USAF/USN 6th Gen Fighter - General Discussion and Speculation

[Ainen]

I know, but all of that combined with having to direct drones from a tablet sounds rather problematic, does it not?

No, the opposite.

Data fusion is but a process giving you a singular information picture, without the need to play switchology and use your own head for it.

Basically, attempt to make it into a strategy game type of environment.

 

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

No, the opposite.

Data fusion is but a process giving you a singular information picture, without the need to play switchology and use your own head for it.

Basically, attempt to make it into a strategy game type of environment.

I know, but it still just sounds like information overload, especially if stuff like this is already happening. #Timestamped

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no07AGKg8Ys&t=1403s

 

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

Every aircraft has bugs and glitches and globally military aircraft are flying daily with exemptions. F-35 probably has more code than any other military airframe but the consolation is subsequent aircraft that use common mission systems will benefit from the work done.

Would the US DoD do the same again if they had the chance? Almost certainly not but the current and especially the end result is likely worth the wait.

Let's just hope that all of that is worked out before the start of another major conflict so that we're not waiting for a crucial software update at the worst possible time.

 

[yeetmahboi]

but it still just sounds like information overload

If it is "information overload", imagine what variant of overload will strike when you don't use sensor fusion! Neck overload maybe...

 

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

If it is "information overload", imagine what variant of overload will strike when you don't use sensor fusion! Neck overload maybe...

Sounds potentially painful, lol.

 

[Ainen]

I know, but it still just sounds like information overload,

Sensor fusion literally reduces information load.
I don't know what's the point of contest here. It isn't something unique to f-35(even if this aircraft pioneered deeper form of it).
Literally all modern fighters do it in some form(or don't count as modern really).

 

[Ozair]

I know, but it still just sounds like information overload, especially if stuff like this is already happening. #Timestamped

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no07AGKg8Ys&t=1403s

Are you referring to the vision system and Mike's comments on it based on where the link takes us? If so a couple of thing to note, Mike has never flown the jet he is only basing it off his friends who have transitioned to the jet. Additionally almost all his friends will be former F-15E aircrew as he was a WSO in that jet. Now what we know is the older guys who transition to the F-35 from a different jet take more time to get used to the system. The longer time taken is to comprehend the wider battlespace they now have access to. New aircrew who have not flown a different fighter before transition far quicker as they know no different.

Let's just hope that all of that is worked out before the start of another major conflict so that we're not waiting for a crucial software update at the worst possible time.

Blk 3 today is still good enough to fly and fight effectively. Israeli F-35s made a mess of Iran and while Iran isn't a near peer it gives you an idea of what the jet is already capable of.

Considering sensor fusion on a 6th gen platform I expect it will take what is done with the F-35 a step further. Likely that means a greater level of AI control of the sensors and systems to remove even further that task from the pilot. It would be great for the system to predict what the pilot will need next and essentially lead them through the targeting cycle while ensuring that they don't miss significant information.

 

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

Sensor fusion literally reduces information load.
I don't know what's the point of contest here. It isn't something unique to f-35(even if this aircraft pioneered deeper form of it).
Literally all modern fighters do it in some form(or don't count as modern really).

I know. Don't worry about it.

 

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

Are you referring to the vision system and Mike's comments on it based on where the link takes us? If so a couple of thing to note, Mike has never flown the jet he is only basing it off his friends who have transitioned to the jet. Additionally almost all his friends will be former F-15E aircrew as he was a WSO in that jet. Now what we know is the older guys who transition to the F-35 from a different jet take more time to get used to the system. The longer time taken is to comprehend the wider battlespace they now have access to. New aircrew who have not flown a different fighter before transition far quicker as they know no different.

That's why I said "if" .

Blk 3 today is still good enough to fly and fight effectively. Israeli F-35s made a mess of Iran and while Iran isn't a near peer it gives you an idea of what the jet is already capable of.

Everyone acknowledges the capabilities of The F-35.

Considering sensor fusion on a 6th gen platform I expect it will take what is done with the F-35 a step further. Likely that means a greater level of AI control of the sensors and systems to remove even further that task from the pilot. It would be great for the system to predict what the pilot will need next and essentially lead them through the targeting cycle while ensuring that they don't miss significant information.

