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

[Scott Kenny]

[The ATA is] still the base mission spec for what FAXX needs to do in the strike role.

I need to note that the weapons bays will likely end up bigger than the Avenger II.

The ATA was designed around carrying an AGM-84 and a GBU-10 (2000lb laser-guided bomb), making a bay 37" wide and 25" deep. One of the other weapons options was a HARM and 2000lb LGB.

The current USN antiship missile is the LRASM, which is roughly 25" wide and 18" tall. I'm struggling to find data on the AARGM-ER, but a rough eyeball of the strake width suggests that it's about half the diameter of the body or so. That makes the AARGM-ER about 22" across the strakes. Carrying those two weapons at the same time requires a weapons bay at least 48" wide, and more likely about 55" wide so the ordnance techs have access to reach in and bolt the pieces together properly.

I suspect that we're talking about bays 15.5 feet long, 25" deep, and ~52-55" wide.

 

[NMaude]

That makes the AARGM-ER about 22" across the strakes.

The AGM-88E's rocket-motor is 11.5" in diameter.

 

[Ozair]

In the case of the F-35, it only served to make it "too big to fail".

Given the success of the airframe with non partner nations I think the investment was worth it. It will continue to operate for many years to come, projected until approx 2080, so plenty of years for US Industry to cash in supporting the aircraft.

Alternate reading: While partner nations helped with "comparatively low investment" towards development cost, they also stripped outsized shares of industrial work from American firms.

And if a majority of the workshare had stayed in the US and resulted in a higher unit cost by more than 25% would you be complaining about the cost of the platform instead of the workshare?

 

[Arjen]

In the 90s, when Fokker went belly-up in the Netherlands, the Dutch government decided on two things for Dutch aerospace industry to survive:
- buy JSF and gain workshare in whatever would be chosen as JSF (Boeing or LM)
- invest heavily in material sciences to gain workshare in Airbus products

Military capabilities were secondary considerations for those who held the purse strings. No workshare in JSF - no Dutch orders for JSF, because industrial lobby.

I suspect similar considerations for other nations at the time. I suspect those considerations still apply.

I do not know how this will play out. In the 90s, the USA and Europe were hand-in-glove. Things are beginning to look different. Europe badly needs to invest more in defence, there might be less willingness to invest in joint projects if US politics continue in the way set out by the current administration.

Choices, choices.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The AGM-88E's rocket-motor is 11.5" in diameter.

Right, so the strakes more or less double the diameter.

 

[Scott Kenny]

We all survived the first four years of Trump and I am sure we will survive another four especially since he will go lame duck in two years.

I dunno about that, the Ds seem to be pushing really hard on dividing their base. Which doesn't do their chances of getting elected much good.

 

[_Del_]

And if a majority of the workshare had stayed in the US and resulted in a higher unit cost by more than 25% would you be complaining about the cost of the platform instead of the workshare?

Would I be complaining about a trillion dollar boondoggle? Yes, probably. The fact that this program is being used as a success story for multinational partnerships should be far more embarrassing to you than it is.

 

[_Del_]

I do not know how this will play out. In the 90s, the USA and Europe were hand-in-glove. Things are beginning to look different. Europe badly needs to invest more in defence, ...

Both "sides" will ultimately be happier if Europe decides to become independent and exercise the basic tenents of sovereignty. If that means they buy indigenous aircraft instead of American aircraft, more power to them.

 

[Arjen]

Not just aircraft. When protectionism starts to bite, all kinds of goods.

 

[Josh_TN]

Not just aircraft. When protectionism starts to bite, all kinds of goods.

Protectionism probably has a four year shelf life.

Back to topic, on the one hand F-35 is probably a posture child of how not to run a program. Too many chefs, even just counting US organizations. That it eventually worked and is producing an aircraft of competitive cost to 4th gen is a result to the shear size of the program and as someone else noted, it was too big to fail. There might be some collaboration in Europe or Japan, but the only way the U.S. air arms agree to a common platform is if Congress forces them to again.

