OT: the F-22s replacement has flown.

[Sundog]

Sorry, no actual information on the design itself yet. NGAD has flown.

The article is mostly about how Roper wants the USAF to not sustain old designs, but buy new planes about every eight years. The money to pay for them would come from not having to keep old designs flying, which is very expensive. Also, because of our digital technology, we can design a lot faster and with better results much faster now. I think they are also developing the systems that go on board the aircraft separately now, and not as part of an individual program. The systems are becoming more "plug and play," so to speak.

I think this vehicle, or vehicles, were developed under a DARPA program started back in about 2015. I believe there were supposed to be two competing contractors developing for this contract. Most of the aerospace manufacturers have had research programs on rapid development and construction of aircraft going on for over a decade now. I know Boeing had their Black Diamond program and NG and LM had their own programs as well. I'm willing to bet there was a lot more additive manufacturing that went into the(se) prototype(s).

Edit: In a press conference, Roper adds only this: “All I can say is the NGAD [flight demonstrator] test flights have been amazing. Records have been broken. But I’ve been impressed at how well the digital technology transitions to the real world.”

Edit 2: I should note that this is most likely a demonstrator vehicle, not necessarily the actual replacement. It's hard to say at this point, since so much of the NGAD program is classified. It's not clear at this point if warrants an "X" for experimental or a "Y" for prototype. I lean toward the latter, based on what they're attempting to do technology wise with this program.

[DennyA]

So if they're looking at a shelf life of 10 years for a fighter design, they should have the software fully debugged just in time for the flight to the boneyard...

[StormILM]

The F-22A was simply built in too few numbers to achieve any reasonable level of good fly-away cost and affordability maintaining it over the long term. It is an aged design and it's design parameters were envisioned for a different time. It lacks current JHMCS helmet, it's upgrade to use the AIM-9X has been painfully slow (and that implementation is rather pointless without the JHMCS and/or a DAS/EOTS system like the F-35 has). The other problem, Thrust Vectoring seems like a great idea but between the human limitations and the fact that advanced sensors and thrust vectoring air to air weapons which have such high off-boresight capability pretty much render nose-on-tail merge dogfighting as a thing of the past. The expense of maintaining complex systems & the extra weight for thrust vectoring as well as the wear and tear such maneuvering causes adds to the cost and complexity and high AoA maneuvering can be accomplished without the need for TV. I hope the 6th Gen Fighter follows an updated philosophy regarding these points and much more. The F-15EX is also going full bore ahead as well so it will be interesting to see where things go during the timeline being projected on this program.

[jmig]

Yep, we have to design faster than the Chinese and Russians can steal it.

[Sundog]

Yep, we have to design faster than the Chinese and Russians can steal it.

With regard to the Chinese, most of it they don't need to steal; we trained them. When I was in school back in the 80's (Aero Engineering) at least 50% of the grad students were Chinese Nationals, paid for by the Chinese Government to get their education here. Which, don't get me wrong, is smart for any nation to do.

Having said that, stealing the design is one thing. Possessing the ability to manufacture it is another. Especially with regard to propulsion systems. The U.S. is still number one in that technology, at least as it applies to combat aircraft. Partly because they keep their processes proprietary.

[FlyingsCool]

With regard to the Chinese, most of it they don't need to steal; we trained them. When I was in school back in the 80's (Aero Engineering) at least 50% of the grad students were Chinese Nationals, paid for by the Chinese Government to get their education here. Which, don't get me wrong, is smart for any nation to do.

Having said that, stealing the design is one thing. Possessing the ability to manufacture it is another. Especially with regard to propulsion systems. The U.S. is still number one in that technology, at least as it applies to combat aircraft. Partly because they keep their processes proprietary.

Given that we've paid China to manufacture most everything we use, I'm pretty sure they'll be getting up to speed in the manufacturing part of the equation....

[IanHenry]

Yep, we have to design faster than the Chinese and Russians can steal it.

Many a true word spoken in jest

[Sundog]

The F-22A was simply built in too few numbers to achieve any reasonable level of good fly-away cost and affordability maintaining it over the long term. It is an aged design and it's design parameters were envisioned for a different time. It lacks current JHMCS helmet, it's upgrade to use the AIM-9X has been painfully slow (and that implementation is rather pointless without the JHMCS and/or a DAS/EOTS system like the F-35 has). The other problem, Thrust Vectoring seems like a great idea but between the human limitations and the fact that advanced sensors and thrust vectoring air to air weapons which have such high off-boresight capability pretty much render nose-on-tail merge dogfighting as a thing of the past. The expense of maintaining complex systems & the extra weight for thrust vectoring as well as the wear and tear such maneuvering causes adds to the cost and complexity and high AoA maneuvering can be accomplished without the need for TV. I hope the 6th Gen Fighter follows an updated philosophy regarding these points and much more. The F-15EX is also going full bore ahead as well so it will be interesting to see where things go during the timeline being projected on this program.

Just an FYI, the YF-23 was capable of meeting the ATF high AOA requirements without TV. Also, TV doesn't add too much weight if you keep the nozzle axisymmetric. It's when you go to the 2D nozzle shape it adds a lot more weight. Also, it wouldn't have mattered if the F-22 was built in more numbers, as what they're talking about is airframe life, more so than replacement parts.

What I find really interesting is the virtual flight test environment they're developing to test the new designs in.

[StormILM]

Just an FYI, the YF-23 was capable of meeting the ATF high AOA requirements without TV. Also, TV doesn't add too much weight if you keep the nozzle axisymmetric. It's when you go to the 2D nozzle shape it adds a lot more weight. Also, it wouldn't have mattered if the F-22 was built in more numbers, as what they're talking about is airframe life, more so than replacement parts.

What I find really interesting is the virtual flight test environment they're developing to test the new designs in.

One of my old friends (now a retired Col) was on the F-22 maintenance dev team at Edwards as the program evolved. It's always been short of spares due to the low numbers and that is precisely we built so few. It's never been maintained to the level it should be because of a finite supply system and before long, most of them will be permanently grounded and used as spare parts cows as some already are. The TV system does add considerable weight and complexity that adds to the headache of maintaining the jet and hard maneuvering using the system drastically reduces the airframe life. My friend only noted he was glad he wasn't a maintenance officer at the wing/squadron level with the F-22. It's a hated airframe and then some.

I agree about the YF-23, I think it was the way to go. Maybe the F-22's replacement will get this right and be more practical. I hope it is a Northrop as Lockheed and Boeing seem to be a dumpster fire nowadays.

[Sundog]

One of my old friends (now a retired Col) was on the F-22 maintenance dev team at Edwards as the program evolved. It's always been short of spares due to the low numbers and that is precisely we built so few. It's never been maintained to the level it should be because of a finite supply system and before long, most of them will be permanently grounded and used as spare parts cows as some already are. The TV system does add considerable weight and complexity that adds to the headache of maintaining the jet and hard maneuvering using the system drastically reduces the airframe life. My friend only noted he was glad he wasn't a maintenance officer at the wing/squadron level with the F-22. It's a hated airframe and then some.

I agree about the YF-23, I think it was the way to go. Maybe the F-22's replacement will get this right and be more practical. I hope it is a Northrop as Lockheed and Boeing seem to be a dumpster fire nowadays.

You know, I never thought about what the maintainers thought about the F-22, but I do remember due to the limited access as a result of maximizing stealth it was a PITA to work on. Something they were trying to correct with the F-35. I honestly think the smartest "affordable" stealth design I've seen yet is the Korean KFX.

[Sundog]

So if they're looking at a shelf life of 10 years for a fighter design, they should have the software fully debugged just in time for the flight to the boneyard...

As I noted, it seems they're going more plug and play, which is smart. All of the networked systems will be developed separately on their own timelines and applied when ready. In a way, it's sort of like what is happening with the B-21, they can develop it relatively rapidly, because the majority of the systems going into it already exist in other systems, such as the F-35.