallest. And still the wing areas aren't that small. Furthermore the exhausts are relatively big, let's exclude the F-22 here.

 

[Avimimus]

It is an interesting issue though - it is much harder to do effective IR reduction and sensors are pushing out the detection ranges to 25 km or more.

This means that RCS reduction shortens engagement ranges by only about 50% compared to 1980s levels. In any case this is well within the no-escape zone of modern missiles - which may mean that kinetic performance will become less important (allowing an aircraft like the JSF to stand toe-to-toe with the PAK-FA). However, the characteristics which allow escaping IR missiles are another story.

Anyway, I suspect that the effectiveness of low RCS designs in avoiding Early Warning radars is by far the most critical factor.

P.S.
I find it quite interesting that the Russian design emphasizes kinetic performance - including larger air-to-air missiles. This suggests a very traditional philosophy for air-to-air combat, which in turn suggests that they belief that counter-measures to low observability can be effectively developed.

 

[malipa]

O guess some sort of EMP and jammer will have the best result. Maybe EMP as main weapon, because a lot of systems nowadays heavily rely on computers. I don't know how good the supression of the EMP is...

 

[Avimimus]

Inverse-square law, redundancy and faraday cages would seem to preclude the effectiveness of such weapons against aircraft.

 

[F-14D]

I would opine that it really wouldn't matter if the F-23 would have won, MDD still would have been eliminated and Lockheed still would have beat Boeing. The more relevant program to F-35, I believe, was A/FX. Specifically, if A/FX hadn't died, there would have been no need for a tri-service F-35 type aircraft.

I agree with your second point. A/F-X were the high end, and the super hornet may have filled in the lower end. However, the first point I disagree. A win with the ATF for mcdonnell and northrop might have produced a different proposal for their JSF bid. Boeing bid also benefit from their involvement with the ATF program, in the fields of structural materials, electronics, and program management. Without it, Boeing may not have come through to the final round.

What is often forgotten is that Super Hornet was just supposed to be an interim aircraft to carry the Navy through the period until the plane they really needed, the A/FX, would enter service. That's why the goals for the program were so limited. If A/FX had gone forward and entered service with USN and USAF, there would be no need for the JSF as we know it.

Regarding the JSF bidders, MDD bid alone, not as part of a team, as did Boeing. Initially, Lockheed and MDD were selected to go forward, partly, I believe, because MDD was talking about using the other version of the lift fan, powered by bleed from the main engine. Boeing said they were big enough and had enough confidence that they would go ahead and build their plane with their own money. Now you know we can't have that, so along with some pressure from Congress, Boeing was belatedly selected to go forward to the next phase as well. In the meantime, MDD changed from lift fan to lift + lift/cruise and that complexity, along with expected performance, doomed them.

Please excuse this drifting a bit away from the main thrust of this topic, I just wanted to get that historical perspective out there.

 

[jsport]

Oh no, the 'drifting' in absolutely necessary. thank you VERY MUCH F-14D for clarifing what has been long forgotten and its importance forgotten as well. The severe compromises called F-18, and now JSF display how USG procurement has been endangering US servicemen for decades now.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Oh no, the 'drifting' in absolutely necessary. thank you VERY MUCH F-14D for clarifing what has been long forgotten and its importance forgotten as well. The severe compromises called F-18, and now JSF display how USG procurement has been endangering US servicemen for decades now.

Procurement system is less than ideal in some instances, but the idea that F/A-18E/F is an example of the "endangering of US servicemen" is idiotic. It's perfectly adequate for any threat in the world right now. The JSF will do this in the future. The many airforces around the World that are buying it tend to agree. I know that these sentiments are popular with enthusiasts on the internet, but reality is more complex. Yes, it costs too much to develop these things and there are problems (seem to be over the hump on JSF) of a technical nature in fighter development that must be overcome. Somehow, the US still ends up with world beating systems. Imagine that!

 

[F-14D]

Oh no, the 'drifting' in absolutely necessary. thank you VERY MUCH F-14D for clarifing what has been long forgotten and its importance forgotten as well. The severe compromises called F-18, and now JSF display how USG procurement has been endangering US servicemen for decades now.

Garbage.

Procurement system is less than ideal in some instances, but the idea that F/A-18E/F is an example of the "endangering of US servicemen" is idiotic. It's perfectly adequate for any threat in the world right now. The many airforces around the World that are buying it tend to agree. I know that these sentiments are popular with enthusiasts on the internet, but reality is more complex. Yes, it costs too much to develop these things and there are problems (seem to be over the hump on JSF) of a technical nature in fighter development that must be overcome. Somehow, the US still ends up with world beating systems. Imagine that!

I probably shouldn't say this on this topic, but I've always been a blabberkey...

Except for Australia, which had a very specific requirement for maximum commonality in an interim aircraft to tide them over until the aircraft they really needed (F-35) was available, no air force around the world has bought the F/A-18E/F. In fact, in most actual competitions, it hasn't even made the finals.

There are a number of reasons for that, but some are related to why the Navy really wants and needs F/A-XX.