Of course.

 

[dark sidius]

That's why I said "if" .



Everyone acknowledges the capabilities of The F-35.



Of course.

Iran have nothing to see with China , Iran is still in the years 90 for his Air Force and A/A defense. Any modern 4th gen Fighters can strike in Iran. We can't take the strike in Iran in reference for saying F-35 is above with his capacity, don't think it will be the same In Turkey or Saudi Arabia or China Air defense. The real full capacity will be in Block4 and Block5.

 

[bring_it_on]

The real full capacity will be in Block4 and Block5.

The real real full full capability will be in block 6 and block 7..and on and on we will go on the interweb until the platform is retired. There is probably a version of that loop that will play out with whatever comes of the NGAD efforts as well (including CCA's).

 

[sferrin]

Two F-135's on a naval FA-XX would lead to a very interesting design especially if the point is to get significantly longer strike ranges than F/A-18E/F...that's probably too big of an aircraft the Navy can afford to field in enough quantity to replace the Super Hornet which is an objective for the program.

Something build around the F414 EPE or perhaps a clean sheet engine in that class seems more feasible.

Clean sheet engine is the opposite of "as cheap as possible". Maybe a modified engine? NGAP without the 3rd stream?

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

On the topic of potential derivative turbofans for the F/A-XX, one thing to consider is that the F110 can take advantage of developments made for the commercial CFM56 family to increase performance, efficiency, and other characteristics. There have been proposals by General Electric to apply the CFM56-7 core for this purpose, and potentially the developments from the LEAP family can be applicable as well. Engines in the 30,000 lbf thrust class should be quite doable while maintaining the same footprint as the existing F110-129 while greatly improving efficiency and durability.

Additionally, Pratt & Whitney may also offer their PW9000 family of engines, which had been proposed in 2010 as a replacement for their F100 family and shares core technology with their commercial PW1000G GTF. Some reports suggest that the B-21 could be using a medium bypass variant of this engine. The fighter PW9000 variant proposed back in 2010 is also a 30,000 lbf thrust class motor with reportedly 18% better fuel economy than the F100.

GE DEVELOPS F110, F414 ROADMAP | Aviation Week Network

General Electric plans to test an improved performance fan that could boost the durability of the F110-100 engine by as much as 30%. The new, three-stage, integrally bladed disk (blisk) fan is based on the improved-efficiency, wide-chord-fan technology developed for the F118--the engine that...

aviationweek.com

Pratt & Whitney lifts wraps on PW9000 future military engine

Pratt & Whitney has started working on a new family of engines for the military aircraft market based on a gear-less version of the PW1000G

www.flightglobal.com

 

[sferrin]

The signals from the USAF have been that more money is needed is manned NGAD goes ahead. I expect the USN will have to decide between hulls and aircraft like the USAF may have to decide between manned NGAD, NGAS etc.

Problem is we need hulls AND aircraft.

 

[bring_it_on]

Probably not; it is not a high priority and it may take an act of Congress to make money available. Congress is likely grid locked indefinitely, so any military programs that require higher budgets from there are likely on hold.

I was referring specifically to FY26 budget request that should be out in a few months. Would be a good indication where the current administration sees several key programs.

As for NGAD, FA-XX's future will be determined by where the current administration sees these efforts. If the administration decides to walk away in favor of other higher priority efforts, then its lights out on these efforts. If, it backs them then we will see them progress and funding will be made available. While current service secretaries etc will take time to settle, these efforts are at (NGAD), or fast approaching (FA-XX) source selection milestones so they will have to make those determinations soon enough.

Problem is we need hulls AND aircraft.

I think the actual set of choices are not as bad as chose a/c or hulls. Budget pressures will force them to make trades such as cancelling FA-XX fighter at $200 MM a pop and instead field a subsonic X-47 like UCAV for around $50-60 Million a pop. Those are the likely alternate investment tracks..If there's more funding and the budget is increased they may be able to get both the FA-XX and NGAD through though so it really depends on what the new admin sees as important in terms of priorities. Both FA-XX and NGAD-Platform have come along to this point and survived two administrations (Trump and Biden) so there's definitely merit in pursuing these if there's funding.

