NGAD and F/A-XX
Srsly, Dassault did a pretty good job on the Rafale, in terms of balancing cost-driving differences (different parts assembled in different structures) against leaving carrier-related "scar weight" in the landbased airplane. The challenge of optimizing the design with a lot if iterations on a reasonable time period was one reason that they developed CATIA, which has also done well in terms of keeping the Dassault family off the breadline.
It also definitely helped that the AdlA had a tradition of relatively light and efficient fighters.
In the case of NGAD and F/A-XX, a check of public sources indicates that the mission requirements are very different. What we don't know is the extent to which the Pentagon has managed to ensure that both new programs (and the F-35 upgrades) use common technology, but given the classification levels I'm not optimistic.
The following users liked this post:
There is a practical limit to how big and heavy and aircraft can get and still be viably carrier based. Not just takeoff and landing, but fitting into the hangar deck. That's what really killed the naval variant F-111.
The Air Force doesn't have a similar concern - if they need to make it bigger to carry a certain weapon system or radar, so be it.
What does make sense is developing common systems and avionics - especially now days where such a huge amount of money goes into the electronics. That's basically what Boeing did with the 757/767 - different aircraft but with a common flightdeck and systems.
Of course, that requires a high level of cooperation between the different services, which is far easier said than done.
The Air Force doesn't have a similar concern - if they need to make it bigger to carry a certain weapon system or radar, so be it.
What does make sense is developing common systems and avionics - especially now days where such a huge amount of money goes into the electronics. That's basically what Boeing did with the 757/767 - different aircraft but with a common flightdeck and systems.
Of course, that requires a high level of cooperation between the different services, which is far easier said than done.
The following users liked this post:
There is a practical limit to how big and heavy and aircraft can get and still be viably carrier based. Not just takeoff and landing, but fitting into the hangar deck. That's what really killed the naval variant F-111.
The Air Force doesn't have a similar concern - if they need to make it bigger to carry a certain weapon system or radar, so be it.
What does make sense is developing common systems and avionics - especially now days where such a huge amount of money goes into the electronics. That's basically what Boeing did with the 757/767 - different aircraft but with a common flightdeck and systems.
Of course, that requires a high level of cooperation between the different services, which is far easier said than done.
The Air Force doesn't have a similar concern - if they need to make it bigger to carry a certain weapon system or radar, so be it.
What does make sense is developing common systems and avionics - especially now days where such a huge amount of money goes into the electronics. That's basically what Boeing did with the 757/767 - different aircraft but with a common flightdeck and systems.
Of course, that requires a high level of cooperation between the different services, which is far easier said than done.
But it also worth pointing out that the F-4, A-4, Buccaneer and F/A-18 (and A-7 and E-2) were designed for naval carrier operations, not as joint programs. They just so happened to be of utility, and good all around aircraft, for some land based air forces. The USAF and Royal Air Force had little to no input on their original specifications (the F/A-18 did have some heritage from the YF-17). Had they been forced as joint programs the planes likely would have been further compromised from their original Naval requirements. The Rafale does get credit from starting with both requirements.
The following users liked this post:
Using the common air wing model with 2 fleet air defense squadron/fighter squadrons with 12 twelve aircraft each, or even with just one heavy Fleet Air Defense squadron with @12 aircraft, the 12 (or 24) F-111B's would have taken up a tremendous amount of real estate. This would impact the number of other aircraft the airwing could carry. The ultimate replacement the F-14 also had a large spotting factor, but could do just about everything (except loiter time) much better than a F-111B.
"Size" also implies weight, and the F-111B had significant weight issues.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
The thing that surprised me is the degree of sway influential Chief Designers had in times past.
Maybe they still do.
I'm trying to remember where I read it - but there was an anecdote of a very senior military officer being openly threatened by a very well known designer during the procurement process for a particular platform - essentially "...you need to consider doing what I say or it could impact your career..."
Maybe they still do.
I'm trying to remember where I read it - but there was an anecdote of a very senior military officer being openly threatened by a very well known designer during the procurement process for a particular platform - essentially "...you need to consider doing what I say or it could impact your career..."
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Realistically, after getting the B-21 contract they know they won’t get the NGAD contract, as the DoD struggles to maintain the 3 remaining main manufacturers. With LM having the F-35 contract Boeing should be in the prime position - if it wasn’t for their current appalling performance on their programmes which makes them high risk on bith cost and timeframe.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023...-ngad-fighter/
Northrop Grumman won’t bid on Air Force’s NGAD fighter
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023...-ngad-fighter/
Northrop Grumman won’t bid on Air Force’s NGAD fighter
The thing that surprised me is the degree of sway influential Chief Designers had in times past.
Maybe they still do.
I'm trying to remember where I read it - but there was an anecdote of a very senior military officer being openly threatened by a very well known designer during the procurement process for a particular platform - essentially "...you need to consider doing what I say or it could impact your career..."
Maybe they still do.
I'm trying to remember where I read it - but there was an anecdote of a very senior military officer being openly threatened by a very well known designer during the procurement process for a particular platform - essentially "...you need to consider doing what I say or it could impact your career..."
Interesting - I was just re-reading Neville Shute's 1948 "No Highway" about fatigue issues in a supposed UK airliner... as Shute was of course a designer himself I assume he knows what he was talking about. He describes the Designer.....
Last edited by Asturias56; 28th Jul 2023 at 07:38.
Why the F-111B never made the cut. Having flown both F-111B and F-14, USAF test pilot George Marrett thinks it was a good idea to cancel the F-111B, and considers F-14s “the best all-around fighter I ever flew", also commenting of his test flying the F-111 in its early days as the worst aircraft he had ever flown.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-s...b-1-180969916/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-s...b-1-180969916/
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://aviationweek.com/defense-spa...t-navy-fighter
White House Connects Secret Code Name To Next Navy Fighter
The Biden administration has requested funding to develop an NGAD Navy fighter under the special access Link Plumeria program.
A tiny crack has opened in the U.S. Navy’s closely guarded plans for a next-generation crewed fighter, with the White House confirming a relationship between the F/A-XX project and an apparent special access program code-named Link Plumeria.
The disclosure adds new depth to the Defense Department’s ongoing investment of more than $40 billion to develop a new family of Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) technology for the Air Force and Navy, with the latter facing calls by some lawmakers for a potentially devastating budget cut in fiscal 2024….
….Funding for the F/A-XX program had been hiding all along under the Link Plumeria special access program (SAP) code name, which—although classified—ranked as the Pentagon’s fourth-largest research and development program.
The fiscal 2023-27 $11.5 billion budget for Link Plumeria in the fiscal 2023 request fell behind only the spending levels for the Air Force’s Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, NGAD and Next-Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared programs.
In fact, the requested budget for Link Plumeria exceeded the proposed $10 billion outlay in research and development for the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider during the same period.
Despite its size, Link Plumeria was a public mystery. Although the large investment pointed to a known, classified development project such as the F/A-XX, Navy officials refused to connect the programs as recently as two months ago.
“As stated in the budget exhibit, details are classified per Executive Order 13526, Sec 1.4 (a),” a Navy spokesperson stated in an email to Aviation Week on May 23.
But the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directly tied Link Plumeria to the F/A-XX program for the first time in a July 10 communication to Congress.
The House Armed Services Committee has passed a version of the fiscal 2024 defense authorization bill that proposes to reduce a $2.1 billion spending request by the Navy for Link Plumeria to $1 billion, citing only “unjustified requirements.”
In response, the OMB said the committee’s proposed spending cut for Link Plumeria would harm the Navy’s development plans for the F/A-XX fighter.
“The language makes it impossible for the Navy to satisfy a critical element of the [national defense strategy] in support of Joint Force priorities,” the OMB letter stated. “The 70% reduction breaks the program and leaves the acquisition strategy unexecutable.”….
White House Connects Secret Code Name To Next Navy Fighter
The Biden administration has requested funding to develop an NGAD Navy fighter under the special access Link Plumeria program.
A tiny crack has opened in the U.S. Navy’s closely guarded plans for a next-generation crewed fighter, with the White House confirming a relationship between the F/A-XX project and an apparent special access program code-named Link Plumeria.
The disclosure adds new depth to the Defense Department’s ongoing investment of more than $40 billion to develop a new family of Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) technology for the Air Force and Navy, with the latter facing calls by some lawmakers for a potentially devastating budget cut in fiscal 2024….
….Funding for the F/A-XX program had been hiding all along under the Link Plumeria special access program (SAP) code name, which—although classified—ranked as the Pentagon’s fourth-largest research and development program.
The fiscal 2023-27 $11.5 billion budget for Link Plumeria in the fiscal 2023 request fell behind only the spending levels for the Air Force’s Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, NGAD and Next-Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared programs.
In fact, the requested budget for Link Plumeria exceeded the proposed $10 billion outlay in research and development for the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider during the same period.
Despite its size, Link Plumeria was a public mystery. Although the large investment pointed to a known, classified development project such as the F/A-XX, Navy officials refused to connect the programs as recently as two months ago.
“As stated in the budget exhibit, details are classified per Executive Order 13526, Sec 1.4 (a),” a Navy spokesperson stated in an email to Aviation Week on May 23.
But the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directly tied Link Plumeria to the F/A-XX program for the first time in a July 10 communication to Congress.
The House Armed Services Committee has passed a version of the fiscal 2024 defense authorization bill that proposes to reduce a $2.1 billion spending request by the Navy for Link Plumeria to $1 billion, citing only “unjustified requirements.”
In response, the OMB said the committee’s proposed spending cut for Link Plumeria would harm the Navy’s development plans for the F/A-XX fighter.
“The language makes it impossible for the Navy to satisfy a critical element of the [national defense strategy] in support of Joint Force priorities,” the OMB letter stated. “The 70% reduction breaks the program and leaves the acquisition strategy unexecutable.”….
FORTY BILLION........... my god .......................... and that's just for initial development.........
We could probably just buy the PLA for that ....
We could probably just buy the PLA for that ....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://defaeroreport.com/2023/11/02...sk-dr-science/
"There is another program for a much more capable reconnaissance aircraft..There are articles that have already been delivered, but there are challenges with that program & the program has been rescoped to get to the next block of a/c" ~ Vago Muradian
On the Next Generation Air Dominance NGAD program, it is claimed that USAF prefers Boeing over Lockheed's design. Vago Muradian reports that LM has pursued an "evolutionary" capability building on its F22 & F35 prgms, while Boeing has pursued a more ambitious "fresher" approach.
The @defaeroreport also reports that the US Navy's FAXX next gen fighter contract is likely to be awarded ahead of USAF's NGAD EMD award. Northrop Grumman, one of 3 teams to have designed & flown a NGAD demonstrator, withdrew from the competition but is in the running on FAXX.
It is getting close to the culmination of the tech development and demo phases of the NGAD & FAXX efforts that started nearly a decade ago under the Aerospace Innovation Initiative. We are likely less than a year away from both FAXX and NGAD program awards.
"There is another program for a much more capable reconnaissance aircraft..There are articles that have already been delivered, but there are challenges with that program & the program has been rescoped to get to the next block of a/c" ~ Vago Muradian
On the Next Generation Air Dominance NGAD program, it is claimed that USAF prefers Boeing over Lockheed's design. Vago Muradian reports that LM has pursued an "evolutionary" capability building on its F22 & F35 prgms, while Boeing has pursued a more ambitious "fresher" approach.
The @defaeroreport also reports that the US Navy's FAXX next gen fighter contract is likely to be awarded ahead of USAF's NGAD EMD award. Northrop Grumman, one of 3 teams to have designed & flown a NGAD demonstrator, withdrew from the competition but is in the running on FAXX.
It is getting close to the culmination of the tech development and demo phases of the NGAD & FAXX efforts that started nearly a decade ago under the Aerospace Innovation Initiative. We are likely less than a year away from both FAXX and NGAD program awards.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/nga...tional-divide/
NGAD - a generational divide?
….Kendall, now Air Force secretary, stated in May 2023 that the service had issued a request for proposals covering engineering and manufacturing development of NGAD. He earlier raised eyebrows by stating that the unit cost of NGAD would be “multiple hundreds of millions” and “too expensive to be purchased in large numbers” and has also said that the plan is to team each NGAD with two CCAs.
The cost is high, but not surprising for an F-22 follow-on: a 2009 RAND Corporation study calculated that continued production of the F-22 would cost $173m per unit – almost $250m in today’s money. The USAF probably hopes to acquire enough NGADs to replace 187 F-22s, but fewer than the 339 F-22s that the service once aspired to buy. No initial operational capability date has been announced, but NGAD is not expected in service before 2030.
Faced with an expensive competition, a short production run, and government control of future development, Northrop Grumman has decided not to bid on the NGAD prime contract (the company’s Mission Systems’ sector could still be involved) and is focusing on US Navy’s F/A-XX programme. That leaves the USAF to choose between a Lockheed Martin monopoly of its fighter force or make an award to Boeing – whose performance on recent USAF programmes has been disappointing and characterised by delays on seemingly straightforward projects. Some observers believe that the scope of the programme, and the defence industry’s shortage of modern facilities and engineers, will result in a leader-follower award and a ‘national team’ approach.
NGAD itself is likely to be quite large. A 2018 USAF presentation includes a slide outlining the adaptive engine programme, and it makes a clear distinction between the 45,000lb/thrust-class flight-weight demo engines (GE’s XA100 and P&W’s XA101) sized to re-engine the F-35, a smaller ‘scaled core’ engine for AS2030, and a further derivative for retrofit to ‘fourth-generation’ fighters. That implies a maximum thrust of around 35,000lb for the NGAD engine. NGAD will probably be as heavy as the F-22, or slightly larger.
NGAD’s size may be the primary reason why it is a separate programme from F/A-XX, although the requirements are also believed to diverge in other ways. For example, the Navy may favour range and stand-off weapon capability over stealth. Other than engine technology, very little has been said about the extent of technology sharing between the two programmes.
The use of the adaptive engine indicates that NGAD will be designed to operate efficiently at both subsonic and supersonic speeds. It has been claimed that in a supercruise-capable fighter, adaptive technology can increase mission radius by 38%. However, Grynkewich’s comments imply that it may not have traditional fighter attributes, such as high manoeuvrability. A sustained 9G capability sets a high floor to the thrust/weight ratio and wing loading of a fighter aircraft and increases empty weight.
On the F-22, ‘supermanoeuvrability’ demanded heavy vectoring nozzles and enormous tail surfaces. Smaller – or even absent – tails are compatible with all-aspect, wideband reduction of radar cross section (RCS), previously associated with subsonic tailless designs, like Northrop Grumman’s flying wings or Boeing’s Bird of Prey. The ‘bowtie’ signature pattern of the F-22 and F-35, with a stronger signature on beam aspects than to the front or rear, was optimised to penetrate a linear air defence system – but in the South China Sea, radar threats are found at all aspects.
At this years Air Force Association (AFA) convention near Washington DC, one exhibit pointed to the possibility that NGAD will have a longer endurance than earlier aircraft. Martin-Baker showed a concept mock-up of a proposed Mk 20 ejection seat that resembled a home recliner, with control inceptors forming part of the seat.
Martin-Baker consultant and former USAF pilot and physician, Kathryn Hughes said that the company expects NGAD missions to be long and cognitively intensive. In addition to offering a reclining position, the Mk 20 concept removes much body-worn equipment from the pilot and incorporates it in the seat, and includes Wi-Fi-type devices to monitor the pilot’s physical condition….
NGAD - a generational divide?
….Kendall, now Air Force secretary, stated in May 2023 that the service had issued a request for proposals covering engineering and manufacturing development of NGAD. He earlier raised eyebrows by stating that the unit cost of NGAD would be “multiple hundreds of millions” and “too expensive to be purchased in large numbers” and has also said that the plan is to team each NGAD with two CCAs.
The cost is high, but not surprising for an F-22 follow-on: a 2009 RAND Corporation study calculated that continued production of the F-22 would cost $173m per unit – almost $250m in today’s money. The USAF probably hopes to acquire enough NGADs to replace 187 F-22s, but fewer than the 339 F-22s that the service once aspired to buy. No initial operational capability date has been announced, but NGAD is not expected in service before 2030.
Faced with an expensive competition, a short production run, and government control of future development, Northrop Grumman has decided not to bid on the NGAD prime contract (the company’s Mission Systems’ sector could still be involved) and is focusing on US Navy’s F/A-XX programme. That leaves the USAF to choose between a Lockheed Martin monopoly of its fighter force or make an award to Boeing – whose performance on recent USAF programmes has been disappointing and characterised by delays on seemingly straightforward projects. Some observers believe that the scope of the programme, and the defence industry’s shortage of modern facilities and engineers, will result in a leader-follower award and a ‘national team’ approach.
NGAD itself is likely to be quite large. A 2018 USAF presentation includes a slide outlining the adaptive engine programme, and it makes a clear distinction between the 45,000lb/thrust-class flight-weight demo engines (GE’s XA100 and P&W’s XA101) sized to re-engine the F-35, a smaller ‘scaled core’ engine for AS2030, and a further derivative for retrofit to ‘fourth-generation’ fighters. That implies a maximum thrust of around 35,000lb for the NGAD engine. NGAD will probably be as heavy as the F-22, or slightly larger.
NGAD’s size may be the primary reason why it is a separate programme from F/A-XX, although the requirements are also believed to diverge in other ways. For example, the Navy may favour range and stand-off weapon capability over stealth. Other than engine technology, very little has been said about the extent of technology sharing between the two programmes.
The use of the adaptive engine indicates that NGAD will be designed to operate efficiently at both subsonic and supersonic speeds. It has been claimed that in a supercruise-capable fighter, adaptive technology can increase mission radius by 38%. However, Grynkewich’s comments imply that it may not have traditional fighter attributes, such as high manoeuvrability. A sustained 9G capability sets a high floor to the thrust/weight ratio and wing loading of a fighter aircraft and increases empty weight.
On the F-22, ‘supermanoeuvrability’ demanded heavy vectoring nozzles and enormous tail surfaces. Smaller – or even absent – tails are compatible with all-aspect, wideband reduction of radar cross section (RCS), previously associated with subsonic tailless designs, like Northrop Grumman’s flying wings or Boeing’s Bird of Prey. The ‘bowtie’ signature pattern of the F-22 and F-35, with a stronger signature on beam aspects than to the front or rear, was optimised to penetrate a linear air defence system – but in the South China Sea, radar threats are found at all aspects.
At this years Air Force Association (AFA) convention near Washington DC, one exhibit pointed to the possibility that NGAD will have a longer endurance than earlier aircraft. Martin-Baker showed a concept mock-up of a proposed Mk 20 ejection seat that resembled a home recliner, with control inceptors forming part of the seat.
Martin-Baker consultant and former USAF pilot and physician, Kathryn Hughes said that the company expects NGAD missions to be long and cognitively intensive. In addition to offering a reclining position, the Mk 20 concept removes much body-worn equipment from the pilot and incorporates it in the seat, and includes Wi-Fi-type devices to monitor the pilot’s physical condition….
The following users liked this post:
