USAF/USN 6th Gen Fighters - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS News & Analysis

[paralay]

,

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

The characteristics of the engines of this aircraft are known, it is known which aircraft it will replace and with whom it will compete. It seems to me that this is enough to get an idea of the new fighter in general terms

Agreed, but that's barely the air above the surface. Everything else is very murky, and until we get an unveiling of the aircraft, similar to the B-21, we're gonna get mostly news, speculation, discussions (In this forum and beyond), artwork, and reports from the CSBA to barely know just what the NGAD is.

Which I admit, is fun. I mean, as long as the NGAD remains mysterious and classified, we can discuss on the various potentialities that the NGAD may have or use, and even if it gets unveiled and the possibilities narrow down, there's still enough room for discussion regarding the NGAD itself

 

[Josh_TN]

I suspect "F-111 sized" is the sweet spot. The larger you get, eventually you just have a bomber that carries AAMs. I'd think that an all wing design F-111 sized airframe with some kind of adaptive engine, or potentially even multi-mode engine, would easily generate a lot more endurance than just a thousand miles. The F-111 already had a longer combat radius than that; I'd think a more aerodynamic shape and much more efficient engine along with modern composites could easily push that out to a couple thousand miles.

But that’s where the future is headed. Four engine monstrosities that carry dozens of AAM and has so much excess power that DEW and ECM provide and energy shield from enemy kinetic assets.

When engines can put out 50-60k no need for four engines.

Indeed, most everyone expects the B-21 to be only two.

 

[Ainen]

Yeah, that is also another good reason why the NGAD might be made bigger. And mind you, these missiles are gonna be so long, they're technically mini ballistic missiles, in the sense that they can reach extremely long distances, and pack an immensely powerful punch, whether it would have an explosive warhead, or just rely on kinetic force.

What's the point of having a highly expensive, deep stealth aircraft (i.e. huge investment into making a/c able to come closer) to carry inside large, long-range stand-off missiles(which can be launched from literally anything precisely because they're fast and standoff)?
Anything=to the point of that new Turkish Akinci drone.

It's almost totally counterintuitive and against the whole point of either.

If you build a deep stealth platform - corresponding optimal choice is by definition larger number of shorter-ranged munitions, used from more decisive distances. It's just an optimal use of space and capabilities.

If you build a large weapon which will do penetration and dead time riddle for you - even your EX can do it for you, without any restrictions. Air under wing is free of charge.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think they'd probably like the bays to be long enough to carry a hypersonic AGM or two.

Yeah, that is also another good reason why the NGAD might be made bigger. And mind you, these missiles are gonna be so long, they're technically mini ballistic missiles, in the sense that they can reach extremely long distances, and pack an immensely powerful punch, whether it would have an explosive warhead, or just rely on kinetic force.

An alternative would be to put it externally on a pylon, but that would immensely defeat the purpose of the NGAD's stealth capabilities, and knowing the USAF, they're NOT gonna go with that for the entire program.

I suspect HACM will be a 3000-3500lb store about the same dimensions as AGM-86. Even X-51 was 4000lbs and 24 feet long, and 4’ of that was flow through interstage. I think a 3D printed engine with a purpose built booster can shave a lot off that; supposedly HAWC’s combuster was half the weight of the X-51.

 

[Hanz2k]

Hypersonic is not possible due to thermal management. Just read about temperatures on SR71. There is a reason that SR71 was made from titanium, inconel and silica and use heavier fuel. Plus there is a lot of electronics that need active cooling. On the other side supercruising at M2 - M2,5 - why not?

 

[paralay]

,

 

[VTOLicious]

Design characteristics NGAD:

maximum take-off weight 42638 kg / 94000 lb
normal take-off weight 33566 kg / 74000 lb
empty weight 22679 kg / 50000 lb
fuel weight 8618 kg / 19000 lb
maximum payload weight 11113 kg / 24500 lb
normal payload weight 2041 kg / 4500 lb
pilots 228 kg / 501 lb

maximum speed 2124 km/h
cruising speed 1800 - 2124 km/h

thrust of engines with afterburning 2 x 21320 kgf / 47000 lb
maximum thrust of the engines is 2 x 14515 kgf / 32000 lb

thrust -to-weight ratio 1.0 - 1.27

A smaller fuel fraction than F-22A!?

 

[paralay]

,

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I don't really agree with the notion that tail surfaces need to be abandoned. Just do it like the YF-23 or a myriad of other designs that minimize the RCS impact. In my opinion it's worth it for what will have to be a fighter first and foremost.

 

[paralay]

,

 

[paralay]

,

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

Yeah, that is also another good reason why the NGAD might be made bigger. And mind you, these missiles are gonna be so long, they're technically mini ballistic missiles, in the sense that they can reach extremely long distances, and pack an immensely powerful punch, whether it would have an explosive warhead, or just rely on kinetic force.

What's the point of having a highly expensive, deep stealth aircraft (i.e. huge investment into making a/c able to come closer) to carry inside large, long-range stand-off missiles(which can be launched from literally anything precisely because they're fast and standoff)?
Anything=to the point of that new Turkish Akinci drone.

It's almost totally counterintuitive and against the whole point of either.

If you build a deep stealth platform - corresponding optimal choice is by definition larger number of shorter-ranged munitions, used from more decisive distances. It's just an optimal use of space and capabilities.

If you build a large weapon which will do penetration and dead time riddle for you - even your EX can do it for you, without any restrictions. Air under wing is free of charge.

To all those points, you can go ask the US Air Force for that. They are the ones that desire a much larger Fighter that can carry much larger or more munitions, penetrate deep into enemy territory alongside the B-21s, and do all that it could without being detected. Given the current trends as we know, the US Air Force is not afraid of making very expensive but somewhat not-so-reliable aircraft that may or may not be really used to their full potential throughout their service life (The F-35 is an example, which although they have proven themselves a very capable aircraft, still leaves a lot to be desired to some buyers). The devil, however, is in the details, and how the exact process will come to be will not be known until it's announced

Until then, we have an Air Force that basically is like "fuck all reason, fuck it all", and is willing to make some rather revolutionary designs and capabilities, all for the sake of maintaining Air Dominance over everyone else, including their allies. And if they have to challenge some traditional aspects of how fighters are designed, built, used and fought, they sure as hell will challenge them.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

I don't really agree with the notion that tail surfaces need to be abandoned. Just do it like the YF-23 or a myriad of other designs that minimize the RCS impact. In my opinion it's worth it for what will have to be a fighter first and foremost.

Or you can do it like in that possible Air Force concept art of the NGAD: Have Vertical Stabilizers that can be folded into the wing for combat situations, and unfolded for speeding situations. As seen by the picture, there appears to be depression areas resembling the shape of the vertical stabilizer, where the stabilizer can fit into during stealth operations, which might be an innovative way to "eat your cake and have it too" as they say.

 

[quellish]

In order to lower the RSC below 0.3 m2

Do you mean radar cross section?
A 0.3 m2 frontal RCS would be large by the standards of the 1980s, much less those of today.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

I think they'd probably like the bays to be long enough to carry a hypersonic AGM or two.

Yeah, that is also another good reason why the NGAD might be made bigger. And mind you, these missiles are gonna be so long, they're technically mini ballistic missiles, in the sense that they can reach extremely long distances, and pack an immensely powerful punch, whether it would have an explosive warhead, or just rely on kinetic force.

An alternative would be to put it externally on a pylon, but that would immensely defeat the purpose of the NGAD's stealth capabilities, and knowing the USAF, they're NOT gonna go with that for the entire program.

I suspect HACM will be a 3000-3500lb store about the same dimensions as AGM-86. Even X-51 was 4000lbs and 24 feet long, and 4’ of that was flow through interstage. I think a 3D printed engine with a purpose built booster can shave a lot off that; supposedly HAWC’s combuster was half the weight of the X-51.

Sorry if I didn't see that one, but yeah, that'll be interesting as well. A much larger payload with smaller but immensely effective weapons would allow said aircraft to hold lots of them, and thus be all the more a deterrent to any country that would dare try to oppose it. Advances in material science and aviation technologies should call for miniaturization of weapons technology, while at the same time, for maximization of air platforms to allow for maximum range and fuel efficiency, and thus contribute to the deterrence mission that is required of the NGAD, and possibly future Seventh-Generation platforms

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

In parallel, a super-maneuverable unmanned fighter is being created with an estimated operational overload of 15-18 g. One NGAD engine or a smaller dimension can be used. But a necessary condition is to provide a range of action like a heavy fighter

From the looks of it, it will not be the main fighter component, but the unmanned drones that will handle the maneuverability aspect, and thus, will be the components for dogfights should they ever occur. The main fighter itself, will just remain the quarterback that both commands the drones, and fires far more capable weaponry against enemies that the drones can't possibly handle. And drone control technologies, alongside its new role as quarterback, does necessitate an increase in the size of the airframe so as to handle such new technologies, even if at some later point in time, they eventually get far too miniaturized.

