Military Review

Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Program

31
The theme of the deck aircraft of the 5 generation has been raised several times already. At the end of the 1980-s in the United States actively promoted the program of the first "deck stealth" A-12. The strike aircraft was intended to replace the A-6, which is already quite respectable age. However, due to the main scourge of all American programs - a significant excess of financial limits, the Avenger II was buried before the first flight of the demonstration model. Another dream of admirals - NATF - befell the same fate. In turn, NATF was intended to replace the Tomket F-14. Thus, the fleet 1992 year met without any hope to get some "stealth" in the near future. The deep modernization of the F / A-18C / D - F / A-18E / F fighter-attack aircraft has become a small consolation prize in this situation. The light veil of inconspicuous flight performance practically did not worsen, and the increased take-off weight was compensated by high-propulsion engines, which significantly expanded the capabilities of the fighter.



Since there was no interest in the "big car" from the Air Force, at that time they fought for the F-22 and were able to defend it even with significant losses (instead of 750, 187 were received), the fleet it was not possible to dislodge financing. In the air force, the AX (experimental drummer, which after closing NATF was renamed to FX - experimental fighter) was considered as a full replacement for the F-111, F-117 and F-15E. Despite this, in 1993, at an early stage, the air forces and the navy agreed on the performance requirements, although for the Navy the capabilities of the future aircraft in air-to-air operations were much more significant than for The Air Force, where the Raptor dominates in this area. The topic was finally covered in 1993. At the same time, work was intensified on a "single strike fighter."

The 1990s passed in trouble with JAST / JSF, the future lightweight fighter F-35.

In the summer of 2008, after a rather long break, at San Diego, at the airshow as part of a demonstration of the future strategy of the US Navy, four alternative concepts for the F / A-XX program were shown. All of them were subtle subsonic aircraft with a range of 3,3 - 5,6 thousand. Km. In this case, it was planned that the unmanned versions in the air will hold up to 50 hours.



In the summer of 2009, a new reflection of the F / A-XX was shown at Boeing Phantom Works. The presented machine belongs to the 6th generation of supersonic fighters and is designed to replace the F / A-18E / F in about 10-15 years (as is known, the F / A-18C / D will be replaced by the F-35). In the new multi-role fighter, some new technologies will be implemented such as: variable-cycle engines, an increased proportion of composites in the structure, visual stealth, advanced electronics, etc. The appearance of the aircraft is significantly different from the concept presented at "Week aviation and space technology "a year ago. There is a return to more familiar forms and a departure from the" flying wing "scheme. A pronounced influx of wings and ventral air intakes mean high maneuverability of the aircraft. At the same time, the rejection of vertical and horizontal tailing and narrow, shielded bottom nozzles should bring the effective dispersion area to the level of the F-117 fighter is not higher than 0,2 m2, and the normal take-off weight of the aircraft is 18 thousand kg.

At the EXPO-2010 exhibition in May 2010, the model of this aircraft was shown on a 1: 16 scale. During this time, it has not undergone any visible changes. The model has three combat payload compartments, two of which are designed for air-to-air missiles, one to accommodate weapon class air-to-ground.

At the same time, the poster showed a project of a much larger aircraft, as reported in a class not lower than F-22 (normal take-off weight 27 thousand kg). Against the background of the early termination of the Raptor serial production and problems with the F-35, the creation of a fighter seems fantastic, but a representative of the Boeing company noted the interest of the air force and the US Navy in this project. After the Navy begins a full-scale replacement of F / A-18C / D, and in the A-10 and F-16 air forces with the F-35, there will be a need for future replacement of the F-22 and F / A-18E / F after 2025 year

Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Program


Analysis of the figure allows us to estimate the maximum take-off mass of the “heavy version” of the car in 40 - 42 t. For the deck version of the car, this looks a bit weird, because the F-111B once burned out on the plank in 34 t. apparatus of similar mass on the deck. The electromagnetic catapult tested recently gives the chance to lift the plane in weight to 45 t, as much the plane lift can also master. For such a machine, the F135 engine would be preferable. An engine with a greater degree of bypass and a bypass ratio cannot fit here. But F119 from "Raptor" looks "like a native." The machine is equipped with an “looking down” active phased antenna array, possibly an updated version of the station with F-22, two load compartments (7,5 is long) and large internal volumes that allow tanks to be placed for 10-12 tons of fuel. Flight range without the use of overhead tanks will be about 3,3 thousand. Km.

By 2010, the program was given a new name - Next Geneation Air Dominance (NGAD) - “next generation air dominator”. This allows you to expand the theme and create special weapons for this machine. As well as in F / A-XX, the development of an optionally manned aircraft that can operate in unmanned mode is implied. The possibility of creating a special machine is also not excluded.

The new project will allow Boeing to get even with Lockheed-Martin concern, who won the JSF competition with his F-35.

