Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter (USAF)

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

jetblast16

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 882
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 00:12
  • Location: USA

Unread post14 May 2021, 15:29

New Force Design: NGAD Needed Soon, F-22 Sunset Begins in 2030
May 13, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force is preparing to unveil a new 30-year fighter force design that includes at least two all-new fighters, a much greater use of autonomous and unmanned aircraft, a new way of providing close air support, and a narrowing timeline for retiring aircraft such as the A-10, F-16, and F-22, said Lt. Gen. Clinton S. Hinote, deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration, and requirements.

Hinote said the F-22 will begin to phase out in about 2030—the exact timeline will be situation-dependent—and the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter will be needed soon to defeat a Chinese stealth aircraft and missile threat that is “closer than we think.”

In a May 13 interview with the editors of Air Force Magazine, Hinote said Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr.’s revelation that the USAF is planning to reduce its fighter fleet from seven types to “four plus one” is the kickoff of a “transparency” campaign to explain choices to be unveiled in the fiscal 2022 budget submission.

Brown said the future fighter fleet will include the F-35, F-15EX, late-model F-16s, and the Next Generation Air Dominance, or NGAD family of systems; the “plus one” being the A-10. Brown did not mention the F-22, and “this was something you all rightly picked up on very quickly,” Hinote said.

The Air Force plans a “transition” from the F-22 to the NGAD, and “we felt like, now is a good time for us to be able to talk about how we’re going to bridge” between the two systems.

While the F-22 is a good airframe—it has been updated and will continue to receive upgrades, “mostly sensors,” Hinote said—the Air Force is anticipating “the sunset of the F-22 … in about the 2030-ish timeframe.” That won’t be the full retirement of the type, but the beginning of its phase-out, he said. By then the F-22 will be 25 years old and the Air Force should be deep into a new cycle of fielding NGAD and its successors on what could be as rapid as a five-year cycle.

“Our Chief of Staff Gen. Brown has it exactly right: We must ‘accelerate change or lose,’” said AFA President retired Lt. Gen. Bruce “Orville” Wright. “If he says it’s time to start thinking about retiring the F-22, then he understands something about what’s coming with NGAD. The Air Force has led the way in developing and fielding the most advanced technologies on the planet and integrating them into complex weapons systems. They’ve done that from the F-117 a generation ago to the B-21 today. We have to respect Gen. Brown’s confidence and that proven capability to deliver.”

The F-22 fleet is small and suffers from vanishing-vendor problems, senior USAF officers have said recently. A recent high-level USAF planning document said the F-22 won’t be competitive two decades from now. Hinote said the F-22 “has its limitations and we can’t modernize our way out of the [air superiority] problem with just using an updated F-22.”

However, the Air Force will not allow any gap in its ability to achieve air superiority, he insisted.

“We believe … we have a good story,” he said, which is that the F-22 will be kept “viable as a bridge to get to the new capability. This is not an area of the Air Force where we feel we can take a lot of risk.” Though he thinks some mission areas might tolerate gaps or risks—he didn’t name them—air superiority “is not one of them.”

One of the reasons senior leadership is talking about the F-22 and NGAD is because the budget request to be presented in the coming weeks will show a “large … commitment” to the NGAD, Hinote said.

The service expects to have “a tight transition plan” between the F-22 and NGAD, he added. Until NGAD is available, “We feel like a good use of our resources is to keep the F-22 viable as we are developing this sea change in the way we field capability.”

Depending on the threat and hedging against problems in NGAD, the USAF may consider a service-life extension program for the F-22, but Hinote said that seems unlikely because the NGAD is making swift progress.

“I was surprised at how well it’s doing,” he said. He has escorted a number of members of Congress to see the jet—which former USAF acquisition chief Will Roper revealed last September has already flown—and they have come away “at a minimum, fairly impressed,” Hinote assessed. Members of the Office of the Secretary of Defense have similarly visited the program, and “seeing is believing,” he added.

“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.” He said he wished he could “brag on” the contractors who have brought the program so far, so quickly, but much of the project remains classified.

The NGAD timetable will be “event driven,” but Hinote doubts it will be 10 years before it is in operational service. The “long pole in the tent” right now is integrating “the most important things onto that platform with a government reference architecture.”

He also noted that NGAD is a family of systems and will be “optionally manned,” meaning several versions of the jet may be built and employed with or without crews.

When the budget comes out, “it may not look like a 100 percent” replacement of F-22s with NGADs because “you’re talking about a set of capabilities, … some of that may be unmanned [or] optionally manned. So it’s not one-for-one.”

Broadly, he expects the Air Force to embrace autonomous aircraft as force multipliers. “We’re really working hard at identifying the true value propositions” in missions where unmanned systems may be used, he reported. He noted the Skyborg autonomous aircraft test earlier this month, which did not require the use of a runway for launch or recovery—something that could be a game-changer as the Air Force seeks to complicate the targeting problem for adversaries.

The NGAD concept calls for rapid turnover in technology, such that when one is about to be deployed, the next version will already be in design, if not development. Hinote suggested that the second NGAD type is already in design, then said, “I can’t confirm or deny that one.” But the Air Force is embracing the concept because it will allow “the great companies of our industrial base to re-enter the competition at the design phase, as opposed to crowding them out in the sustainability phase” as a consequence of what has recently been coined “vendor lock.”

It hasn’t been decided what the optimum cycle of NGAD platform turnover should be, but the hardware and software will be in a perennial spiral, Hinote said.

“As you’re allowing that program to mature, through a spiral series, you’re designing the next platform” with new software and sensor technology, he said. As these are integrated into the existing version, “you jump over that one” to the next one. “It could be every five years,” he said. “It could be every eight years.”

The A-10, which also is expected to fly until the 2030s, will be superseded by a “new way” and “new concepts” of delivering close air support, Hinote said.

“We’re not looking at building another non-survivable close air support aircraft like it,” he explained. “The lines on the battlefield are not necessarily where you’re going to be. In fact, it’s probably going to look much more distributed … [that’s why you’re seeing the] long-range fires discussion … play out in the press and in the Pentagon.” This is a “big, big deal,” he said. Close air support will “feel much different.” The new aircraft will be used “typically” in the counterterrorism environment, Hinote said, and the new concept is “pretty compelling.” He didn’t give details, but said that when the new capability becomes available “it’ll be pretty evident that we need to just go ahead and divest the A-10 and move to the new” construct.

As for the F-16, Hinote confirmed what Brown has suggested, that it will likely be a “clean sheet design” created in much the same way as the NGAD, using digital methods. The role envisaged for the new airplane will be homeland defense and missions “that don’t necessarily require a high level of survivability.” For example, it may not need to have “radar stealth.”

However, this is not a pressing decision, as “our F-16 ‘new’ blocks are actually still in decent shape; we can upgrade them and keep them viable for some time.” When it comes time to “sunset” the F-16, “a clean sheet design using digital tools is the way to go,” Hinote said.

Fielding the NGAD is urgent, Hinote added. While he would not say when the threat will overmatch USAF’s current capabilities, “the time is absolutely coming where the combination of something like a [Chinese] J-20 with an advanced … missile is a threat to air superiority for the United States. … It’s something we’ve got to address.”

Source: https://www.airforcemag.com/new-force-d ... s-in-2030/
Have F110, Block 70, will travel
Offline

Fox1

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 220
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2005, 04:16

Unread post16 May 2021, 06:02

This whole F-16 replacement thing is a head scratcher. OK, I get it. The current fleet of Vipers we have isn't going to last forever. And we may not end up buying enough F-35's to replace all of the F-16's, A-10's, F-15C's and whatever else out there that needs replacing on a one for one basis. But if we just need a fighter that is cheap to buy and cheap to operate for use in permissive environments, why does it have to be a clean sheet design? Just buy more F-16's! New build F-16V's are more than capable of handling those stated mission sets for years to come. So why waste billions of dollars developing an all new fighter that would at best end up being only marginally better than the F-16? It makes no sense at all. You can buy new F-16's right off the line that are damn capable machines, even today. The F-16 is already in the system. Training, maintenance, spare parts, etc. are already in place. Why spend billions developing what amounts to a clean sheet F-16 design when we can just buy new F-16's that will be 95% as good and not screw up the current training and logistics?

:bang:

I certainly hope USAF leadership has the sense to make sure those Raptor upgrades continue until the NGAD enters full rate production. If NGAD is as successful as other recent Air Force projects, we'll probably be trying to trying to milk a few more flying hours out of the F-22 in the year 2040 like we're doing with our F-15 and F-16 fleet today. My confidence in NGAD succeeding isn't overly high. So we damn well better hang on to and keep the F-22 upgraded until NGAD or whatever ultimately replaces it arrives in sufficient numbers to take over the mission. Until it reaches IOC and is parked on ramps at multiple bases, NGAD will be nothing more than vaporware in my mind.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 792
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post16 May 2021, 11:53

Lt. Gen. Clinton S. Hinote can postulate all he wants about his next 30 year fighter force, but neither AF Generals or Fighter pilots have the final say. For it is civilians who run our country and not the military. And do people on this forum actually believe that the current administration is going to allow funding for a B-21, PCA, NGAD, or whatever? And in large numbers? For about a decade ago, President Obama even stated that a jet like the F-22 was too expensive. Do people actually think PCA (or NGAD, or whatever they now refer to them) is going to be procured in numbers if they thought the Raptor program was far too costly?

Also we are probably not going to see high level of defense spending, with the state of our economy. The current administration is talking about trillions of dollars of programs, -not billions. And since January 2001, the last 4 Presidents have had terrible fiscal responsibility (yes, even the GOP). So I could be wrong on this, but I think many of these "wish list" defense programs most likely are not going to happen.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2286
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post16 May 2021, 15:06

Too right ADF - the only saving grace for NGAD might be the high end developments coming from China I guess.

Trending corporate IT phrases are of course a panacea to software development - so just chuck a few of them at it job done! :?

An F-16 replacement with similar capability that they might decide on in 8 years time ( :lmao: ) - cant wait for that. Some F-16Vs would be a stretch of the imagination, just imagine in 30 years time, F-16Vs flying alongside some B-52s.

Still probably wise to keep NGAD under covers for now.
When Obi Wan logged onto Twitter: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious"
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7556
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post16 May 2021, 22:22

jetblast16 wrote:
New Force Design: NGAD Needed Soon, F-22 Sunset Begins in 2030
May 13, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak


The Air Force is preparing to unveil a new 30-year fighter force design that includes at least two all-new fighters, a much greater use of autonomous and unmanned aircraft, a new way of providing close air support, and a narrowing timeline for retiring aircraft such as the A-10, F-16, and F-22, said Lt. Gen. Clinton S. Hinote, deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration, and requirements.

Hinote said the F-22 will begin to phase out in about 2030—the exact timeline will be situation-dependent—and the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter will be needed soon to defeat a Chinese stealth aircraft and missile threat that is “closer than we think.”

In a May 13 interview with the editors of Air Force Magazine, Hinote said Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr.’s revelation that the USAF is planning to reduce its fighter fleet from seven types to “four plus one” is the kickoff of a “transparency” campaign to explain choices to be unveiled in the fiscal 2022 budget submission.

Brown said the future fighter fleet will include the F-35, F-15EX, late-model F-16s, and the Next Generation Air Dominance, or NGAD family of systems; the “plus one” being the A-10. Brown did not mention the F-22, and “this was something you all rightly picked up on very quickly,” Hinote said.

The Air Force plans a “transition” from the F-22 to the NGAD, and “we felt like, now is a good time for us to be able to talk about how we’re going to bridge” between the two systems.

While the F-22 is a good airframe—it has been updated and will continue to receive upgrades, “mostly sensors,” Hinote said—the Air Force is anticipating “the sunset of the F-22 … in about the 2030-ish timeframe.” That won’t be the full retirement of the type, but the beginning of its phase-out, he said. By then the F-22 will be 25 years old and the Air Force should be deep into a new cycle of fielding NGAD and its successors on what could be as rapid as a five-year cycle.

“Our Chief of Staff Gen. Brown has it exactly right: We must ‘accelerate change or lose,’” said AFA President retired Lt. Gen. Bruce “Orville” Wright. “If he says it’s time to start thinking about retiring the F-22, then he understands something about what’s coming with NGAD. The Air Force has led the way in developing and fielding the most advanced technologies on the planet and integrating them into complex weapons systems. They’ve done that from the F-117 a generation ago to the B-21 today. We have to respect Gen. Brown’s confidence and that proven capability to deliver.”

The F-22 fleet is small and suffers from vanishing-vendor problems, senior USAF officers have said recently. A recent high-level USAF planning document said the F-22 won’t be competitive two decades from now. Hinote said the F-22 “has its limitations and we can’t modernize our way out of the [air superiority] problem with just using an updated F-22.”

However, the Air Force will not allow any gap in its ability to achieve air superiority, he insisted.

“We believe … we have a good story,” he said, which is that the F-22 will be kept “viable as a bridge to get to the new capability. This is not an area of the Air Force where we feel we can take a lot of risk.” Though he thinks some mission areas might tolerate gaps or risks—he didn’t name them—air superiority “is not one of them.”

One of the reasons senior leadership is talking about the F-22 and NGAD is because the budget request to be presented in the coming weeks will show a “large … commitment” to the NGAD, Hinote said.

The service expects to have “a tight transition plan” between the F-22 and NGAD, he added. Until NGAD is available, “We feel like a good use of our resources is to keep the F-22 viable as we are developing this sea change in the way we field capability.”

Depending on the threat and hedging against problems in NGAD, the USAF may consider a service-life extension program for the F-22, but Hinote said that seems unlikely because the NGAD is making swift progress.

“I was surprised at how well it’s doing,” he said. He has escorted a number of members of Congress to see the jet—which former USAF acquisition chief Will Roper revealed last September has already flown—and they have come away “at a minimum, fairly impressed,” Hinote assessed. Members of the Office of the Secretary of Defense have similarly visited the program, and “seeing is believing,” he added.

“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.” He said he wished he could “brag on” the contractors who have brought the program so far, so quickly, but much of the project remains classified.

The NGAD timetable will be “event driven,” but Hinote doubts it will be 10 years before it is in operational service. The “long pole in the tent” right now is integrating “the most important things onto that platform with a government reference architecture.”

He also noted that NGAD is a family of systems and will be “optionally manned,” meaning several versions of the jet may be built and employed with or without crews.

When the budget comes out, “it may not look like a 100 percent” replacement of F-22s with NGADs because “you’re talking about a set of capabilities, … some of that may be unmanned [or] optionally manned. So it’s not one-for-one.”

Broadly, he expects the Air Force to embrace autonomous aircraft as force multipliers. “We’re really working hard at identifying the true value propositions” in missions where unmanned systems may be used, he reported. He noted the Skyborg autonomous aircraft test earlier this month, which did not require the use of a runway for launch or recovery—something that could be a game-changer as the Air Force seeks to complicate the targeting problem for adversaries.

The NGAD concept calls for rapid turnover in technology, such that when one is about to be deployed, the next version will already be in design, if not development. Hinote suggested that the second NGAD type is already in design, then said, “I can’t confirm or deny that one.” But the Air Force is embracing the concept because it will allow “the great companies of our industrial base to re-enter the competition at the design phase, as opposed to crowding them out in the sustainability phase” as a consequence of what has recently been coined “vendor lock.”

It hasn’t been decided what the optimum cycle of NGAD platform turnover should be, but the hardware and software will be in a perennial spiral, Hinote said.

“As you’re allowing that program to mature, through a spiral series, you’re designing the next platform” with new software and sensor technology, he said. As these are integrated into the existing version, “you jump over that one” to the next one. “It could be every five years,” he said. “It could be every eight years.”

The A-10, which also is expected to fly until the 2030s, will be superseded by a “new way” and “new concepts” of delivering close air support, Hinote said.

“We’re not looking at building another non-survivable close air support aircraft like it,” he explained. “The lines on the battlefield are not necessarily where you’re going to be. In fact, it’s probably going to look much more distributed … [that’s why you’re seeing the] long-range fires discussion … play out in the press and in the Pentagon.” This is a “big, big deal,” he said. Close air support will “feel much different.” The new aircraft will be used “typically” in the counterterrorism environment, Hinote said, and the new concept is “pretty compelling.” He didn’t give details, but said that when the new capability becomes available “it’ll be pretty evident that we need to just go ahead and divest the A-10 and move to the new” construct.

As for the F-16, Hinote confirmed what Brown has suggested, that it will likely be a “clean sheet design” created in much the same way as the NGAD, using digital methods. The role envisaged for the new airplane will be homeland defense and missions “that don’t necessarily require a high level of survivability.” For example, it may not need to have “radar stealth.”

However, this is not a pressing decision, as “our F-16 ‘new’ blocks are actually still in decent shape; we can upgrade them and keep them viable for some time.” When it comes time to “sunset” the F-16, “a clean sheet design using digital tools is the way to go,” Hinote said.

Fielding the NGAD is urgent, Hinote added. While he would not say when the threat will overmatch USAF’s current capabilities, “the time is absolutely coming where the combination of something like a [Chinese] J-20 with an advanced … missile is a threat to air superiority for the United States. … It’s something we’ve got to address.”

Source: https://www.airforcemag.com/new-force-d ... s-in-2030/



Yet, we need F-15EX's............... :doh:
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2794
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post17 May 2021, 04:15

If they really need cheap airframes for homeland policing / low-intensity missions, I say just buy a Boing F-7A. Slap an APG-83 in it, a couple 'winders or slammers and call it good.

If they really wanna spend the money... and replace the F-16...

Take the Viper design, replace the air inlet with the DSI inlet they already test flew in the '90s. That inlet may just hide the fan blades from the front, but if not, they probably can be hidden fairly easily and cheaply. Replace the wing with a trapezoidal wing. Replace the vertical tail and slabs with a V-tail , perhaps extending further to the rear for increased moment arm. Smoosh the CFT's into the fuselage (effectively making the fuselage behind the canopy fatter) and smooth it for increased internal fuel. Either carry weps on the wings, --OR-- possibly add two weps bays under the wings tight against the fuselage (try to get two AIM-120's, one on each side). The risk being interference with landing gear / screwing up the aero biggly.

Run with either the -229 Pratt or GE F110.

Since you're clean sheeting it, put MADL on there from the git go. I'd say keep the HUD with the JHMD helmet, although the F-35 helmet could be adapted (more $$, possibly more risk?), but add the F-21 panoramic display.

Prolly be cheaper (maybe) than the F-15EX boondoggle.


(ETA: I'm not convinced you can get some small internal weps bays on a modified F-16 layout. The aero of that airframe does not seem conducive to it. You could go to bifurcated air inlets (I believe JohnWill alluded to one such YF-16 design concept) possibly allowing you to add weps bays behind the inlet... but you're basically now an F-35.

Or LM could take the F-35, scale it down to an F-100 sized engine, scale down the weps bays (maybe only a pair of missiles in each bay, or one missile and a 500lb or 750lb bomb.))

Call it the F-36 Viper II.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7556
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post17 May 2021, 04:28

steve2267 wrote:If they really need cheap airframes for homeland policing / low-intensity missions, I say just buy a Boing F-7A. Slap an APG-83 in it, a couple 'winders or slammers and call it good.

If they really wanna spend the money... and replace the F-16...

Take the Viper design, replace the air inlet with the DSI inlet they already test flew in the '90s. That inlet may just hide the fan blades from the front, but if not, they probably can be hidden fairly easily and cheaply. Replace the wing with a trapezoidal wing. Replace the vertical tail and slabs with a V-tail , perhaps extending further to the rear for increased moment arm. Smoosh the CFT's into the fuselage (effectively making the fuselage behind the canopy fatter) and smooth it for increased internal fuel. Either carry weps on the wings, --OR-- possibly add two weps bays under the wings tight against the fuselage (try to get two AIM-120's, one on each side). The risk being interference with landing gear / screwing up the aero biggly.

Run with either the -229 Pratt or GE F110.

Since you're clean sheeting it, put MADL on there from the git go. I'd say keep the HUD with the JHMD helmet, although the F-35 helmet could be adapted (more $$, possibly more risk?), but add the F-21 panoramic display.

Prolly be cheaper (maybe) than the F-15EX boondoggle.


(ETA: I'm not convinced you can get some small internal weps bays on a modified F-16 layout. The aero of that airframe does not seem conducive to it. You could go to bifurcated air inlets (I believe JohnWill alluded to one such YF-16 design concept) possibly allowing you to add weps bays behind the inlet... but you're basically now an F-35.

Or LM could take the F-35, scale it down to an F-100 sized engine, scale down the weps bays (maybe only a pair of missiles in each bay, or one missile and a 500lb or 750lb bomb.))

Call it the F-36 Viper II.


Anything that isn't stealthy (high level) is a complete waste. Especially, by time it would actually arrive....

On the other hand if you just want something low risk and short term. Just buy more F-16's! Which, are still in production...


You could also build the KF-21 (KFX) under license. Already has US Engines and not far from production.......
Offline
User avatar

jetblast16

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 882
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 00:12
  • Location: USA

Unread post17 May 2021, 21:54

I'll say this...evidently, from what we know, the "NGAD" or key component of this new "family of systems" looks very promising. It appears to be "modular" from its inception. The USAF seems keen on not repeating the mistakes of the past (remains to be seen of course), so they are making sure that the new aircraft is updateable from the get-go, for a decades long (potentially) service life.

Further, I'll add this...if this new air "system" is slated to replace the F-22A Raptor, it had better be the total package. It had better at least match the F-22 in kinematics, have a lower overall RCS (broadband/ all aspect) than its predecessor, have RAM coating(s) that require far less maintenance, have a completely open architecture avionics system, have either more range or more range at speed than the Raptor. If it cannot do this, then, in my humble opinion, it is not worthy or capable of replacing the F-22.
Have F110, Block 70, will travel
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2419
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post18 May 2021, 12:31

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/ges-new-fi ... echnology/

GE’S NEW FIGHTER ENGINE JUST BLEW AWAY EXISTING JET TECHNOLOGY
Alex Hollings | May 14, 2021

GE just completed its initial test runs of the first full-scale XA100 three-stream adaptive combat engine–an entirely new fighter power plant that promises to give the United States a distinct advantage in the skies of the 21st century. Fighters have always had to maintain a tightrope walk between unleashing the power of their engines and saving enough fuel to be effective in a fight. With GE’s XA100, that’ll get a whole lot easier.

The first full-scale XA100 is one of two technology demonstrators contracted to GE through the U.S. Air Force’s Life Cycle Management Center’s Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP), with elements of development handled through both the Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT) and the Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) programs.

This first demonstrator was intended to not just offer an incredible amount of power, but a huge improvement in engine efficiency that can grant greater fuel range and longer loiter times than ever before.



More at the jump
Do you guys think NGAD will forgo traditional fighter performance metrics in order to increase range, payload or will it still have some form of turn and burn capability
Offline

madrat

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3036
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post18 May 2021, 12:53

I wouldn't be disappointed if NGAD exceeded F-22A performance but was considerably smaller. Seems like we're going to hit some sort of performance wall at a certain point where increasing scale cuts your airframe total, thereby undermining your mission. Unless NGAD and PCA are one and the same, I just can't fathom another leap in overall size increase. Maybe the ADVENT program will be an engine geared for that optimal perceived size and less about replacing F-35 engines.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3784
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post18 May 2021, 13:26

madrat wrote:I wouldn't be disappointed if NGAD exceeded F-22A performance but was considerably smaller. Seems like we're going to hit some sort of performance wall at a certain point where increasing scale cuts your airframe total, thereby undermining your mission. Unless NGAD and PCA are one and the same, I just can't fathom another leap in overall size increase. Maybe the ADVENT program will be an engine geared for that optimal perceived size and less about replacing F-35 engines.

It's not going to be smaller, if they're wanting more range and magazine depth.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2419
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post18 May 2021, 15:50

madrat wrote:I wouldn't be disappointed if NGAD exceeded F-22A performance but was considerably smaller. .


Thats very unlikely, every single article I have read about NGAD always highlights the importance of range, broadband stealth, increased networking capabilities and deep magazines.
This tells us that NGAD will likely be a very large aircraft.

There are no reports that they would like any type of increased speed or maneuverability, contrary to it there are talks of moving away from such performance parameters in order to maximize range

The article above is the only hint that there may still be some speed and maneuverability requirements which is why ADVENT is a very high thrust engine.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2794
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post18 May 2021, 18:14

Would any here accept an NGAD with 9g instantaneous, 7g sustained, 0.95Mach max speed, 0.9Mach cruise, 8 internal AIM-120/260s, DEW/HEL eventuality, but 2000nm combat radius?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2419
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post18 May 2021, 18:46

steve2267 wrote:Would any here accept an NGAD with 9g instantaneous, 7g sustained, 0.95Mach max speed, 0.9Mach cruise, 8 internal AIM-120/260s, DEW/HEL eventuality, but 2000nm combat radius?


Id be fine with that. 7G sustained is actually pretty good.
7G sustained, with a full combat load at 25k feet is respectable.

Hopefully the scars of Vietnam will never go away, whenever you say something can't happen, thats when it happens.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3784
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post18 May 2021, 19:21

steve2267 wrote:Would any here accept an NGAD with 9g instantaneous, 7g sustained, 0.95Mach max speed, 0.9Mach cruise, 8 internal AIM-120/260s, DEW/HEL eventuality, but 2000nm combat radius?

I doubt they're looking at a 2000nm combat radius, but they might be looking at 1000-1200nm and 10-12 AAMs internal, and a M1.6 top speed.
Next

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests