Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Last edited by SpudmanWP on Apr 17, 2012 - 08:56 AM; edited 1 time in total

geogen wrote:

A stopgap gap-filler for example would include modernized 4.5 platforms, at least until the US's clean-sheet next-gen TACAIR design could be delivered by around 2030 +/-.

That's like saying the gapfiller until the F-35 is ready should be some more F-4 Phantoms.

Gap-fillers are a bridge between, not a step backwards. Wink

F-16.net Sponsor

It seems to have neither divertless intakes (very obvious) nor moveable ramps (nothing obviously looks like it does), and it looks like it has moveable control surfaces just like any other ordinary aircraft. The blended wing/body and lack of vertical stabilizers may provide a high lift:weight ratio and a lot of space for internal fuel, and possibly better stealth from front and side angles. I'm not really sure how any of that translates into "better kinematic performance" than legacy fifth gen. designs. More advanced engine technologies such as pulse detonation may help in that arena, but wouldn't the same pulse detonation engines help legacy designs too? Other than the possibility of more efficient engines, twin engines partially offsets the high fuel capacity because they'll be thirstier than a single engine.

Plane generations aren't based on what technologies go into them, they're based around what philosophy (based on lessons learned from the previous generation) governs the design. First gen. were gun-armed WWII prop planes with jets for propulsion instead. Second gen. were capable of supersonic level flight because speed tended to dominate in gun combat between early jets. Third gen. were designed for missile combat because closing speed had become too high for guns and even the "last of the gunfighters" F8U scored most if its kills with missiles. Fourth gen. were maneuverable and supersonic because the Fighter Mafia had proven energy maneuver theory to be true. Fifth gen. are stealthy aircraft with advanced sensor fusion because the fourth gen. planes had already reached the practical limit of kinematic solutions to being ahead in the OODA loop. So I'm still left wondering, what exactly makes this design sixth generation? Nothing about its appearance says anything new, just stealth and probably sensor fusion, which is fifth gen. The only possible thing I've seen mentioned is that if it's designed from the outset to be not a fighter but a two-seat battlespace coordinator for a wing of air dominance drones, that's a new design paradigm. But where are its drones if that's the case? They'd have to be an integral part of the combat system. Spherical coverage by directed energy weapons might be another new design paradigm that expands on spherical sensor fusion, but nothing in this design particularly suggests that. "It doesn't have a vertical tail" isn't a generation.

GD ATF design anyone? http://www.yf-23.net/GD.html

Look at the last picture and subtract the vertical tail.

The requirement is for greater kinematic performance. The A-12 is the closest vertical tailless design I can think of and it had an A designator. I'm not saying it is not possible to have greater kinematic performance without a vertical (or YF-23 style V-tail), but it hasn't been done yet and that may say something about the aerodynamics of it. I think the supersonic flight regime could be an issue without a vertial stabilizer. Also I wonder about manueverability.

Additionally, the CodeOne Miss. February (LM Sixth Gen) maintains a V-tail, which furthers my point. Can it (high kinematic pergormance without a vertical tail/V-tail) be done? If it can be done, why hasn't it been done as the stealth advantage would be significant?

Sufa Viper

checksixx wrote:

Well I do support US jobs, however, have little faith in Boeing design engineers as far as tactical fighters go. They have not produced a new fighter design since the 1930's (technically a fighter?). Their Joint Strike Fighter concept was ghastly. I'm pretty sure the design they are showing looks a lot like a Lockheed design from MANY years ago...looking for it now.

Well, in fariness, before the F-22, Lockheed had built what fighter? The straightline drag racing F-104 nearly 50 years before; the unmaneuverable and subsonic F-117. Even with the ATF program, Lockheed's concept had to be completely redesigned at the 12th hour. If they hadn't we'd be seeing 187 F-23s instead of F-22s. Lockheed also lost the ATB competition.

The JSF was a tough road for everyone involved; supersonic, stealthy, STOVL/CTOL, a USN variant, 4000 pounds of internal a2g munitons, plus the ability to carry a few aams for self defense, and stringent cost considerations. Boeing's design won out over Northrop's, after all - that's gotta say something. And the F-35 to this day hasn't met all of the preconditions set by the DoD. Boeing has a nifty UCAV as well; they're not clueless. As my hero Patton once said, 'You don't measure a man's success by how far he climbs in life; but rather by how high he climbs after falling." (or something to that affect)

Boeing isn't just Boeing. It's Boeing and North American Rockwell and McDonnell Douglas, and there are few organizations with more fighter legacy than that combination. And Lockheed isn't just Lockheed, it's also General Dynamics, with more than a few legacy fighters in their combined history too.

It's crucial to keep competitors in the game.
In 1960, there were like 10 military aircraft companies, with multiple project developing simultaneously...
I'm happy to see that SpaceX is joining the heavy launching market, while ULA price is now higher than russian, euro's, or chinese.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Notice how they are calling it a "strike" fighter?

Are they trying to muscle in on F-35C territory?

By the looks of those bay outlines it ain't carrying much.

I'd personally wait for the design concept to mature a bit further. This is probably just a combination of rough engineering with artistic license.

I'd say that kinematic improvements in manned craft are going to have to involve having the pilot lie prone or nearly prone to up the g limit. We have the display technology to remove the need for a transparent canopy.

count_to_10 wrote:

I'd say that kinematic improvements in manned craft are going to have to involve having the pilot lie prone or nearly prone to up the g limit. We have the display technology to remove the need for a transparent canopy.

Uh...start thinking less revolutionary, more evolutionary. That philosophy has served Boeing and LM well. Additionally, kinematic improvements will only present a real advantage in WVR. We currently have a massive advantage in BVR engagement and identification, and should press this by improving our existing technology instead of developing gimmick technologies that may not be useful in all situations.

The one and only PIKA/Jindivik test ride pilot was not prone to that prone idea AFAIK and I'm not 'lying face down' but could be mistaken. Very Happy

F-35 NVG based HMD Selection Scroll Down

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... vik#203577

[quote="southernphantom"]

count_to_10 wrote:

Uh...start thinking less revolutionary, more evolutionary. That philosophy has served Boeing and LM well. Additionally, kinematic improvements will only present a real advantage in WVR. We currently have a massive advantage in BVR engagement and identification, and should press this by improving our existing technology instead of developing gimmick technologies that may not be useful in all situations.

The benefits of lying a pilot down would extend to more than just kinematics. WVR it would enjoy better G tolerance.

For BVR however, it could be built to fly much faster due to no canopy. Lower RCS, the opportunity to place the pilot elsewhere in the aircraft, allowing for a larger radar and cooling up forward (although could put pilots at more risk).

My definition of a generation leap is when a new generation aircraft can completely outperform the previous generation at its role, while also taking into account future threats. Eg. Israeli F-15's vs Mig-21/23's at Bekaa Valley. F-22's vs well...everything at red flag/northern edge. F-35 vs F-18.

To be a generation ahead of the F-22, an aircraft will need to be able to defeat its stealth and its kinematic strengths and not just be a subtle improvement (5.5th gen). To dominate the F-22, it would need a significant sensor advantage which the F-22 can't just acheive by getting new technology fitted (eg GaAs based TR modules running much higher power output). It would want a signicant engagement range advantage (by way of stealth...which can't get a whole lot better from the front aspect, kinematics or both).

It could also be something entirely different to a fighter. I've always liked the idea of a heavy, VLO corvette classed aircraft with a MASSIVE radar (to the point of becoming a directed energy weapon if needed) that carries small, fast and reusable VLO drones containing air to air missiles. The system would need to be immune to comms jamming though, which may be possible using the extremely high powered radar as a comms link.

Um... I can't get to the article that's at the beginning of this thread. How much is this new F/A-XX concept supposed to weigh?

It's interesting the USN went back to F/A-XX as the program had switched from that to NGAD or next generation air dominance. Thus the F/A-18E/F was originally seen as emphasizing air to air performance, sharing systems with the F-22 follow on, weight of around 40,000lbs, two crew, and talk of being able to operate optionally manned. It will be interesting to see if that's still the requirement(s).

While there was some talk of LM offering a derivative of the F-35 for NGAD, as has been mentioned, from the perspective of the defense industrial base it's an extremely bad idea for one US company to build every single fighter aircraft. For this reason alone it would be desirable for another company to build the F/A-XX.

"What is clear is that for a next-generation fighter to fly faster, over greater distances and then persist over a target area, all the while carrying a greater payload, means that the aircraft will require a new type of propulsion system, Moran says. That means such a fighter must be able conserve fuel while it is not operating at peak combat performance levels."

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... fa-xx.html

IMHO - They switched back to the F/A-XX for the same reason that they played around with F/A-22; to garner support by widening it's perceived mission set in light of ever-tightening budgets in order to get the program moving forward.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Latest F/A-XX concept