 

[Ozair]

Problem is we need hulls AND aircraft.

Agree but also the problem the USN has is to a certain extent also having to choose between hulls and modernisation as well.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Agree but also the problem the USN has is to a certain extent also having to choose between hulls and modernisation as well.

So the USN says "we need more money, because we have to replace the worn out Super Hornets and replace the worn out Burkes. There's no good options for not replacing them, except dead Sailors."

The problem is that no Star is willing to tell Congress that without more money, their branch can't do all that Congress has tasked them with.

 

[Ozair]

So the USN says "we need more money, because we have to replace the worn out Super Hornets and replace the worn out Burkes. There's no good options for not replacing them, except dead Sailors."

The problem is that no Star is willing to tell Congress that without more money, their branch can't do all that Congress has tasked them with.

I disagree, the USN is actually better off than the rest of the services. There funding has been increased over successive budgets but they have said they need more money but have been mostly told to live within their means. The USN has also been specifically told to focus on readiness with modernisation a secondary concern.

Not sure what else they can do.

 

[Ainen]

So the USN says "we need more money, because we have to replace the worn out Super Hornets and replace the worn out Burkes. There's no good options for not replacing them, except dead Sailors."

The problem is that no Star is willing to tell Congress that without more money, their branch can't do all that Congress has tasked them with.

Or maybe optimization?
Until the end of CW, USN lived on a highly stratified (i.e. optimized) structure.
Right now, it is largest fleet of largest line destroyers, largest fleet of carriers(which now need largest fleet of "another tomcats" - most expensive aircraft of it's kind during it's day), world's largest fleet of nukes(no conventional subs), and please a new boomer fleet too, and so on and so on.
Attempts at small/mid combatants for decades are costly (almost sabotaged) failures.

You can ride on unaffordable force structure when there's no competition. You can't do it against a wealthier opponent.

On top, unlike USN, PLAN does carefully optimize its fleet, and doesn't aim to escort every coastal convoy with a personal 055.

 

[Desertfox]

I'm thinking a modernized F-23N would do the trick for F/A-XX. We know Northrop is the likely candidate to win it, with Lockheed busy with F-35 and Boeing having issues...

 

[Scott Kenny]

Or maybe optimization?
Until the end of CW, USN lived on a highly stratified (i.e. optimized) structure.
Right now, it is largest fleet of largest line destroyers, largest fleet of carriers(which now need largest fleet of "another tomcats" - most expensive aircraft of it's kind during it's day), world's largest fleet of nukes(no conventional subs), and please a new boomer fleet too, and so on and so on.
Attempts at small/mid combatants for decades are costly (almost sabotaged) failures.

You can ride on unaffordable force structure when there's no competition. You can't do it against a wealthier opponent.

On top, unlike USN, PLAN does carefully optimize its fleet, and doesn't aim to escort every coastal convoy with a personal 055.

Note that much of the Force Org fustercluck was created by kicking the can down the road...

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

This topic is for speculation and general thoughts on US 6th Gen fighter programs.

News and analysis topic is https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...r-f-a-xx-f-x-ngad-pca-asfs-news-analysis.3536

 

[Scott Kenny]

Guess I should drop my expectation for what the big/exquisite NGAD was going to be.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/usaf-usn-6th-gen-fighters-f-a-xx-f-x-ngad-pca-asfs-news-analysis.3536/post-674454

My guesstimates for NGAD and FAXX:

Reasoning:
NGAD can have a huge range without compromising performance because their engines are making 45klbs thrust each and burn 25% less fuel than F135s do, at the same time. (edit from linked post: This was assuming A100/A101 engines, not the smaller A102/A103s) With that much engine power, the NGAD can take off at 110,000lbs MTOW with 40,000+lbs of fuel onboard. Even the F111B only carried 23klbs fuel (and had a range of 1830nmi). 110k MTOW and 40something-k fuel, with 90klbs thrust means that it will have a power:weight ratio of 1:1 at a range of about 1700nmi and a total combat range of about 3400nmi (based on F111B range with 23klbs fuel).

NGAD
MTOW: 110,000lbs
Fuel load: 40-50klbs
weapons load: ~4000lbs Air to Air (10x AMRAAM and 4x Sidewinders), ~10klbs air to ground
Empty weight: ~50klbs
Predicted Combat RADIUS: ~1700nmi.