 

[_Del_]

Not just aircraft. When protectionism starts to bite, all kinds of goods.

Again, one would expect or even hope both "sides" prioritize their own interests.

 

[Arjen]

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong - H.L. Mencken

I think I am hearing such answers given today, and it gives me the shivers.

 

[_Del_]

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong - H.L. Mencken

I think I am hearing such answers given today, and it gives me the shivers.

Good.

 

[Arjen]

This is obviously some strange usage of the word good that I wasn't previously aware of.

Arthur Dent just handed me a line.

 

[dark sidius]

Personally I see value in being as flexible as possible with the configuration even after construction. I would separate out the engine nacelle, wing and sensors into modules that you could "clip" together depending on requirements. If you need a twin engine fighter, add another identical nacelle to the wing platform.

Key to this is making sure that there are no unique parts to each configuration; the "max" configuration is just more of the same.

The nacelle would include the engine, the rear landing gear and weapons bays and secondary fuel tanks. The front wheel would be in a separate module which could include a gun / irst.

The wing would be only contain fuel as well as the usual actuators for the flaps /ailerons. The wing tips would be all moving.

The sensor module would include the cockpit (if required) as well as more fuel. The radar arrays would sit here, as well as most of receivers / aerials / comms.

Where this design come from ?

 

[Ozair]

Two CCA Developments Enable Air Force to Do More with Drones

The Air Force has determined it can pair more CCA drones with a manned fighter while using a lower level of autonomous technology.

www.airandspaceforces.com

Interesting article. Looks like the ratios of unmanned to manned will potentially increase.

Now that picture is changing. “We thought that it was going to be small ratios,” Kunkle said. “And what we’re finding is, actually, it’s bigger than we thought.”

Lockheed Martin CEO Jim Taiclet, speaking separately on an earnings call the same day, suggested the ratio may quadruple.

“We can already control out of an F-35 up to eight autonomous drones,” he said. “We’ve shown this [to the] Secretary of the Air Force a few months ago. It’s … public knowledge.”

Taiclet mentioned the one-to-eight fighter to CCA ratio during Lockheed’s October earnings call, but Kunkel’s comments are the first from an Air Force official suggesting the two-to-one planning ratio may have changed. It’s also in line with recommendations from a late 2022 Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies paper, which suggested six or seven CCAs per fighter.

Not only can pilots control larger numbers of CCA drones, Kunkel said, but they won’t need drones with the most cutting-edge autonomy software to do it.

“What we thought was going to be this requirement for a great amount of autonomy and a significant amount of artificial intelligence, and really, really complex algorithms,” he said, has turned out to be instead “frankly, simple autonomy, simple algorithms, a little bit of AI sprinkled in. … We’ve been able to decrease pilot workload to a degree where they can really, really effectively utilize these capabilities.”

Kunkel called the development “probably the most exciting part” of the CCA program so far, because it opens up more options for how the Air Force can employ the drones.

“[Pilots] can take advantage of the mass and present dilemmas to our adversary that we didn’t think were possible in terms of the force ratios that we can present,” he said.

I'm also intrigued by preference for simple autonomy and algorithms. This leads well to lower overall cost and potentially less hardware required which is exactly where the CCAs need to be going.

 

[quellish]

Two CCA Developments Enable Air Force to Do More with Drones

The Air Force has determined it can pair more CCA drones with a manned fighter while using a lower level of autonomous technology.

www.airandspaceforces.com

Interesting article. Looks like the ratios of unmanned to manned will potentially increase.


I'm also intrigued by preference for simple autonomy and algorithms. This leads well to lower overall cost and potentially less hardware required which is exactly where the CCAs need to be going.