It was planned that work on prototypes of the future fighter will begin at the end of 2011, which will allow to build demonstration models already in 2013-2014. Boeing plans to build a manned and unmanned demonstrator.

Representatives of the Boeing company believe that the main focus should be made to order from the Navy. The company understands that the customer needs a replacement "Super Hornet" which has a higher engine thrust at supersonic speed, low visibility, integrated sensors and high maneuverability, that is, "deck Raptor".



The Light version shown in 2009 year (18 thous. Kg) was continued in 2010 year. This time, probably remembering the failure of the X-32’s “flying wing”, Boeing demonstrated the aircraft of a normal aerodynamic configuration, but probably with reduced maneuverability (the air intakes were moved to the upper part of the fuselage in the aerodynamic shadow zone) and the same subtlety achieved by abandonment of vertical plumage and smooth belly. And if the emphasis on “stealth” can still be understood - “as it is fashionable,” then depriving the “air dominator” of maneuverability in battle is a very controversial decision.
31 comment
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. bereg
    bereg 17 January 2013 10: 06
    +6
    it’s necessary to saw off more bobla
  2. evgenii67
    evgenii67 17 January 2013 10: 21
    +2
    sometimes you look and think: guys (amers) have you seen enough of fiction ???
    1. FID
      FID 17 January 2013 12: 50
      +6
      No, they shoot science fiction themselves. Guys look forward, unfortunately. We have to admit that we are behind .....
      1. Rink
        Rink 17 January 2013 20: 46
        +1
        FID, and IT fly something will be?
        The main thing for the "hawk" is not to look cool in the picture, but to fly, moreover, according to the requirements of the sixth generation. And they take me doubts that this "fantasy" will fly better than not only our 4 ++, but even the F117, which the "lame goblin" has gotten a sticky one.
        1. FID
          FID 17 January 2013 20: 56
          +3
          And what prevents him from flying? Have you seen the cord models? The same tailless. The keel was needed in the days of manual control, when the pilot manually deflected the steering surfaces, then the keel helped to resist the yaw of the aircraft. Now, with fly-by-wire control, the keel is practically not needed. Yaw is parried by small rolls. Projects such as "flying wings" were considered even before the war.
          1. Rink
            Rink 17 January 2013 21: 28
            0
            Quote: SSI
            And what prevents him from flying? Have you seen the cord models? ...

            Not only saw, but even did in childhood.
            That is why the Americans have their "super" -planes flying a little better than the cordless models: without half a thousand microprocessors they cannot stay in the air.

            And God forbid, which sensor is buggy? or will the shard kill the wires?
            Americans are PR managers, marketers. They usually build a piece of shit, even at the prototype stage they will tell the whole world how it should be, fill up all the magazines with high-quality photos of a cool looking airplane, and everyone already believes that it flies for a long time, flies well and is a reliable, proven weapon.

            Whereas in reality the program is still raw and there are thousands of children's sores.
            So what to do?! Do you need to sell? business is business.

            These "fantastic" tailless have the same chances of being a "bubble" as the failed F117, which made much more noise in glossy magazines than was useful in real wars. And the F22 is more of a status aircraft than a real fighter. Not to mention the raw and semi-substandard F35.

            Here we are "lagging behind" from them.
            1. FID
              FID 17 January 2013 21: 43
              +1
              Any plane is damp until it flies for several years ... But they go ahead. I, before, in the USSR, very often visited Zhukovsky for work. What "miracles" just did not see enough. Earlier, while on foot from the train to the LII you will reach ... "Miracles" across the sky one by one, but one of about 10-15 experimental ones reached the series. And now .... commercial flights from Zhukovsky fly. Our tolstokhrenegos know who are planning to make a commercial airfield from LII. Here we are lagging behind them.
    2. Papakiko
      Papakiko 17 January 2013 13: 24
      +2
      They modestly do it (fiction), embodying new things and innovations. (Not always necessary, but useful for wallets).
      Many "brains" are sheltered by the "fertile" land of the United States.
  3. biglow
    biglow 17 January 2013 10: 58
    0
    clumsy something, incomprehensible
  4. mga04
    mga04 17 January 2013 11: 27
    0
    depriving the "air dominator" of maneuverability in combat is a very controversial decision
    And why do they need super maneuverability? They practically do not learn melee combat, all tactics are based on the use of long-range missiles, primarily the AIM-120 AMRAAM.
    1. evgenii67
      evgenii67 17 January 2013 11: 48
      +1
      Quote: mga04
      And why do they need super maneuverability? They practically do not learn melee combat, all tactics are based on the use of long-range missiles, primarily the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

      it can never be ruled out that close combat is possible ... and what then do the American pilots, catapult wink Yes, about the fact that Americans are not taught close combat ..... but what about, for example, the RED FLAG exercises ??? Or do you think there is computer modulation ??? No.
      1. mga04
        mga04 17 January 2013 12: 16
        +5
        Quote: evgenii67
        it can never be ruled out that close combat is possible

        With this I absolutely agree.
        Now there is no time to rewrite the article-report on the joint exercises with the Americans last year and a half ago in Ukraine. Briefly try to retell the main idea.
        The Americans flew the F-16C and D, ours - the MiG-29 and SU-27. They take off and land very beautifully and swiftly, no "fourth" turns, no smooth glide paths, the main goal is as little as possible in the MANPADS affected area. The Americans refused close combat training with our fighters. After riding our aerobatics in our aerobatics, their pilots had difficulty getting out of the aircraft. Our pilots expressed frank admiration for the instrumentation of their aircraft.
        That's about like that.
        1. FID
          FID 17 January 2013 12: 55
          +1
          About the glide path, are you serious? Really refused? And what are the fourth U-turns? By the way, the instrumentation for the glide path was created and helps to more accurately withstand the glide path, among other things.
          1. mga04
            mga04 17 January 2013 15: 40
            +2
            If you notice the word "fourth" is in quotation marks, it is ironic. As for the glide path, I see SU-25 and L-39 landing in Kulbakino almost every day - they are already on the landing straight three to four kilometers before the nearest lighthouse. If SU-27, SU-24, MiG-29 appear, they enter the glide path even earlier. And I saw the Americans sit down. They approach at an angle to the runway with a high vertical speed and only between the short-range drive and the runway end they enter the landing straight. For such a landing they will land for life. Of course, I understand that there is such a thing as flight safety, only in combat conditions all these passage of distant-near beacons can be expensive.
            1. FID
              FID 17 January 2013 16: 16
              0
              Excuse me, but ... I can not believe the lack of glide path. High vertical can be a visual illusion. Landing on the drives - this is only with us, probably. Americans are most likely flying ILS beacons. Our airports (large: Sheremetyevo, Domodedovo ... well, all international), operating on similar lighthouses, refused box-based approaches. Now, the approach is built on the basis of separation. Well, the Americans use such a scheme on the military, I think.
      2. Mairos
        Mairos 17 January 2013 13: 56
        0
        They are logical in their own way, it is better to teach an ordinary soldier to shoot well than to spend a lot of time training a melee, which he will almost never need. So with aerial combat. In recent decades, radio engineering systems and missiles have been deciding everything. all the more so, all of them will soon become foreshortening, I think.
        1. FID
          FID 17 January 2013 14: 55
          +4
          And if the radio equipment dies? Remember Yugoslavia ... The film is Starship Troopers, where Sergeant Zim explained well about the knife .... Americans can step on their own rake, completely and blindly trusting everything to electronics ..
          1. Kir
            Kir 17 January 2013 16: 44
            +1
            But it is interesting in the original source of RNHainlein "Starship Troopers" ("Starship Infantry"), is there this moment? As they say, given that the author is a former US Navy officer, it seems like in the subject.
            SSI question to you as a person in the subject, did it just seem to me due to the shadow, or is it really the nose with asymmetry? And another question, like they had a similar project, which should-could be operated both in a manned and in a remotely controlled version (sort of like the same machine), I wonder what the aperator will be experiencing, which is controlled in the simulator (most likely like " octopus ") upon shooting down" it "and subsequently.
            1. FID
              FID 17 January 2013 21: 10
              0
              In general, aircraft must be symmetrical, otherwise bad torque and bending moments arise that interfere with piloting. A heavy drone of a similar type has already arrived at some aircraft carrier, there was information. And the operator ... Have you flown on flight simulators? Heinlein .... I don’t remember, like not, definitely not.
              1. Kir
                Kir 17 January 2013 21: 15
                +1
                That's why I ask what is far from this.
                1. FID
                  FID 17 January 2013 21: 23
                  0
                  Could I satisfy your curiosity? Or something else to explain?
                  1. Kir
                    Kir 17 January 2013 22: 24
                    0
                    I apologize for the importunity, but it's still interesting about the operators, but I understood thanks for the rest. although it didn’t twist the monitor settings, all the same, the shadow “eats” the shape of the lantern of the last concept so that ....., it’s not clear if a picture of a mediocre roofing felts is still something ...
                    1. FID
                      FID 18 January 2013 08: 13
                      +2
                      This is not a snapshot, plus the coloring of the aircraft ... No, the aircraft are as symmetrical as possible. As for the operators .... And it all depends on the human psyche. Operators also controlled rockets, lunar rovers, rovers ... At the moment of the destruction of the apparatus, communication is interrupted. I am not a pilot, but I "flew" on full simulators (with imitation of bumpiness, rolls, etc.). Initially, he smeared past the strip and then the voice of "RITA" (the voice informant) told me the sad news that everything is very bad ... The screen goes out and you feel like a fool, something like that, I think.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 January 2013 23: 03
              +2
              Quote: Kir
              But it is interesting in the primary source of RNHainlein "Starship Troopers" ("Starship Infantry"), is this moment there?

              The book is generally good at 100 times more than in the movie
              One day during a two-minute break that took place between different types of work, one of the guys, his name was Ted Hendrick, asked:

              “Sergeant, I really think that all this knife throwing is more fun? .. Why then study it so carefully?” Is this really useful to us?

              “Well then,” said Zim. “And if all you have is a knife?”

              Or even a knife? What will you do then? Prepare for death? Or try to contrive and make the enemy get his own? After all, these are not toys, son. And no one will complain when you discover that you can’t do anything.

              “But that's what I’m talking about, sir.” Imagine that you were unarmed. Or do you even have any nonsense in your hands. And the enemy has a dangerous weapon. And no matter how you try, you won’t do anything.

              Winter's voice sounded unexpectedly soft:

              “Wrong, son.” There is no such thing as a “dangerous weapon” in the world.

              - That is, sir?

              - There is no dangerous weapon. There are only dangerous people. We try to make you dangerous to the enemy. Dangerous even without a knife. Dangerous as long as you have one arm or one leg and while you are still alive ...
    2. Rink
      Rink 17 January 2013 21: 40
      0
      Quote: mga04
      And why do they need super maneuverability? They practically do not learn melee combat, all tactics are based on the use of long-range missiles, primarily the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

      The Americans were already stepping on this rake.
      They tested this doctrine back in Korea, with Sabers.
      Sabers initially had a radio sight and missile weapons, and were going to shoot the MiGs from afar, without getting involved in battle. The war seemed to them to be a walk: from a safe far shot down the MIGs and home to mom. Therefore, Sabers did not even have guns.

      But in fact, it turned out that fast and maneuverable MIGs easily evade missiles. And then the "American" becomes their easy prey, because he has no chance of getting away from the MIG. Read about Kozhedub's regiment in Korea - their losses, in my opinion, were one in ten (one shot down MiG for ten Sabers). Or so. I do not think that the Americans have forgotten the science of Kozhedub.

      To dominate the air, a fighter simply must be able to fly!
      It cannot be that they do not understand this.
      Not so stupid they are ....
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 21 January 2013 17: 40
        0
        Quote: Skating rink
        To dominate the air, a fighter simply must be able to fly!
        It cannot be that they do not understand this.
        Not so stupid they are ....

        F-22 can fly this fighter to dominate the air. F-35 multi-purpose, shock this aircraft at this maneuver is not up to par. Americans believe that they compensate for this shortcoming by electronics.
      2. igor36
        igor36 19 December 2020 14: 00
        0
        Dear you got it all mixed up. The Korean War 1950-1953, the first air-to-air missile for the US Air Force, the AIM-4 Falcon, adopted in 1956. There really were no guns on the Sabers, there were 6 12,7mm machine guns and an aiming radio range finder. It was in Korea that there were maneuver battles, and the Saber for its time was an excellent fighter and a worthy competitor for the MiG-15. And the fact that you described it Phantom (F-4), during the Vietnam War !!!
  5. savarineko
    savarineko 17 January 2013 13: 28
    -2
    These planes are not beautiful ...
  6. Cartoon
    Cartoon 17 January 2013 13: 38
    0
    Judging by the latest news from the United States, their military budget is breathing well. So the last really successful project for Ala Next Generation is Star Trek: The Next Generation. Fly them on f-18 and a little on f-35 for another 20 years. And let them not show off
    1. barmaley
      barmaley 18 January 2013 23: 36
      0
      http://www.newslab.ru/blog/174842
  7. Lone gunman
    Lone gunman 17 January 2013 18: 55
    +1
    it seems to me what vector of development of aviation technologies the United States will choose, everyone will trample after it, including us, there is a shepherd and there are sheep I don’t want us to be second ...
    1. Kir
      Kir 17 January 2013 19: 13
      0
      And in order not to go anywhere without getting into it, it is necessary to understand the simple truth of the United States simply not a shepherd, but We are not a herd, but those who think like that (They are gods and we are stinkers), to drive despite the merits of yours is the whole story. especially since not everything that is attributed to them is born of them.
      But just for a long time and many genuinely smart people say that the main people are techies and naturalists, and not humanities.
  8. Karmin
    Karmin 17 January 2013 22: 53
    0
    Quote: Skating rink

    The Americans were already stepping on this rake.
    They tested this doctrine back in Korea, with Sabers.

    Rink, You all mixed up: 1. not Korea, but Vietnam
    2. not "Saber", but "Phantom II"
    3. Kozhedub is not related to the Vietnam War