The USAF NGAD I still think is going to end up really big due to the range, and they're just going to have to suck up the cost-per-plane. If the USAF goes for A102/103s, which are more or less 35klb engines, then the MTOW will go down some, to maintain a 1:1 T:W ratio at 50% fuel. I do not expect MTOW to be much below 100klbs, however.

I should note that I am also somewhat expecting a "Strike NGAD" to show up, probably at the tail end of production. The F15Es will run out of airframe life in the 2030s and I expect the F15EXs to primarily replace F15C/Ds. Ideally this would be accomodated by the airframe designers making the NGAD bays large enough to hold a decent volume of air-to-ground ordnance.

The USN FAXX will presumably use the same engines, but has a MTOW limit of about 88klbs due to the catapult limits. So it'll have a T:W of 1:1 at takeoff. (edit: again, this was assuming the older A100/A101, not A102/A103s) Recovery weight I'm guesstimating at about 55klbs (IIRC that's the arresting gear limits, from conversations about F14s carrying 6x Phoenix). The good news is that current air to air missiles are light, so a load of 10x AMRAAMs and 2x Sidewinders is ~3750lbs. Which puts empty weight about 45klbs, landing with ~6000lbs of fuel left in the jet and ~4000lbs of weapons. Fuel load? ~29,000lbs.

F/A-XX
MTOW: ~88,000lbs
Fuel: ~29,000lbs
Weapons: ~4,000lbs Air to Air, ~10klbs air to ground
Empty weight: ~45,000lbs (edit: reduced empty weight compared to USAF NGAD due to smaller structure overall)
Predicted Combat RADIUS: ~900-1000nmi

Since that was posted in late April 2024, the USN has clarified that the engines that they are currently talking about are "derivatives". I am taking that to mean either F110 or F119 designs. Because bluntly, dual F135s just takes way too much fuel. The F-35A holds ~18,000lbs of fuel internally, so to double the combat range of ~675nmi on twin F135s would take on the order of not 36klbs, but 72klbs of fuel! Engine-wise, I am leaning more towards F110 with a CFM56-7 core and a different fan on it (F110-132?). I'm not sure F119s are still in production, while the high end F110s and CFM56s are still in production. Obviously, if the USN is valuing supercruise in their mission profile, that increases the value of F119 as opposed to the F110 due to lower OPR internally. (Do I have that correct, @F119Doctor ?)

Also, mission wise, the USN is looking much more for a long range penetrating strike plane, and a defensive fighter/interceptor. Basically, an F-14D "Bombcat" on all the performance-enhancing drugs. So they're likely wanting greater bay volume than the USAF, and less maneuverability WVR in exchange for even lower LO stats.

Because of this mission slant, this could be argued as "Return of A/F-X", and I personally expect it to have main bays the size of the ATA: ~15ft long and deep enough to carry Harpoon/SLAM or HARM/AARGM and GBU-15, enough total volume to carry 4 of those weapons: the MDD bays were apparently 185” long by 34” wide and ~25” deep. Secondary bays would probably be AMRAAM-sized, though question does kinda come to "how many AMRAAMs?" I'm thinking 2-4 AMRAAMs in the secondary bays (1-2 per bay), and likely two main bays. Not quite sure how to square the flight loads issue that the MDD A-12 ran into, with the weapons bays cutting the spars, at least not without a pretty deep belly below the wing spars.

It's possible-but-unlikely that the FAXX weapons bays will be big enough to hold AIM-174Bs. It'd only take about a 6" length stretch over the ATA bay size to allow that, though I think the missiles would need a different wing fold mechanism than the existing Standard. Or a way to shear a tail strap holding the fins closed into a 21" square box.

 

[dark sidius]

Guess I should drop my expectation for what the big/exquisite NGAD was going to be.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/usaf-usn-6th-gen-fighters-f-a-xx-f-x-ngad-pca-asfs-news-analysis.3536/post-674454

The USAF NGAD I still think is going to end up really big due to the range, and they're just going to have to suck up the cost-per-plane. If the USAF goes for A102/103s, which are more or less 35klb engines, then the MTOW will go down some, to maintain a 1:1 T:W ratio at 50% fuel. I do not expect MTOW to be much below 100klbs, however.

I should note that I am also somewhat expecting a "Strike NGAD" to show up, probably at the tail end of production. The F15Es will run out of airframe life in the 2030s and I expect the F15EXs to primarily replace F15C/Ds. Ideally this would be accomodated by the airframe designers making the NGAD bays large enough to hold a decent volume of air-to-ground ordnance.




Since that was posted in late April 2024, the USN has clarified that the engines that they are currently talking about are "derivatives". I am taking that to mean either F110 or F119 designs. Because bluntly, dual F135s just takes way too much fuel. The F-35A holds ~18,000lbs of fuel internally, so to double the combat range of ~675nmi on twin F135s would take on the order of not 36klbs, but 72klbs of fuel! Engine-wise, I am leaning more towards F110 with a CFM56-7 core and a different fan on it (F110-132?). I'm not sure F119s are still in production, while the high end F110s and CFM56s are still in production. Obviously, if the USN is valuing supercruise in their mission profile, that increases the value of F119 as opposed to the F110 due to lower OPR internally. (Do I have that correct, @F119Doctor ?)

Also, mission wise, the USN is looking much more for a long range penetrating strike plane, and a defensive fighter/interceptor. Basically, an F-14D "Bombcat" on all the performance-enhancing drugs. So they're likely wanting greater bay volume than the USAF, and less maneuverability WVR in exchange for even lower LO stats.

Because of this mission slant, this could be argued as "Return of A/F-X", and I personally expect it to have main bays the size of the ATA: ~15ft long and deep enough to carry Harpoon/SLAM or HARM/AARGM and GBU-15, enough total volume to carry 4 of those weapons: the MDD bays were apparently 185” long by 34” wide and ~25” deep. Secondary bays would probably be AMRAAM-sized, though question does kinda come to "how many AMRAAMs?" I'm thinking 2-4 AMRAAMs in the secondary bays (1-2 per bay), and likely two main bays. Not quite sure how to square the flight loads issue that the MDD A-12 ran into, with the weapons bays cutting the spars, at least not without a pretty deep belly below the wing spars.

It's possible-but-unlikely that the FAXX weapons bays will be big enough to hold AIM-174Bs. It'd only take about a 6" length stretch over the ATA bay size to allow that, though I think the missiles would need a different wing fold mechanism than the existing Standard. Or a way to shear a tail strap holding the fins closed into a 21" square box.

Is it possible for Pratt and Whitney to re-build F-119 engines ?

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

I’m not convinced that the F119 is a likely candidate for F/A-XX. While it has been out of production for over a decade, it shares largely the same core design as the F135 but with a different low spool (fan and LPT) design. However, the F119’s design for Mach 1.5+ supercruise characteristics comes at the cost of subsonic fuel economy*, and given that the F/A-XX is intended to be a multirole strike fighter more focused on surface attack, I don’t think the Navy would go for this approach.

With regards to aircraft size, you don’t have to double fuel load to maintain the same range with two engines rather than one. Rather, all else being roughly equal, you need to have the same fuel fraction, at least for a cruise/climb flight profile. That said, in practical combat range terms you may need a bit more to account for things like afterburner usage and other flight profiles.

All considered, I’m more inclined to go with an evolved F110 from General Electric or a fighter PW9000 variant from Pratt & Whitney, with thrust perhaps in the 30,000 lbf class, both of which highlighted previously. To rein in costs, I’d also expect heavy reuse of F-35 Block IV and Super Hornet Block III avionics components (i.e. the AN/APG-85 radar). @joewee did make a case earlier for how the Navy could defer a lot of the F/A-XX’s costs by following the FLRAA RDT&E and procurement model.

* Overall, the requirements for supercruise means that the rotor RPMs must be maintained at elevated temperatures from Mach 1.5+ inlet heating, and compressor pressure ratio needs to be reined to stay within compressor discharge and TIT/FTIT limits. Generally this results in a lower OPR, and less subsonic efficiency for a fixed-cycle engine.

 

[dark sidius]

I’m not convinced that the F119 is a likely candidate for F/A-XX. While it has been out of production for over a decade, it shares largely the same core design as the F135 but with a different low spool (fan and LPT) design. However, the F119’s design for Mach 1.5+ supercruise characteristics comes at the cost of subsonic fuel economy*, and given that the F/A-XX is intended to be a multirole strike fighter more focused on surface attack, I don’t think the Navy would go for this approach.

With regards to aircraft size, you don’t have to double fuel load to maintain the same range with two engines rather than one. Rather, all else being roughly equal, you need to have the same fuel fraction, at least for a cruise/climb flight profile. That said, in practical combat range terms you may need a bit more to account for things like afterburner usage and other flight profiles.

All considered, I’m more inclined to go with an evolved F110 from General Electric or a fighter PW9000 variant from Pratt & Whitney, with thrust perhaps in the 30,000 lbf class, both of which highlighted previously. To rein in costs, I’d also expect heavy reuse of F-35 Block IV and Super Hornet Block III avionics components (i.e. the AN/APG-85 radar). @joewee did make a case earlier for how the Navy could defer a lot of the F/A-XX’s costs by following the FLRAA RDT&E and procurement model.

* Overall, the requirements for supercruise means that the rotor RPMs must be maintained at elevated temperatures from Mach 1.5+ inlet heating, and compressor pressure ratio needs to be reined to stay within compressor discharge and TIT/FTIT limits. Generally this results in a lower OPR, and less subsonic efficiency for a fixed-cycle engine.

An F-110 evolution have more sens it is in production now for the F-15 EX

 

[F119Doctor]

The F119 OPR is in the same ballpark as the F110. SFC is worse due to the very low bypass ratio and high exhaust velocity at Mil power and below - good for supercruise thrust, not optimum for subsonic cruise.

While the F119 is not in production, P&W is producing spare parts to support the field and depot maintenance. While some of the large frame pieces (cases, fan ducts, etc) are probably in low demand, I’m sure the engine could be out back into full production if contracted to do so. There would probably be some delay for long lead items and to spin up some subcontractors (who may be at capacity with F135 parts), but it can be done.

Some of the hardest parts to put into production is the electronic controls, since many of their internal components are obsolete. Some are being supported in the field with lifetime buys, with new production not considered. These controls will have to be redesigned and recertified with newer components, and sometimes this has software impacts.

Aircraft mission also has on how parts age. There are some parts that are identical between the F119 and F135, but have different parts numbers to keep them separated in the supply chain, since they age at a different rate because of the change in operation environment. While this “new” F119 would still be in a F119 environment, the new aircraft mission might keep the internal parts from being interchangeable with the old F119s.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I just posted on the other "6th generation" thread but I'm of the firm opinion that skipping over adaptive engines for F/A-XX is a huge mistake if they really can provide all of the benefits they do on paper. Maybe it saves some money, but it's penny-wise and pound-foolish.

 

[dark sidius]

I just posted on the other "6th generation" thread but I'm of the firm opinion that skipping over adaptive engines for F/A-XX is a huge mistake if they really can provide all of the benefits they do on paper. Maybe it saves some money, but it's penny-wise and pound-foolish.

May be there is some reasons , I m confident that the Navy know what they want for the FA/XX.

 

[Ozair]

I'm thinking a modernized F-23N would do the trick for F/A-XX. We know Northrop is the likely candidate to win it, with Lockheed busy with F-35 and Boeing having issues...

Technology has moved on from the F-23, I would be flabbergasted if NG proposed something that looked like an F-23...

I just posted on the other "6th generation" thread but I'm of the firm opinion that skipping over adaptive engines for F/A-XX is a huge mistake if they really can provide all of the benefits they do on paper. Maybe it saves some money, but it's penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Agree 100%. Using the same engine as proposed for manned NGAD, so probably the XA-102/103, would benefit both platforms and reduce overall cost given higher production and spares support while providing the USN with meaningful future benefits and upgradability. The USN could opt for an engine replacement/upgrade in the future but few fighters get an engine change over their lifetime.

The USAF NGAD I still think is going to end up really big due to the range, and they're just going to have to suck up the cost-per-plane. If the USAF goes for A102/103s, which are more or less 35klb engines, then the MTOW will go down some, to maintain a 1:1 T:W ratio at 50% fuel. I do not expect MTOW to be much below 100klbs, however.

My thoughts as well. The GE earnings call the other day specified they have continued testing of the XA-10? but probably the 100 and finished detailed design on the XA-102. That to me says perhaps both options and still open and could point to the manned NGAD proposals being different sized?

 

[_Del_]

Technology has moved on from the F-23, I would be flabbergasted if NG proposed something that looked like an F-23...

Shapes are shapes, and physics are physics.

B-21 looks a lot like the early ATB before the beaver-tail because shapes are shapes and physics are physics.

Whether the offering would look like that would depend heavily on the requirements. If the requirements were similar, the planform stands a better chance of looking similar.

 

[Ozair]

Shapes are shapes, and physics are physics.

B-21 looks a lot like the early ATB before the beaver-tail because shapes are shapes and physics are physics.

That is the point though. While shapes are shapes and physics are physics our understanding of what is required for shapes, as well as the materials used to construct those shapes, has changed and evolved. More importantly, the FBW control laws have advanced significantly and what was required in the middle 80s is no longer required today.

Whether the offering would look like that would depend heavily on the requirements. If the requirements were similar, the planform stands a better chance of looking similar.

From this thread, https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/natf-planned-navy-versions-of-the-f-22-and-f-23.2730/ we know the NATF F-23 was very different in appearance and the requirements that brought about the F-23 are likely very different to those that the USN will require for the F/A-XX. F-23 was never intended for a strike role while that is a primary consideration for F/A-XX including weapons bays big enough to handle larger weapons. I anticipate the USN isn't requiring supercruise capability from F/A-XX which was a primary requirement for ATF

 

[Josh_TN]

That the USN seems to not desire a three stream engine indicates to me that a longer ranged subsonic cruise is more desirable than a shorter supercruise range. There might also cost justifications.

 

[Ainen]

That the USN seems to not desire a three stream engine indicates to me that a longer ranged subsonic cruise is more desirable than a shorter supercruise range. There might also cost justifications.

Iirc it was always this way.
Super cruise just isn't all that important for the navy combat aircraft - it's either loiter, cruise, or dash.

 

[bring_it_on]

Subsonic cruise (mainly) with less emphasized supersonic performance would be logical for the Super Hornet replacement.

 

[Manuducati]

That is the point though. While shapes are shapes and physics are physics our understanding of what is required for shapes, as well as the materials used to construct those shapes, has changed and evolved. More importantly, the FBW control laws have advanced significantly and what was required in the middle 80s is no longer required today.


From this thread, https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/natf-planned-navy-versions-of-the-f-22-and-f-23.2730/ we know the NATF F-23 was very different in appearance and the requirements that brought about the F-23 are likely very different to those that the USN will require for the F/A-XX. F-23 was never intended for a strike role while that is a primary consideration for F/A-XX including weapons bays big enough to handle larger weapons. I anticipate the USN isn't requiring supercruise capability from F/A-XX which was a primary requirement for ATF

The NATF-23 was intended to carry AIM-54 Phoenix, AGM-84 Harpoon, AGM-88 HARM and bombs. Internally.

Post in thread 'F-22 avionics' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/f-22-avionics.39170/post-550598

 

[Ozair]

The NATF-23 was intended to carry AIM-54 Phoenix, AGM-84 Harpoon, AGM-88 HARM and bombs. Internally.

Post in thread 'F-22 avionics' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/f-22-avionics.39170/post-550598

Yes but the original suggestion was for F-23N which is itself a misnomer for whatever the NATF would have been called, if Northrop would have even won the competition. Based on the statement made that I replied to I interpreted the suggestion was an F-23 as per ATF modified for USN, not the NATF, but open to correction.

If we cast forward to today you would suggest LRASM is a better option than AGM-84. LRASM is significantly wider than AGM-84. The bay would need to accommodate Mk84s which are similar height to LRASM but not as wide. It would be an interesting exercise in design to fit in an internal weapons bay on F/A-XX that was sized sufficiently to accommodate LRASM and not waste space. What other weapons are required for F/A-XX internal carriage or would the better option be to use unmanned assets to carry the weapons and focus the F/A-XX design on longer range and persistence.