 

[bobbymike]

I think they'd probably like the bays to be long enough to carry a hypersonic AGM or two.

Fingers crossed !!

 

[Ainen]

To all those points, you can go ask the US Air Force for that. They are the ones that desire a much larger Fighter that can carry much larger or more munitions, penetrate deep into enemy territory alongside the B-21s, and do all that it could without being detected.

I argued specifically against extra-large, long-range, internally-carried munitions as a design driver. NGAD itself makes perfect sense for US military.

The main fighter itself, will just remain the quarterback that both commands the drones, and fires far more capable weaponry against enemies that the drones can't possibly handle.

Sorry for intruding, but per known LM infografic&some other materials, NGAD is intended to operate ahead of drone/aircraft formations.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

The main fighter itself, will just remain the quarterback that both commands the drones, and fires far more capable weaponry against enemies that the drones can't possibly handle.

Sorry for intruding, but per known LM infografic&some other materials, NGAD is intended to operate ahead of drone/aircraft formations.

But is that the arrangement when in battle, or when flying towards the battlefield? Because if that is so, then it doesn't make sense in many ways, firstly, putting the main fighter ahead of the drones just puts it right at the crosshairs of the enemy. Even if it may be very stealthy, have a much larger sensory range, and have longer-ranged BVR weapons that may be able to destroy the enemies before it detects the main fighter, the arrangement by itself is not reminiscent of a proper defensive formation (Unless the drones are to be protected). Besides, that move seems kinda suicidal, as the pilots should ideally assume that the enemy can detect them at any point, and that would be worsened if the main fighter component is right in front of the drones that could actually serve as the protective screen for the main fighter component.

It's like putting the General in front of his own troops. While it may possibly inspire the soldiers to follow his example and fight, the placement of the General will be exposed to enemy fire, and he has a much higher chance of dying in that way, which will lead to the detrimental end of his own fighting force. In the same way, the drones rely on the main fighter component for commands, and should the main fighter component be in front of the drones, and somehow be shot down by the enemy, it may be possible that the drones lose their connection to the main fighter component, and thus, will not be given any further commands. I can see the drones either continuing the fight through some emergency programming protocols, or be shut down by the loss of connection. Either way, the drones might be doomed to destruction without a proper coordinator to give them commands and directions, which is the role of the main fighter component in the first place.

In any case, such a formation may only be viable if away from the battlefield at most. Besides, these infographics, as well as everything else regarding the NGAD, are still both preliminary and based on speculations and limited news information, as the actual information regarding the NGAD remains top secret. Thus, the true nature of it is not yet known, and hence I also disagree with the SMG Consulting Infographic to an extent, especially with regards to the NGAD's size, range and cost.

Also, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) suggests that this would be the formation of a future Sixth-Generation Fighter and their Loyal Wingmen Drone Squadron should they be in battle:

Whether the US Air Force listens to the CSBA or not, I do think that this is also the ideal and optimal arrangement of the NGAD as a whole when facing the enemy fighters in any engagement.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

To all those points, you can go ask the US Air Force for that. They are the ones that desire a much larger Fighter that can carry much larger or more munitions, penetrate deep into enemy territory alongside the B-21s, and do all that it could without being detected.

I argued specifically against extra-large, long-range, internally-carried munitions as a design driver. NGAD itself makes perfect sense for US military.

Unfortunately, the US Air Force also seems intent on making the NGAD all the more of an extremely long-ranged BVR missile truck, and as a result, they would want the NGAD to be able to house such weaponry for when the need arises. And that necessitates an increase in length of the internal weapon bays, and therefore, the fighter itself.

They can probably delegate that role to the B-21 instead, or make a wholly cheaper drone for that purpose, both decisions save money. But this is the US Air Force we're talking about, they're more than willing to squeeze a lot of money in their developments as much as possible. And if some pre-existing technology can be advanced, made abundant, and therefore cheapened, then it just encourages them all the more to simply make more of these, and thus spend even more money.