The Lockheed figure of controlling 8 from an F-35 comes from their proposed pod that controls the CCAs. This pod actually runs the CCA “brains” in virtual machines and the CCAs themselves are “dumb”. They rely on the F-35 pod for everything.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Lockheed figure of controlling 8 from an F-35 comes from their proposed pod that controls the CCAs. This pod actually runs the CCA “brains” in virtual machines and the CCAs themselves are “dumb”. They rely on the F-35 pod for everything.

Do not like that design.

 

[quellish]

Do not like that design.

This is the type of “vendor lock in” that the Air Force wants to avoid.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This is the type of “vendor lock in” that the Air Force wants to avoid.

Good!

What I want is the CCA brains to be in the CCA, so that the pilot only needs to give them as much thought as his own onboard weapons.

Crud, I've played this in Ace Combat 5 and Zero, where I can give orders to virtual wingmen. "Weapons tight/free", "cover me", "attack my target", and "attack targets I am not going after" are about all the commands I want the CCA quarterback to give.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Pardon me, just re-read the thread.

That is understandable if it does result in a faster IOC, but even so there should still be plans to switch to an XA-series engine later. While supercruise performance doesn't seem to be a requirement of F/A-XX it sounds like such an engine would provide plenty of other benefits, notably increasing operational range. It would be a shame for the new fighter to not reach its full potential because of an unwillingness to incorporate a next-gen afterburning turbofan.

They'll probably stick an Adaptive engine in them later on, but for IOC they want a simple derivative engine now.

So as an exercise if we say the USN will aim for 78k lbs max take of weight which is essentially close to an F-15EX max take off weight.

• Probably will use almost the same engine as F-15EX
• Have more internal fuel, at least 25% more than F-15EX with internal + CFT so around 28k lbs
• An internal weapons bay which is heavier than external carriage especially is sized as a "truck as you term it
  • Will the F/A-XX also retain external carriage of weapons/fuel?
• Require the strengthening and weight associated with landing on a carrier over and above what an F-15EX has
• Probably a similar sized radar
• An integrated TGT pod, more sensors and EW equipment.
  • Conceivably it may carry an NGJ or variants of internally
• Will CCA control equipment make a weight difference?
• Is the USN going for an all two seat or single seat aircraft or a combo of both?
• Will it retain an internal cannon or opt for space and cooling for a DEW weapon?

I'd assume so, but just for ferry options.

I don't expect CCA control gear to weight more than 100kg/225lbs.

Cost and catapult issues aside I don't know if 40k internal fuel is possible.

For comparison F-35C has an empty weight of approx 35k lbs and then loads 35k lbs of weapons and fuel to reach its MTOW. SH is about the same, 32k lbs empty weight and can load approx another 33k lbs to reach its MTOW. That feels about right for most of the USN carrier aircraft from previous generations as well. The ratio of fuel to weapons would clearly need to bias the other way compared to previous generations. You also can't take two LRASM as combined that weighs 5k lbs unless you trade fuel for weapons payload but in that case your internal bays become large enough that structurally you are adding impactful weight.

I think it is, with some careful design work.

Both these examples assume an 80klbs MTOW.

• It might hold 40+klbs, but normally only load about 36k for carrier takeoff for the air-to-air mission. That'd put the plane overall at ~40k empty.
• The newer developments in composite structures (like a bonded wing) might be light enough to get the empty weight down around 36klbs even as a carrier-reinforced structure. That would allow 40klbs of fuel plus 4klbs of weapons.

Or we see if the carriers can handle 90klbs MTOW, which makes life a lot easier.

When creating a promising fighter, we are faced with a contradiction: on the one hand, it is required to ensure a cruising supersonic speed of at least 1,830 km / h, for which the wing sweep of 42-50 degrees looks optimal. On the other hand, basing on an aircraft carrier, taking off with a catapult, and landing at a vertical speed of 6 m/s imply a moderate wing sweep of 20-35 degrees. Which sweep should I choose for the NGAD fighter?

Both the Lockheed F-22N and the A/F-X proposals were swing wing. The USN was willing to accept less stealth for the improved low speed handling then, and I suspect that they would now as well.