The USAF has built and flown a full-scale Next Gen Fighter

New and old developments in aviation technology.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1132
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post18 Sep 2020, 20:54

marauder2048 wrote:
milosh wrote:
zero-one wrote:I personally have my reservations regarding the records part. Some of the best records out there like speed, time to climb and range are very steep even to this day and I doubt they could be broken within the 1st few test flights.

It could be another type of record like, time from design to production, or number of lines of software code or something. I'm not trying to douse water on the hype, but I just don't think they'll push the plane that much within the 1st few flights.


If it is two engine F135 demonstrator, super cruise records can be beaten which USAF achieved by YF-23 and F-22 later.


None of the timelines (for AETP or NGAD) in the budget documents support a demonstrator
at this stage with adaptive engines.


I wrote two engine F135 demonstartor, no new engine.

They could use tuned F135 for example, as Russians did with 117 for Su-57, it is more less same engine as 117S in Su-35 but have better dry thurst capability.

Even if they use class F135, demonstartor would have almost 260kN of dry thrust.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1400
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post18 Sep 2020, 21:42

milosh wrote:
I wrote two engine F135 demonstartor, no new engine.

They could use tuned F135 for example, as Russians did with 117 for Su-57, it is more less same engine as 117S in Su-35 but have better dry thurst capability.

Even if they use class F135, demonstartor would have almost 260kN of dry thrust.


I don't think the F-35 program could spare two engines.
And you've blown through $25 million just on engines and engine accessories.

The Lockheed ICE aircraft was/is single engine. The last study I read on it, a master's thesis,
used a single F135.

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5350&context=masters_theses
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 907
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post19 Sep 2020, 00:22

zero-one wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:The Roper hints of "records being broken" strongly hints at this. Twin adaptive cycle engines being most likely the case.


I personally have my reservations regarding the records part. Some of the best records out there like speed, time to climb and range are very steep even to this day and I doubt they could be broken within the 1st few test flights.

It could be another type of record like, time from design to production, or number of lines of software code or something. I'm not trying to douse water on the hype, but I just don't think they'll push the plane that much within the 1st few flights.


The YF-22 and YF-23 only flew from August to December 1990, and broke records for supersonic cruise. Given this, a few months of flight testing can conceivably allow a new fighter design to accomplish a similar feat, aerodynamics and air vehicle technology has pushed well beyond what the current F-22 or F-35 can do in kinematics.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3136
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post19 Sep 2020, 02:52

“It could be another type of record like, time from design to production, or number of lines of software code or something. I'm not trying to douse water on the hype, but I just don't think they'll push the plane that much within the 1st few flights.“

x2
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1400
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post19 Sep 2020, 03:18

disconnectedradical wrote:
The YF-22 and YF-23 only flew from August to December 1990, and broke records for supersonic cruise.


The Dem/Val contracts had been awarded in 1986 though. Supposedly, they went from Analysis of Alternatives to
full scale flight demonstrator accomplishing test points in one year.
Offline

citanon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 454
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 21:42

Unread post19 Sep 2020, 08:44

quicksilver wrote:“It could be another type of record like, time from design to production, or number of lines of software code or something. I'm not trying to douse water on the hype, but I just don't think they'll push the plane that much within the 1st few flights.“

x2


X3 this.

Between the F-35 and the B-21 program you now have two major program leads successfully designing and building affordable, maintainable stealth aircraft and an entire common industrial base that just went on a generational upgrade in production processes and tooling. You also have all the enabling subsystem from engines to avionics ready to go. Packaging into a new form factor is comparatively easy. Why not take advantage of all those investments and churn out better adapted form factors for the Pacific theater? Looks like Roper wasn't kidding about the Century Series idea.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1225
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post19 Sep 2020, 20:21

mixelflick wrote:Back and forth is getting old.

Can we please get on with speculating what NGAD looks like? Or where it's being flown? Or how fast it goes? Or, or, or.... anything but more arguing over AETP engines. They're out there, they're coming and they'll be in OUR fighters, not the enemy's.

That's what's really important IMO...


I would make the stereotypical guess and say this thing was flown out of some highly secretive base in the middle of nowhere of Nevada. As far as how it looks...

https://theaviationist.com/2020/09/18/a ... -aircraft/
Offline
User avatar

jetblast16

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 710
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 00:12
  • Location: USA

Unread post20 Sep 2020, 01:12

Look at the plane (in the purple rectangle I selected). Look familiar :mrgreen: ? Could it be...?
(take a look at eSeries2.png attachment)

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSGX1NAc6ZE
Attachments
eSeries.png
eSeries2.png
Have F110, Block 70, will travel
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 342
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post20 Sep 2020, 03:18

Between this, various UAS (RQ170/GJ-11/Okhotnik) and B21/H20, air warfare seems to be turning into a contest of who has the best flying triangles :lol:
Offline
User avatar

jetblast16

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 710
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 00:12
  • Location: USA

Unread post21 Sep 2020, 03:08

Interesting video post date from above...Sep 14, 2020. That's one day before Will Roper's public revelation of NGAD already flying/ flown.

