NGAD Review: Five-Year Fighter

51
Currently, the U.S. Air Force is conducting a theoretical study of the next-generation fighter NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance). In the near future, the Air Force leadership plans to revise the current program and introduce new approaches to the creation of aviation technicians. Instead of the long-term development of a perfect multi-purpose aircraft, it is proposed to create specialized aircraft on a common basis at an accelerated pace.


USAF ARL FX fighter concept




Digital Hundredth Series


New plans for the NGAD project a few days ago were announced by Deputy Air Force Procurement Minister Will Roper in an interview for Defense News. The topic of the interview was the process of further development of US tactical aviation, primarily the NGAD project and its prospects. It turned out that already in October, the Air Force intend to revise this program in order to optimize all the main processes.

To date, the development of the NGAD fighter complex is proceeding in accordance with the Air Superiority 2030 study, released in 2016. It proposed the creation of an inconspicuous Penetrating Counter Air fighter capable of becoming the central element of a more complex complex. The PAC aircraft must work together with ground and air detection systems, drones etc. A fighter of this kind was planned to be created and put into service in the early thirties.

In recent studies, such NGAD implementation principles were deemed unprofitable. The development of the proposed aircraft is too complicated, expensive and time-consuming. There are also some problems associated with the activities of the likely adversary.

Not so long ago, the leadership of the NGAD program changed, and new officials intend to seriously restructure it from October 1. Now an accelerated methodology for creating advanced aviation technology is being proposed. It provides for the rapid development of the aircraft with the highest possible characteristics at the moment. Ideally, this will allow you to create a new car almost every five years.

The proposed approach resembles the development of the so-called “Honeycomb series” - a series of tactical aircraft from the fifties of the last century. They were created simultaneously with the widespread use of common technologies, although the result was different. New samples that should appear on the results of NGAD, W. Roper calls the "Digital hundredth series" - alluding to the use of modern design techniques.

Five-year fighter


The current approach to the creation of aviation technology involves long-term R&D, which results in the appearance of an aircraft with the highest possible characteristics. At the same time, all this requires a lot of time and leads to an increase in the cost of the program. After revising the NGAD program, it is planned to create a whole series of aircraft with an acceptable price-performance ratio.

In just a few years, the Air Force and industry will have to create a promising fighter, built on an affordable base and having the maximum possible characteristics for a given time. Such a machine will go into a limited series, and engineers will create a more advanced model on a production platform. W. Roper pointed out that with the modern development of technology, this will make it possible to produce a new aircraft approximately once every five years.

As a result, over a long period, the Digital Hundredth Series will be created - a whole family of unified next-generation fighters with different capabilities and tasks. The family will have airplanes of familiar appearance, carriers weapons on new principles, specialized reconnaissance vehicles, drones, etc. All of these samples can be combined into a network-centric structure for joint combat missions.

Project Basics


It is proposed to accelerate the design and launch of production through a number of important proposals. The first involves the maximum use of digital design systems at all stages. W. Roper complained that not all US defense enterprises pay due attention to this issue. However, those factories that have introduced modern technology show remarkable results.

The second sentence concerns the open architecture of the aircraft. NGAD should implement not only the usual plug-and-play principle, but also be a fully modular and open system. It is necessary to ensure the free replacement of equipment and components, as well as simplify the development of software by third-party contractors as much as possible.

Finally, it is necessary to increase the flexibility of software development, on which the combat qualities of technology directly depend. It is necessary to accelerate the process of development, testing and implementation of software, as well as involve the operator in all the main processes.

The exact plan for the updated NGAD program has not yet been determined. At the same time, W. Roper revealed the expected features of the process of development and construction of equipment. In this regard, the program will be divided into several stages.

Work will begin with contracts with two or more aircraft developers. Then all of them will present their versions of NGAD in digital form, which will simplify the study and comparison of projects. The creator of the most successful project will receive a contract for a small series, from 24 to 72 units. In parallel with the launch of production of such an aircraft, a new machine will be developed, which will be put into series later.

To simplify and reduce the cost of the development of the Air Force, they can consciously reduce the required resource for aircraft construction. This will require faster replacement, but the Digital Hundredth Series should ensure timely fleet renewal.

Advantages and disadvantages


The main advantage of the new approach to NGAD is the possibility of accelerated creation of an aircraft with the characteristics at the limit of available technologies. Then the Air Force will be able to supplement or replace it with a new fighter with new capabilities and enhanced characteristics.

NGAD Review: Five-Year Fighter
Lockheed Martin's NGAD variant


Speeding up design and production will reduce planning horizons with certain benefits. Now the Air Force will not have to formulate requirements for technology with an eye on the next few decades.

A new approach can be a problem for potential opponents. They will have to constantly monitor new US developments and take timely action. Every few years they will be forced to evaluate a new American model and look for ways to counter it. According to W. Roper, the United States will always have in stock a new aircraft with new capabilities. This will force third countries to "play on the terms of the US Air Force."

However, the proposed "Digital Hundredth Series" has significant drawbacks. First of all, this is the need for a fundamental restructuring of all processes and methods for developing aviation technology. At this stage, the Air Force and contractors may face the most serious organizational and financial problems.

Plans to build an airplane every five years can be overly bold. The development of the basic NGAD platform, despite the new approaches, will continue until the beginning of the thirties. Its modernization by replacing individual devices and systems will be faster, but there is no guarantee that these processes can be put into the indicated five years.

As part of NGAD, it is proposed to develop a whole aviation complex, including not only the next-generation fighter. Each element of such a complex requires a separate R&D, which imposes new requirements in terms of time. Even the gradual development and implementation of new technologies does not guarantee the receipt of all the desired results with a reasonable cost and within an acceptable time frame.

Challenging Perspective


The proposed methods for the further development of tactical aviation are of interest and may have a great future. The advantages of such a concept are convincing, but one cannot ignore the expected disadvantages. Thus, the Air Force should carefully study new approaches to development and determine their real prospects in the light of the existing capabilities of the industry and its further development.

The Ministry of the Air Force became interested in the original proposal and in the near future will begin to study it with an eye to real application. He also found supporters in Congress, although lawmakers have not yet decided on their opinions. The use of new methods can make the NGAD project one of the most daring and successful in the future. stories American aviation. However, a negative outcome cannot yet be ruled out.
51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -4
    23 September 2019 05: 50
    They haven't really mastered the F-22 and F-35, I'm not talking about finances, but they are planning a new "cut"!
    1. -1
      23 September 2019 06: 43
      I do not agree. Handsome men. Do not spare the dough for the intensive development of modern technology. F-22 immediately went unsuccessful, F-35 could not bring to mind. As I suppose, the stock of modernization was small, so it was also exceeded. Even pushing the F-35 to all of its satellites, the Yankees realize that the program needs to be changed. And modern digital design methods can significantly accelerate the design and manufacturing process.
      1. +6
        23 September 2019 10: 29
        The F-22 turned out great. Its only drawback is that there are few of them. Five combat squadrons in total. But it was designed really "in the old way". On ADA, with a closed architecture. Comp is outdated and communication systems.
        The F-35 has already been designed "in a new way". Everything is flexible, and instruments and weapons are easily changed.
        1. +2
          23 September 2019 17: 31
          Didn't you like the word "unsuccessful"? Or the phrase "immediately unsuccessful"? If it were great, then it would now be stamped on a par with the F-35. For what reason is the aircraft of the newest 5th generation not stamped? Name one reason and it will be a failure for this aircraft))))))))))) The tendency of the cost price to increase and the tendency of the quantity of the ordered batch to decrease even before the start of production. And add your words, so it is outdated by brains as soon as it was released in the series. Correct me if I am confusing something.

          Quote: voyaka uh
          The F-35 has already been designed "in a new way". Everything is flexible, and instruments and weapons are easily changed.

          If everything is so smooth, then there would be no new program. Are there any new engines? Is there something revolutionary about "invisibility"? If the F-35 can change everything modularly, why not use it as a platform for a new program? Something doesn't fit ...
          1. -1
            23 September 2019 20: 29
            "If everything is so smooth, then there would be no new program either" ////
            -----
            1) F-35 is replacing the F-16
            2) the new fighter goes to
            replacements of F-22 and F-15
            1. 0
              24 September 2019 05: 37

              Quote: voyaka uh
              the new fighter is replacing the F-22 and F-15

              I don’t get it.
              Why is there one type of T-50 in the Russian Federation, and is the Yankos still dividing into F-22 and F-35?

              Now I will explain my question. It is clear that there used to be a division, like, into tactical aviation and to gain superiority in the air. This was explained by different radars operating on the ground and air, different missiles, such as long-range explosives heavier, aircraft carrying capacity more, fuel more and he therefore more.

              But is there really no transition to one type - shock aircraft?
              1. 0
                24 September 2019 10: 31
                The Americans had: F-16 single-engine fighter-bombers
                and twin-engine fighters gaining dominance in the air F-15. They added the F-22.
                This division will continue now:
                single-engine fighter-bomber F-35
                and two-engine new ones (which are in the project). F-15 and later F-22 are gradually decommissioned. F-16s are written off in full as F-35 squadrons are formed.
              2. +2
                1 October 2019 09: 05
                F-22 is super expensive, so it did not enter the series. And if I were you, I would not worry about the Americans, they will sort out their problems, since they have a lot of money for this. But it's worth worrying about Russia, which spends a lot of money on hammering into the brains of its citizens various tales about the presence of all kinds of "vanguards"
                "Sarmatians", that "soon" the Su-57 will enter service (if at all) and how all this scrap metal has no analogues in the world.
        2. 0
          24 September 2019 00: 13
          Quote: voyaka uh
          the only drawback is that they are few

          At the time of creation, it was normal, because no one had such.
        3. 0
          27 September 2019 18: 18
          voyaka uh (Alexey), not tired of writing the same mantra ?!
          F-22, F-35 - deterioration of the aerodynamics of aircraft for the sake of stealth, a step back in the development of aviation ...

          It is not a 35th generation F-5 aircraft, no matter how you try to imagine it.
          1. -2
            27 September 2019 20: 08
            Yes, even call him the 1st generation. laughing
            He copes with the current combat missions of the 21st century, and this is important.
            I am ready to recognize the Su-35 as the 6th generation, and the Su-57 as the 7th generation. smile
            To health drinks
    2. 0
      23 September 2019 07: 03
      Quote: andrewkor
      They haven't really mastered the F-22 and F-35, I'm not talking about finances, but they are planning a new "cut"!

      but with us otherwise? Yes, everywhere, a carbon copy of almost ... capitalism! laughing
    3. +2
      23 September 2019 07: 20
      Quote: andrewkor
      and already a new "cut" is planning!

      Here, a guaranteed cut every 5 years, and then with the f-35 they are somehow not comfortable, they will begin to suspect.
    4. +3
      23 September 2019 07: 49
      If money allows, why not deal with new fighters.
      1. +1
        23 September 2019 10: 10
        Because the proposed scheme is not compatible with US production principles: they, after the construction of the ordered series, disassemble the production line.
    5. 0
      23 September 2019 14: 52
      And then cut it? Where to put these candy wrappers, except for the salary of people, developers and the purchase of materials for new things? Money must spin, then it works, otherwise it is useless.
    6. +3
      23 September 2019 16: 43
      Quote: andrewkor
      They haven't really mastered the F-22 and F-35, I'm not talking about finances, but they are planning a new "cut"!

      Then it turns out, and we also saw the su-57? Surely no, and business in something else

      In what and probably in the fact that through such "programs" the experience of interaction of various researchers, inventors, designers, designers, technologists, production workers, etc. is paid for.
    7. +1
      1 October 2019 09: 06
      If you are from Russia, then you would be silent already about "sawing".
  2. 0
    23 September 2019 06: 28
    We do the T-50 so))))))))) Normal topic.
    Still the radar is not ready, and the plane is launched into series, after making weapons and electronics.
  3. +1
    23 September 2019 06: 36
    Again, we all licked))) The whole topic resembles:

    1. So did the su-27 series - on the same platform constantly changing the filling, getting a new plane with different characteristics.

    2. Modular modernization of Tu-22, MiG-31 aircraft - improving performance with the installation of modern electronics and new missile weapons.
  4. 0
    23 September 2019 06: 51
    Speeding up design and production will reduce planning horizons with certain benefits. Now the Air Force will not have to formulate requirements for technology with an eye on the next few decades.

    Recently on VO there was an article "Where will the combat aircraft go: will it press down on the ground or gain altitude?" , in which the confrontation between the Air Force and Air Defense is considered, how one gave rise to the other, and so on in a circle. And this, in fact, is planning characteristics for the future.

    NGAD has changed leadership, and new officials intend to seriously restructure it from October 1

    So, I think that the new leadership for 10 years cones and the next leadership concocts a hybrid of these two programs.
  5. +2
    23 September 2019 07: 28
    Instead of spending long and expensive research projects, trying to build an airplane with new technical solutions that did not exist before, in the hope that until they were mastered, until the troops arrived, the airplane would become obsolete, we decided to do what is, but quickly change models, using a common base and adding technology as they become available.
    It seems that the experience of finalizing the f-35 prompted.
    The true question is, will production manage to change models in 5 years?
    1. 0
      23 September 2019 07: 57
      Yeah, they want it like Samsung, every year (5 years) a new flagship. Well, the "flags" for hamsters: digital design, open architecture and flexibility.
      1. +5
        23 September 2019 08: 14
        I don’t know what they’ll succeed in, but the idea is clear - instead of building the “plane of the future” for years, they want to quickly create the “plane of the present”.
        Do not develop new solutions in a large number of floor-specific aircraft, but make the most of what is already there.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. +1
            23 September 2019 08: 29
            They generally adopted improvements during operation, all sorts of blocks and lots, now they want to further strengthen the opportunities for this
          2. 0
            23 September 2019 10: 33
            "it would be easier to modernize the f-22" ////
            ----
            It turned out - no. It is designed "hard". And to resume production, as they thought, it was more profitable to design a new one.
        2. +2
          23 September 2019 12: 53
          Quote: Avior
          make the most of what is already there

          this reflects the essence of capitalism - it really doesn’t need NTP, NTP exists only as a sales engine. And when the markets are sawn and divided, why develop new?
          In my opinion, the Americans defeated political populism over reason, since they began to promote this.
          I understand their reasons - a whole series of super-promising projects in cooperation with DARPA simply failed, and huge resources were spent. But in the USA, instead of debugging the problems and identifying the reasons, they decided to simply disguise the problems, although it is obvious that without large-scale work in the ATF (f22 and f-23) and FSF (f-35) projects, the new "program" simply could not exist.
          It is also obvious that it cannot go on for so long.
          The root of the problem is that without large-scale scientific development and theft of ideas from the USSR, all the hoax around the planes becomes costly nonsense.
          And this is so, because the flow of scientists from the Warsaw Treaty countries has dried up, and their home-grown scientists are mainly able to modernize washing machines, toasters and tires.

          A simple example is the f-35 super-duper plane. Look what came from -
          PW engine - retrofit 70 years ago
          technology for calculating phased arrays - USSR,
          helmet of the pilot with helmet-mounted aiming and information output - USSR
          stealth technology - USSR
          rotary nozzle - USSR
          OLS station - an analogue of the one that stands on the su-27 family
          metal science for the engine - USSR
          metallurgy - Japan, which again took everything from the USSR.
          complicated aerodynamics calculations associated with vortex elements and stealth surfaces - USSR technology
          All breakthrough technologies, except for the element base and software, are either the USSR or the next squeezing of efficiency from old solutions.
          And it’s also funny with electronics - a significant part of the elemental base is Chinese, not to mention attracting a host of other non-American contractors for one or another part of the aircraft.
          1. +1
            23 September 2019 13: 42
            No, they just do not want to develop new technologies for one specific aircraft, it takes time and becomes more expensive.
            They just want to use what they have.
            As for the Soviet technologies, maybe you exaggerated something, for example, the helmet-mounted aiming system was one of the first in the world, but with the information displayed on the helmet shield it was worse, but they certainly were. But they have been for a long time and to date have long required a completely different level of implementation and capabilities.
          2. 0
            23 September 2019 14: 55
            To be honest, it’s not unreasonable that without having their developments from scratch, people delved into strangers, figured out them, adjusted the theory to their production base and produced the result, according to the statement of work.
            This is stronger than titanic labor with the transfer of the B-29 to the Tu-4.
          3. +1
            23 September 2019 19: 18
            But why go about that ... Yak41 he and painted Yak41. Those who are older still remember how Lockheed in the USSR in the 90s stole ... Our finances, your technology .... They took the blueprints and refused further cooperation ... And when in the USA a competition for F35 was formed, they took out Soviet drawings and won it . The main and main drawback, in order to save money, the voracious jet engines were removed behind the cockpit and stuck a movable turboprop with a variable vector. And there’s no place for mobile machinery there, so it’s constantly breaking down, sometimes it’s not enough power. It is understandable, this aircraft was not designed for turboprop initially. The second problem is electronics, well, the USSR did not have modern electronics in the 90s. As a result, the entire F35 is an attempt to make a fifth-generation fighter using another mother and sledgehammer from an alien glider of vertical take-off. F5 is still superior to F22. The fact that they did not really finish the F35, they start a new project, says only one thing, the F35 is a melting iron, and is suitable only for deliveries to the allies, with the goal of milking these allies for maintenance, repairs and maintenance.
  6. +1
    23 September 2019 08: 17
    At a cost, it will probably come close to the corvette, good luck.
  7. -5
    23 September 2019 08: 40
    Means, pregnant Penguin F-35 will be handed over to the dump - to NATO countries, Israel, then everywhere laughing
    1. +2
      23 September 2019 10: 35
      When there will be more than two thousand, the first blocks - already outdated by then - will be replaced.
      The new fighter is the replacement of the F-22 and F-15, if you do not understand.
  8. +1
    23 September 2019 08: 42
    NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance)

    ... working title Next Reptile winked
    The main advantage of the new approach to NGAD is the possibility of accelerated creation of an aircraft with characteristics at the limit of available technology.

    It is also the main minus. The negative features and features of marginal technology are simply unknown by definition. and what comes out of it ... But it always comes out ... The devil himself does not know.
  9. +1
    23 September 2019 10: 22

    The current approach to the creation of aviation technology provides for long-term R&D, as a result of which an aircraft with the highest possible characteristics appears




    In just a few years, the Air Force and industry will have to create a promising fighter, built on an affordable base and having the highest possible characteristics for a given time.


    In both cases, we are talking about the maximum possible characteristics. What is the difference? How, due to which the R&D duration will be reduced? And the development of production? New materials will not be applied?

    And how will they train pilots for planes that change every 5 years?

    And how will this whole zoo be served?
  10. 0
    23 September 2019 11: 02
    Do, will fly or dive into the ocean is the second question)
  11. 0
    23 September 2019 11: 12
    If I understood correctly, then the tender will not be evaluated on the basis of inspection and testing of prototypes, but earlier. 3-D images in the computer will be compared.
    This is somewhat risky, since no one has canceled the wind tunnels. Calculating aerodynamics using software is difficult. But 80% percent - you can figure it out.
    The second catch is the engines. There are only a few manufacturers.
    You can provide dozens of sketches, but all of them will have two or three engine options.
  12. +4
    23 September 2019 15: 04
    Quote: Ural-4320
    This is stronger than titanic labor with the transfer of the B-29 to the Tu-4.

    no, not stronger. The Americans have an unlimited finished production base and financial resource
    A huge staff of competent engineers who will bring anything to mind.
    And the Tu-4 was copied, creating whole new branches of production, which was not there and this was done by one KB.
    Finally, it’s still easier to adapt a finished drawing of a finished WORKING product or a debugged technology than relying on the idea of ​​creating a new one. And when such topics do arise among the Americans, they simply spend megabudgets.
    A simple example is a variable traction vector. Everything that was before the appearance of such a su-27, looked from the countries of NATO and Japan simply frivolous. Yes, they did too, but what did they end up with?
    Can this be called an advanced solution, which is put on combat aircraft?
    1. +3
      23 September 2019 15: 16
      a bit of history our al-31f with normal integrated curtains got on the su-27m in 1996
      American pw 119 with single-vector curtains got on f-22 in 1997.
      here is all the American "progress" in one example.
      our al-31f completed the tests in 1985, and then perestroika glasnost, technology leakage and more or less ready for testing came out pw119 in 1992,
      1. -1
        23 September 2019 19: 20
        So Zadornov still said that they are all stupid. There is a lot of money, but they are doing everything badly. Passenger aircraft, cars. Their primitive PW-119s ... Here is the F-16 - in general a failed project, our MiG-29s are 10 times more sold in the world)) They envy, probably ...
        1. +1
          24 September 2019 10: 33
          no need to clumsy. you just need to clearly understand what the strength of the Americans and their weakness are.
          unlike the USA of the 20-30s, their current state is such that there are very few breakthrough developments and their price is simply terrible. You can compare their number yourself. I did not say that they are stupid - you yourself made this vile stuffing, which speaks of your acuity um ... mind.
          1. 0
            24 September 2019 20: 33
            You said that they copied the aircraft engine. Somewhat frivolous, given the history and experience of PW.
            The development is complete. In aviation, robotics (Boston Dinamics), UAV.
            We must not spit on the strong, but think what we are doing to grow. What about investment, research.
  13. +1
    24 September 2019 00: 22
    They want a plane out of cubes. From compatible and replaceable modules and elements. Which can be used both horizontally in vehicles of different specializations (bomber, interceptor, refueling). So vertically, in cars of the previous or next generation. (upgrade to all standard radar for example)

    They want to want something, but they themselves are afraid of what will come of it. :)
  14. +1
    24 September 2019 10: 40
    Quote: voyaka uh
    The new fighter is the replacement of the F-22 and F-15, if you do not understand.

    as a designer "I blinded you out of what happened" can targeted replace this or that car?
    This is just a panic attempt by an invisible hand of the market to get a modern device on time and inexpensively. But miracles do not happen.
    1. 0
      24 September 2019 20: 41
      Need closed KB? By the way, an important point, they try to save as much as possible. Unifying equipment: UH-60 of many versions, a series of destroyers Burke, F-16, F-18 and their modifications, a single MBT. In space - giving orders to private owners (SpaceX, etc.), which has already reduced the tariffs for commercial launches.
      Useful experience must be adopted.
  15. +1
    24 September 2019 15: 36
    If they do this, they will go even further ahead of us .. F 22 have already riveted more than 200, but we still haven’t put SS 57 in the army
    1. 0
      24 September 2019 20: 52
      This is inevitable, given the difference in the shares of global GDP and research. For large-scale production of F-35, they build new factories in themselves and in a number of countries. To get the power of the appropriate level. Speaking of us: where to produce 100 57's, say, in 5 years?
  16. 0
    25 September 2019 10: 38
    Quote: 3danimal
    which has already reduced tariffs for commercial launches.

    there are a lot of manipulations as with tesla. Everything is far from being so rosy with the cost of launches.
  17. 0
    25 September 2019 10: 41
    Quote: 3danimal
    You said they copied an aircraft engine

    where did i say that? PW made a cool engine themselves. But this is only the improvement of a long-known design, which mainly depends not on the brain, but on the experimental base and investment.
    but look at their controlled thrust vector - this is an emoe solution, it’s just weaker at the technical level than the engine itself.
  18. 0
    26 September 2019 14: 43
    The family will include airplanes of familiar appearance, weapons carriers based on new principles, specialized reconnaissance vehicles, drones, etc.


    Not an easy task.
    It’s one thing to make a drone out of a manned drone — perhaps.
    But the scout scout is different. It requires both altitude and speed, which is usually excluded for a typical fighter, and for a strike aircraft it requires a second crew member and a large carrying capacity - many mutually exclusive requirements.
    The modularity of the platform for rapid modernization is a good thing, it is being introduced in the 5th generation.
  19. 0
    26 September 2019 15: 04
    In general, this idea is sound to accelerate the creation of military equipment.
    Since combining several new technologies in one product does not occur quickly - the readiness lag can be large - it is faster to develop a new airframe than a new engine.
    This is approximately the same as the Su-57 of the first stage - they created a glider and taught to fly on those engines that were available, new engines will come by the time the tests of the first stage are completed and the power-to-power ratio of the Su-57 will increase. Avionics can be changed in the course of development.

    But in general, this concept has not only advantages, but also flaws - a breakthrough in production technology, construction materials, leads to obsolescence of the previous technology (air platform).

    An example - the appearance of a dreadnought zeroed the value of all the battleships of the world. The advent of URO ships has reset the value of ship reservations. The appearance of anti-tank systems led to a decrease in the role of tanks in battle.
    The appearance of MANPADS created a great threat to aviation at low altitude and complicated the tactics of using combat helicopters and attack aircraft.