And using the B-21 as an example to stress how the US Air Force is determined to spend so much on Air defense, dominance and deterrence alone, The B-21 is much cheaper than the B-2, and much better in all ways overall, but guess what, the US Air Force is ordering around 100 such units, 2 of them already equivalent to 1 B-2, thereby the overall purchase order would be far more expensive than the B-2's initial order. But whether the initial B-21 numbers will be reduced, as the B-2 numbers did, will depend on any emergent problematic factors that have yet to arise. (Additionally, a lieutenant general further suggests that there be 174 of the units instead, making such a number even greater than the B-2's initial procurement number of 132 units.).

 

[Sferrin]

Hypersonic is not possible due to thermal management.

X-51 Went Mach 5. Boost gliders are much faster than that. Totally possible.

 

[Forest Green]

X-51 Went Mach 5. Boost gliders are much faster than that. Totally possible.

True but the X-51 was intended as the forerunner to a single use missile. An aircraft that will fly 100s to 1000s of sorties over decades, and take-off and land, is something else.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

X-51 Went Mach 5. Boost gliders are much faster than that. Totally possible.

True but the X-51 was intended as the forerunner to a single use missile. An aircraft that will fly 100s to 1000s of sorties over decades, and take-off and land, is something else.

Agreed. An aircraft is vastly different from a missile in terms of airframe and design purposes. Hence, if they are to be made capable of going hypersonic, their engine philosophy will be entirely different from those of missiles. Not to mention, if the aircraft will still have a pilot inside its cockpit, then the aircraft itself will have to be adjusted in order to keep the pilot safe throughout hypersonic flight. Or they could just simply put the Pilot in control of the aircraft from elsewhere via a robust connection

 

[Avimimus]

I have been thinking about tailless aircraft like the X-44 manta as of late. They would also not have much in the way of drag

There should be benefits for the lift to drag ratio (especially at supersonic speeds), and there are definite benefits to multispectrum stealth.

The one other feature I don't see noted much is that deleting the vertical stabilisers saves quite a bit of structural weight (as one doesn't have to deal with anchoring them to the fuselage or absorbing lateral forces). So there should be weight saving beyond those associated with the weight of the stabilisers themselves, with the result that the payload to empty weight ratio should be higher than in a conventional design.

The obvious downside to going tailless is that it is harder to maintain stability when manoeuvring, and one needs something like thrust vectoring to have take-off authority (...and including thrust vectoring increases weight/complexity).

 

[F-2]

I have been thinking about tailless aircraft like the X-44 manta as of late. They would also not have much in the way of drag

There should be benefits for the lift to drag ratio (especially at supersonic speeds), and there are definite benefits to multispectrum stealth.

The one other feature I don't see noted much is that deleting the vertical stabilisers saves quite a bit of structural weight (as one doesn't have to deal with anchoring them to the fuselage or absorbing lateral forces). So there should be weight saving beyond those associated with the weight of the stabilisers themselves, with the result that the payload to empty weight ratio should be higher than in a conventional design.

The obvious downside to going tailless is that it is harder to maintain stability when manoeuvring, and one needs something like thrust vectoring to have take-off authority (...and including thrust vectoring increases weight/complexity).

The EJ200 tvc nozzle only added 88lb per engine, it is possible to have light TavC nozzles.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

I have been thinking about tailless aircraft like the X-44 manta as of late. They would also not have much in the way of drag

There should be benefits for the lift to drag ratio (especially at supersonic speeds), and there are definite benefits to multispectrum stealth.

The one other feature I don't see noted much is that deleting the vertical stabilisers saves quite a bit of structural weight (as one doesn't have to deal with anchoring them to the fuselage or absorbing lateral forces). So there should be weight saving beyond those associated with the weight of the stabilisers themselves, with the result that the payload to empty weight ratio should be higher than in a conventional design.

The obvious downside to going tailless is that it is harder to maintain stability when manoeuvring, and one needs something like thrust vectoring to have take-off authority (...and including thrust vectoring increases weight/complexity).

Light folding vertical stabilizers can also be a good solution, during certain flight regimes, they can be unfolded so as to provide stability, while at other flight regimes, they can be folded into the wings to provide maximum stealth and RCS reduction. Preferably, vertical stabilizers should be unfolded for supersonic or hypersonic flight, and should be folded for subsonic flight and combat situations, and thankfully most combat situations happen at the subsonic range.

 

[Avimimus]

I have been thinking about tailless aircraft like the X-44 manta as of late. They would also not have much in the way of drag

There should be benefits for the lift to drag ratio (especially at supersonic speeds), and there are definite benefits to multispectrum stealth.

The one other feature I don't see noted much is that deleting the vertical stabilisers saves quite a bit of structural weight (as one doesn't have to deal with anchoring them to the fuselage or absorbing lateral forces). So there should be weight saving beyond those associated with the weight of the stabilisers themselves, with the result that the payload to empty weight ratio should be higher than in a conventional design.

The obvious downside to going tailless is that it is harder to maintain stability when manoeuvring, and one needs something like thrust vectoring to have take-off authority (...and including thrust vectoring increases weight/complexity).

The EJ200 tvc nozzle only added 88lb per engine, it is possible to have light TavC nozzles.

That is pretty impressive. There is still the issues with an engine out on takeoff... I've wondered if an auxiliary gas generator could act as a backup...

 

[BDF]

The EJ200 tvc nozzle only added 88lb per engine, it is possible to have light TavC nozzles.

But what is the structural penalty? You generally can't just slap the system on without structural modifications to carry the enhanced loads of the engine.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

SMG Consulting updated their NGAD Infographic, as well as teasing another Infographic that will be coming soon, which will focus on comparing the NGAD to other fighters that will operate alongside it.

So far, the only difference between this one and the previous one is the notional design of the NGAD fighter, it has some added details now. Everything else seems to remain the same.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1615330441388756992

View: https://twitter.com/SMG_Consulting/status/1615330441388756992

 

[rooster]

The engine nacels are too big unless it's got 4 engines in their conceptual

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

The engine nacels are too big unless it's got 4 engines in their conceptual

Or it has 2 engines, but each would be so large and so powerful that they operate equal to 2 engines, perhaps more than twice that of the P&W F135 engines, currently among the most powerful fighter engines made. After all, its engines will be designed to be both adaptive and variable, meaning it can adjust itself according to flight regime, which greatly increases its range, and its fuel efficiency

 

[Forest Green]

$300m per plane in today's prices?

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

$300m per plane in today's prices?

Seems like it. Won't be surprised if it goes even higher as new innovations are made

 

[piginapoke]

I like the design but it's a big aircraft alright with a price to match ($300M, wow!).

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

I like the design but it's a big aircraft alright with a price to match ($300M, wow!).

Both design and price are still preliminary, the final product might look vastly different from the concept art, and possibly have a vastly different price tag too

 

[Josh_TN]

The engine nacels are too big unless it's got 4 engines in their conceptual

Or it has 2 engines, but each would be so large and so powerful that they operate equal to 2 engines, perhaps more than twice that of the P&W F135 engines, currently among the most powerful fighter engines made. After all, its engines will be designed to be both adaptive and variable, meaning it can adjust itself according to flight regime, which greatly increases its range, and its fuel efficiency

Or the nature of the engine requires a bigger exhaust - some kind of bypass to mix cold air with the exhaust, multiple flow paths for an adaptive engine, multi-mode engine, etc.

Or more likely we're just staring way too much at an artist's rendering again.

 

[Josh_TN]

$300m per plane in today's prices?

I believe one of the spokespersons for the program that went before Congress intimated that they would larger than a traditional fighter and cost hundreds of millions per copy, so that seems to be the case. Presumably the CCAs / UAVs of the program will be dramatically cheaper than a traditional fighter and the hope being that a flight of UAVs + the manned component is more capable than an equivalent, or even larger number, of opponent fighters.

 

[FighterJock]

I like the design but it's a big aircraft alright with a price to match ($300M, wow!).

Same thoughts here, $300M is a lot more than the F-22 Raptor. And they stopped the F-22's production because it was allegedly too expensive, makes me mad just thinking about it.

 

[bobbymike]

The engine nacels are too big unless it's got 4 engines in their conceptual

Or it has 2 engines, but each would be so large and so powerful that they operate equal to 2 engines, perhaps more than twice that of the P&W F135 engines, currently among the most powerful fighter engines made. After all, its engines will be designed to be both adaptive and variable, meaning it can adjust itself according to flight regime, which greatly increases its range, and its fuel efficiency

I can’t see the nacelles in that picture am I missing something? Or can’t gauge their size.