I don't believe in coincidence. Things happen for a reason. I'm not saying that Boeing (foolishly) revealed NGAD, but may have hinted strongly at what it actually looks like..
Have F110, Block 70, will travel
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6447
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post21 Sep 2020, 05:38

citanon wrote:
quicksilver wrote:“It could be another type of record like, time from design to production, or number of lines of software code or something. I'm not trying to douse water on the hype, but I just don't think they'll push the plane that much within the 1st few flights.“

x2


X3 this.

Between the F-35 and the B-21 program you now have two major program leads successfully designing and building affordable, maintainable stealth aircraft and an entire common industrial base that just went on a generational upgrade in production processes and tooling. You also have all the enabling subsystem from engines to avionics ready to go. Packaging into a new form factor is comparatively easy. Why not take advantage of all those investments and churn out better adapted form factors for the Pacific theater? Looks like Roper wasn't kidding about the Century Series idea.


dash 4 checking in.

if you read this like a lawyer the records he is talking about don't necessarily mean flight performance, especially when this guy is basically a "development geek" and his focus is a new process and new design philosophy. I think he is referencing a timeline.

Also Marauder is correct. and the CBO has a ridiculously bad track record with military development programs.

lastly, no Jessmo I don't want the damn Navy involved at all. you won't save any money that way I can promise you. What you'll get is an airplane thats hamstrung in all performance parameters by the need to crash land on a ship, fold up, and get shot off the front. it instantly creates a "box" that the airplane must fit into (literally in some cases).

Image

one of the things they knew about the V-22 very early was exactly how big it would be. how? because the requirements instantly "spoiled" the surprise and laid out exactly how large clearances around the ship had to be.

and since one can't "sort of" land on an aircraft carrier those parameters are uncompromising and possible deal breakers. just to put things in perspective a Super Hornet weighs (about 14,500 kg) more than an F-15 (about 12,700 kg), while SH is still coming in 5000 kilograms under an F-14.

It had to happen eventually but you're going to get into the limits of carrier capable fighters, which is also a collision with the budget which is in competition for (and I hope you're all sitting down for this) ships and submarines and other things navies buy and need. Never forget that despite an amazing 1986 movie that is still paying dividends today, the navy is a ship force with airplanes, and not an airplane force with ships. people mix this up all the time especially aviation geeks because we tend to see the airplanes. The regular, boring, US Navy is closer to "The Enemy Below" than it is "zero dark thirty" or "Top Gun" watching regular sailors work and endlessly smoke on destroyers and frigates is boring as hell though (actually depressing in some cases), so not a lot of movies get made about them.
Choose Crews
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post21 Sep 2020, 06:00

There's a very simple reason why it can't be "development" records. Can't beat wartime records for fighter development. If one scopes it so narrowly as to fit, it'd be totally inane. The reference is imho flight performance which can be bettered even with twin F-135s.

Whilst navy development of NGAD might not share the same level of commonality between F-35C and F-35A, I think there will still be scope for some commonality e.g. avionics, sensors, engines etc. I don't think it will be completely divorced considering the timelines.

Shared research
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=750403
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4157
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post21 Sep 2020, 13:55

weasel1962 wrote:There's a very simple reason why it can't be "development" records. Can't beat wartime records for fighter development. If one scopes it so narrowly as to fit, it'd be totally inane. The reference is imho flight performance which can be bettered even with twin F-135s.

Whilst navy development of NGAD might not share the same level of commonality between F-35C and F-35A, I think there will still be scope for some commonality e.g. avionics, sensors, engines etc. I don't think it will be completely divorced considering the timelines.

Shared research
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=750403


If it is indeed a reference to flight performance, the program is further along than many here thought. Everything else (hardware, flight control software, environmental systems) would have to have been validated first. And you can't do all of it via computer simulation, it takes an airworthy vehicle. If so there's probably more than 1, and it's been flying for awhile..
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1400
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post21 Sep 2020, 17:33

weasel1962 wrote:There's a very simple reason why it can't be "development" records. Can't beat wartime records for fighter development.


Which was before modern flight/range safety considerations came into force or modern contracting for
TMRR. But even contract award time to the first transonic flight would be impressive under the modern regimes.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2360
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post21 Sep 2020, 20:05

weasel1962 wrote:There's a very simple reason why it can't be "development" records. Can't beat wartime records for fighter development.


It could be fastest development of a post cold war fighter in the US, or fastest development of a stealth fighter from concept to prototype. I'm not saying its impossible to be a flight performance record, but I want to keep my expectations in check,

I'm hoping its some kind of Super cruise, dash speed, time to climb, or G onset record but then it turns out to be most lines of software code for a fighter aircraft.
PreviousNext

Return to Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests