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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Getting more thrust out of conventional turbo fans is likely reaching diminishing returns for skyrocketing costs.

Range is going nowhere for the size. No hypersonic, PBW, lg rng cannon, extreme dynamic maneuver, or high altitude capability and or low altitude efficient infil....The thing is going to be yawn..Its iterations are likely going to be a yawn. The 4.5 gen and F-15EX may have to do.

Majors are not going to deliver on risk...DoD has to risk by looking outside the LSIs. Unlikely..

Even building a yawn is waste of time n $. Build a bunch of components creatures...We are way out from integrated nex gen systems...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TomcatViP said:
We still have to make it real and there’s a lot to do in the program, but when you see what is going on, and you hear it from the Airmen who are flying it, you get a chance to really understand where we’re going.
Click to expand...
... Another controversial quote!
Click to expand...
To me it sounds like flying it means a combination of the physical demonstrator and maybe something like the avionics are being developed on the catbird.
 
jsport said:
Getting more thrust out of conventional turbo fans is likely reaching diminishing returns for skyrocketing costs.
Click to expand...
Variable cycle will optimise thrust relative to airspeed though, so you can effectively have a high BPR at low speeds and a lower one at high speeds. Material science also moves pretty fast with new alloys that allow higher TETs.
 
Forest Green said:
jsport said:
Getting more thrust out of conventional turbo fans is likely reaching diminishing returns for skyrocketing costs.
Click to expand...
Variable cycle will optimise thrust relative to airspeed though, so you can effectively have a high BPR at low speeds and a lower one at high speeds. Material science also moves pretty fast with new alloys that allow higher TETs.
Click to expand...
sound like mods to existing turbofans ...molecules flow just so fast unless one starts inducing them w/EM or exotic fuels etc etc..toward hypersonic....
 
jsport said:
Forest Green said:
jsport said:
Getting more thrust out of conventional turbo fans is likely reaching diminishing returns for skyrocketing costs.
Click to expand...
Variable cycle will optimise thrust relative to airspeed though, so you can effectively have a high BPR at low speeds and a lower one at high speeds. Material science also moves pretty fast with new alloys that allow higher TETs.
Click to expand...
sound like mods to existing turbofans ...molecules flow just so fast unless one starts inducing them w/EM or exotic fuels etc etc..toward hypersonic....
Click to expand...
Higher TET allows a higher jet velocity and a higher intake velocity, not hypersonic though (nowhere near yet anyway). For hypersonic you can use a precooler with an inert gas and drive the turbine with that inert gas once heated by precooler, whilst you mix the air with fuel and ignite it before sending it straight out the nozzle, as per SABRE.
 
Forest Green said:
jsport said:
Forest Green said:
jsport said:
Getting more thrust out of conventional turbo fans is likely reaching diminishing returns for skyrocketing costs.
Click to expand...
Variable cycle will optimise thrust relative to airspeed though, so you can effectively have a high BPR at low speeds and a lower one at high speeds. Material science also moves pretty fast with new alloys that allow higher TETs.
Click to expand...
sound like mods to existing turbofans ...molecules flow just so fast unless one starts inducing them w/EM or exotic fuels etc etc..toward hypersonic....
Click to expand...
Higher TET allows a higher jet velocity and a higher intake velocity, not hypersonic though (nowhere near yet anyway). For hypersonic you can use a precooler with an inert gas and drive the turbine with that inert gas once heated by precooler, whilst you mix the air with fuel and ignite it before sending it straight out the nozzle, as per SABRE.
Click to expand...

Forest Green said:
jsport said:
Forest Green said:
jsport said:
Getting more thrust out of conventional turbo fans is likely reaching diminishing returns for skyrocketing costs.
Click to expand...
Variable cycle will optimise thrust relative to airspeed though, so you can effectively have a high BPR at low speeds and a lower one at high speeds. Material science also moves pretty fast with new alloys that allow higher TETs.
Click to expand...
sound like mods to existing turbofans ...molecules flow just so fast unless one starts inducing them w/EM or exotic fuels etc etc..toward hypersonic....
Click to expand...
Higher TET allows a higher jet velocity and a higher intake velocity, not hypersonic though (nowhere near yet anyway). For hypersonic you can use a precooler with an inert gas and drive the turbine with that inert gas once heated by precooler, whilst you mix the air with fuel and ignite it before sending it straight out the nozzle, as per SABRE.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

SABRE (rocket engine) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
would make Ngad worth it, as stated much earlier in this thread.
 
A hypersonic NGAD has to be the dumbest vehicle I've ever heard of, as it wouldn't have persistence, stealth, or maneuverability and I would have to wonder how well any sensors might work on it at those speeds. Even hypersonic missiles have issues with targeting. Now, maybe a limited set of hypersonic strike/long range interceptors that can use offboard targeting for enemy stealth bombers and long range prompt strike with a man-in-the-loop, I could see missions like that making some sense. But definitely not for NGAD.
 
Sundog said:
A hypersonic NGAD has to be the dumbest vehicle I've ever heard of, as it wouldn't have persistence, stealth, or maneuverability and I would have to wonder how well any sensors might work on it at those speeds. Even hypersonic missiles have issues with targeting. Now, maybe a limited set of hypersonic strike/long range interceptors that can use offboard targeting for enemy stealth bombers and long range prompt strike with a man-in-the-loop, I could see missions like that making some sense. But definitely not for NGAD.
Click to expand...
Agree, with current and constantly improving weapon accuracy, having a manned hypersonic fighter makes no sense.
 
Yeah, hypersonic would also mean that it pretty much has to fly at that speed nearly all the time to make it worth it, as per the SR-71 and Mach 3. At subsonic speeds a plane designed for Mach 5+ would be a dog, I also don't believe there's any such thing as a small hypersonic manned aircraft, or even a fighter-sized one, the fuel load would be massive and deploying weapons at Mach 5+ would be ridiculous, especially if the weapons weren't even designed for that speed, which most aren't. The IR and even UV signature would also make it not stealthy in the slightest. The wing profile of such an aircraft would also mean ridiculously long landing strips and forget naval deployment.
 
bobbymike said:
Fairly basic information but good animation of the various 6G concepts uploaded here at SPF

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GWDYX6oJlSg
Click to expand...
As stated a yawn and absurd. FA-xx is different requirement. NGAD survivability requires the ultimate high ground, ultimate warning, ultimate stand-off ie near space. Air Dominance is to defend against ICBMs, IRBMS, Hypersonic cruise , Hypersonic Ballistic etc.
 
Register free at AW site, it doesn't give you access to AWIN stuff but to more stuff than unregistered users.
 
“We have experienced performance issues on a classified fixed-price incentive fee contract that involves highly complex designs and systems integration at our aeronautics business segment,” Lockheed Martin says in a financial disclosure filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on 26 July.
Click to expand...

www.flightglobal.com

Lockheed Martin takes $225m loss on ‘significant’ classified aeronautics programme

Lockheed Martin took a $225 million loss on an unspecified classified programme within its aeronautics business segment during the second quarter of 2021.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

www.reuters.com

Lockheed second quarter profit misses even as space business boosts sales

U.S. weapons maker Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) said on Monday its space business boosted revenues in the latest quarter, but a classified aeronautics development program caused the company to miss analysts' profit estimate, sending shares down 3.2% in early trading.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
Last edited:
"fixed price" wooha
 
Does indeed sound like yet another recipe for disaster.
 
TomcatViP said:
“We have experienced performance issues on a classified fixed-price incentive fee contract that involves highly complex designs and systems integration at our aeronautics business segment,” Lockheed Martin says in a financial disclosure filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on 26 July.
Click to expand...

www.flightglobal.com

Lockheed Martin takes $225m loss on ‘significant’ classified aeronautics programme

Lockheed Martin took a $225 million loss on an unspecified classified programme within its aeronautics business segment during the second quarter of 2021.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

www.reuters.com

Lockheed second quarter profit misses even as space business boosts sales

U.S. weapons maker Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) said on Monday its space business boosted revenues in the latest quarter, but a classified aeronautics development program caused the company to miss analysts' profit estimate, sending shares down 3.2% in early trading.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
Click to expand...
Its space business including its share in ULA more than offset the losses for the company as a whole.
 
In_A_Dream said:
Aren't development contracts usually cost plus?
Click to expand...
That is a recent thing, post 2000 outside of some NO FAIL programs.

For the most part Development Programs were fix budget allotment with the company having to explain why they need more money when they did.

Cost price was one of those things ment to save money but since that been failing there is a solid push back to go to the old system by everyone who is not the companies.
 

NavAir commander says the next-gen plane will be designed around certain cutting-edge technologies.​


The U.S. Navy plans to design a new-generation fighter jet around different types of technology—as opposed to designing an aircraft and then trying to pack it with technology after the fact, a top admiral said.

Vice Adm. Dean Peters, the Naval Air Systems Command commander, described a shift in the design philosophy of high-performance fighter jets.

“The most important thing that's going to happen with this with Next Generation [Air Dominance] is that we're going to take all of those technologies that we've developed, those enabling technologies, and instead of picking a platform and then figuring out how to wedge those enabling technologies into it, or not be able to wedge those into it, we're gonna start with the enabling technologies, and make that part of the criteria for what the aircraft looks like on the other end,” Peters said at the Navy League’s Sea Air Space convention in National Harbor, Maryland.

Called the Next Generation Air Dominance, or NGAD, the plane is to eventually replace the aircraft carrier-based F/A-18 Super Hornet. The Air Force also has a next-generation fighter jet project by the same name.

“I can tell you that although...the program is different than the Air Force, there is a very tight integration between the Air Force and the Navy, or what this platform is going to be,” Peters said.

www.defenseone.com

The US Navy Is Reversing Its Fighter-Jet Design Philosophy

NavAir commander says the next-gen plane will be designed around certain cutting-edge technologies.
www.defenseone.com www.defenseone.com
 
donnage99 said:
Well, considering navy's vision of replacing super hornets and compliment the f-35 fleet after 2020, I think air superiority will be a requirement.
Click to expand...
Navy CNO Gilday launched a thinly veiled attack on Boeing at SNA 2021 yesterday for lobbying Congress to fund more F-18s and keep the production line open whereas Gilday wants funding for a 6th Gen a/c, whether a F-14 replacement or attack a/c unknown.

breakingdefense.com

Top Navy Aviator Says CNO’s Industry Warning Based On Future Threats - Breaking Defense

The Navy's top officer hit industry on Monday for lobbying for "aircraft we don't need."
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
USN NGAD will almost certainly be a dual role aircraft mixing interdiction and interception. There’s really almost no reason not to combine the roles on a single long range platform given that air to ground or air to air mode is now literally abutton click for different radar and display modes. Basically what F-111 was originally intended to be.
 
I am not sure of that. External shapes might be similar on overall but an attentive look would see them different. IMOHO it's most of the systems that could be identical (engine, radar, bomb bay etc...) but wings, tails and fuselages could be altered from one to another to better match each service's specifications.

It's easy also to see, taking for example the Japanese design, that for once, size might be constrained on the USN version, with for once, a similar size for both. Idem for the weight when measured devoid of any navalized items.
 
Did anybody remember to say, "Transformational" for the last nail in the coffin?
 
I meant the USN will use its airframe for those two roles, not that the USN and USAF will share airframes. In fact they most certainly will not due to the requirements of CATOBAR flight.
 
Josh_TN said:
USN NGAD will almost certainly be a dual role aircraft mixing interdiction and interception. There’s really almost no reason not to combine the roles on a single long range platform given that air to ground or air to air mode is now literally abutton click for different radar and display modes. Basically what F-111 was originally intended to be.
Click to expand...
There's also the fact that short and medium range AAMs will be carried on drones, in addition to the drones performing offboard sensing. So NGAD will probably be able to do those roles simultaneously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom