Global 6th Generation Fighter Aircraft Projects

[randombully]

The poster model X-jet could be modified version with 2 engines, canards & different wing config yet to be fully revealed.
A public ceremony would probably reveal the production IOC version.

With such heavily edited poster, without the hidden rear half, it is difficult to say if the jet would look similar to Bird-of-Prey with canards or F/A-XX advertised so far, or combination of both.

Following is the approximate scaled comparison of Bird-of-Prey Vs F-22. For payload, fuel, range more than F-22, the actual NGAD fuselage could be roughly double BoP's fuselage.

View attachment 28268


Following is F/A-XX concept comparison with poster model:

View attachment 28274

Some more material for assumption purpose

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Some more material for assumption purpose

Yeah, already saw 2nd & 3rd diagrams on other forums.
There are other 2D, 3D stuff across internet.
But i'm always keeping Trump's words in my mid - "most advanced, capable, lethal. Nothing comes even close from speed to maneuverability to payload".

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

F-22's F119 engines have 156 KN wet thrust giving it wet T/STOW = 1.1
F-35's F135 engine have 191 KN wet thrust giving it wet T/STOW = 0.76 for C & 0.87 for A models.

If NGAD's A-10X engine is assumed 230 KN wet thrust, that's 230/156=47.4% increase over F-22. Let's adjust it to 234 KN or 50% for easy number. That means maintaining the same wet T/STOW of 1.1 the NGAD's STOW can be 50% more than F-22 or 29*1.5=43.5 tons & MTOW of 38*1.5=57 tons.
So volume can be assumed 50% more for easy understanding for now.
Considering same airframe density, a 14% increase in L*B*H each gives 48% increase in volume.
But if height of airframe is kept same then 22% increase in width & length gives 48% more volume.
In terms of F-22 it would look like following bigger F-22, which would look same from top but stretched sideways from front/back. May be this can give some idea about NGAD's size.

 

[randombully]

Studies by Boeing in past.
Can give rough idea of how f-47 can look like based on artist impressions shown in white house.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Studies by Boeing in past.
Can give rough idea of how f-47 can look like based on artist impressions shown in white house.

Yeah, an interesting study revealed out.
The wing can be Cropped-Diamond, Lambda, etc.
Now the speculations of F-47's looks are being related to -
- Bird of Prey TD.
- F/A-XX concept.
- YF-23.
There have been some edited drawings in past about YF-23 with canards.

 

[randombully]

Yeah, an interesting study revealed out.
The wing can be Cropped-Diamond, Lambda, etc.
Now the speculations of F-47's looks are being related to -
- Bird of Prey TD.
- F/A-XX concept.
- YF-23.
There have been some edited drawings in past about YF-23 with canards.

View attachment 28472
View attachment 28473

Usaf wants "high agility" along with better stealth than f22 and f35
The cranked arrow wings provide more space for control surfaces.
Given it's most likely gonna be tailess, the plane will depend on canard and wings for agility, so cranked arrow style wing makes more sense.
And It's myth that yf23 was better than yf22 and lost due to usaf having more confidence on lockheed to manage the program, while it did played a role.
But yf 23 has lots of problems.
First it's intakes caused more exposed fan blades(To radar, no to eyes) compared to yf 22 which had completely hidden ones.

Also their shape was worse in supersonic flight than yf22's intakes
Plus no ramp to break the air into subsonic like yf22.
So worse supersonic performance.
Plus those marked areas, almost form 90° relative to the wing, no-no for stealth.



Then it's IWB was more complex and sucked.
If a bottom bomb malfunctioned to release, the top ones will be blocked too

The YF-23's Weapons Bay Layout Was One Of Its Best Features And One Of Its Worst

Northrop's entry into the ATF tender had a big, ambiguous weapons bay that likely hurt its chances of being selected but would be prized today.

www.twz.com

Third myth is its manurablility,
" some says those v tails were so good that it almost matched yf22 in manurablity which also had tvs, that yf23 lacked".

This is bullshit, those v tails even if they had big effect, ain't gonna help in high AoA, you need canards, lerx, horizontal tails for that.
Neither it will help in fast turn rate relative to yf22.

And as before, yf23 design prohibited addition of thrust vectoring.

So a major redesign in yf23 will be needed if they go for it, and at this stage just better to start from scratch.

And if your designing a "high agility" and "high stealth" fighter without vertical control surfaces( causes more radar return compared to horizontal ones).
So a cranked arrow wing, is more desirable than a diamond or delta wing.

Most likely configuration is :- canards, cranked arrow wing, TVC.

Now with that , can't guarantee 100% that it will look like that.

 

[GodEmperorDoom]

Usaf wants "high agility" along with better stealth than f22 and f35
The cranked arrow wings provide more space for control surfaces.
Given it's most likely gonna be tailess, the plane will depend on canard and wings for agility, so cranked arrow style wing makes more sense.
And It's myth that yf23 was better than yf22 and lost due to usaf having more confidence on lockheed to manage the program, while it did played a role.
But yf 23 has lots of problems.
First it's intakes caused more exposed fan blades(To radar, no to eyes) compared to yf 22 which had completely hidden ones.
View attachment 28476
View attachment 28478Also their shape was worse in supersonic flight than yf22's intakes
Plus no ramp to break the air into subsonic like yf22.
So worse supersonic performance.
Plus those marked areas, almost form 90° relative to the wing, no-no for stealth.



Then it's IWB was more complex and sucked.
If a bottom bomb malfunctioned to release, the top ones will be blocked too

The YF-23's Weapons Bay Layout Was One Of Its Best Features And One Of Its Worst

Northrop's entry into the ATF tender had a big, ambiguous weapons bay that likely hurt its chances of being selected but would be prized today.

www.twz.com

Third myth is its manurablility,
" some says those v tails were so good that it almost matched yf22 in manurablity which also had tvs, that yf23 lacked".

This is bullshit, those v tails even if they had big effect, ain't gonna help in high AoA, you need canards, lerx, horizontal tails for that.
Neither it will help in fast turn rate relative to yf22.

And as before, yf23 design prohibited addition of thrust vectoring.

So a major redesign in yf23 will be needed if they go for it, and at this stage just better to start from scratch.

And if your designing a "high agility" and "high stealth" fighter without vertical control surfaces( causes more radar return compared to horizontal ones).
So a cranked arrow wing, is more desirable than a diamond or delta wing.

Most likely configuration is :- canards, cranked arrow wing, TVC.

Now with that , can't guarantee 100% that it will look like that.

Don't speak Nonsense. In any plane, airflow needs to slow down to Subsonic level before it enters Jet Engine other wise the Engine would get destroyed. There is no ramp in F-22 and neither it's needed. You could slow down airflow through curved intakes which both F-22 and YF-23 could do.

 

[randombully]

Don't speak Nonsense. In any plane, airflow needs to slow down to Subsonic level before it enters Jet Engine other wise the Engine would get destroyed. There is no ramp in F-22 and neither it's needed. You could slow down airflow through curved intakes which both F-22 and YF-23 could do.

Just checked,You are right about the lack of ramp, looks like they abandoned the idea on 22, and opted for fixed geometry to shock the air into subsonic speeds.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Usaf wants "high agility" along with better stealth than f22 and f35
The cranked arrow wings provide more space for control surfaces.
Given it's most likely gonna be tailess, the plane will depend on canard and wings for agility, so cranked arrow style wing makes more sense.
And It's myth that yf23 was better than yf22 and lost due to usaf having more confidence on lockheed to manage the program, while it did played a role.
But yf 23 has lots of problems.
First it's intakes caused more exposed fan blades(To radar, no to eyes) compared to yf 22 which had completely hidden ones.
View attachment 28476
View attachment 28478Also their shape was worse in supersonic flight than yf22's intakes
Plus no ramp to break the air into subsonic like yf22.
So worse supersonic performance.
Plus those marked areas, almost form 90° relative to the wing, no-no for stealth.



Then it's IWB was more complex and sucked.
If a bottom bomb malfunctioned to release, the top ones will be blocked too

The YF-23's Weapons Bay Layout Was One Of Its Best Features And One Of Its Worst

Northrop's entry into the ATF tender had a big, ambiguous weapons bay that likely hurt its chances of being selected but would be prized today.

www.twz.com

Third myth is its manurablility,
" some says those v tails were so good that it almost matched yf22 in manurablity which also had tvs, that yf23 lacked".

This is bullshit, those v tails even if they had big effect, ain't gonna help in high AoA, you need canards, lerx, horizontal tails for that.
Neither it will help in fast turn rate relative to yf22.

And as before, yf23 design prohibited addition of thrust vectoring.

So a major redesign in yf23 will be needed if they go for it, and at this stage just better to start from scratch.

And if your designing a "high agility" and "high stealth" fighter without vertical control surfaces( causes more radar return compared to horizontal ones).
So a cranked arrow wing, is more desirable than a diamond or delta wing.

Most likely configuration is :- canards, cranked arrow wing, TVC.

Now with that , can't guarantee 100% that it will look like that.

Yes, the engine was visible, the duct was not serpentine enough, no TVC, huge V-tail comparable to F-16 wing, etc. The V-tail rotation creates a diagonal air deflection, means horizontal & vertical components also, not suitable for pure yaw as it would produce rolling effect, hence there were split aelerons.

Overall in my understanding the YF-23 was worse than YF-22.
But according to the ATF documentaries & video clips, some still there on YT, the YF-23 was said to have higher speed & lower RCS from certain angles, IDK how. May be their ATF group had better RAM, RAS.


Its IWB config was never disclosed properly as it lost competition. The Patented mechanism was only a speculation, there were other diagrams of swing-arm launchers. But the IWB doors look big & not bi-fold.




A stealth jet cannot use ramps but convergent-divergent duct which is there in all 5gen jets otherwise the jet cannot cross Mach-1 w/o damaging engine ending in disaster.

But their geometry have become references for many & show significant differences.
The following is approximate scaled pic & diagram collage as per their width:



We see that both have followed planform shaping, YF-23 fuselage expanded sideways, while F-22 expanded downwards. Su-57's nose cross section is similar to YF-23's.
Now same choice has to be made for a new stronger jet.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Some 3D artist imagined & made 3D model & animation of F-47, whose fuselage looks like F/A-XX concept, upward tilted wings remind of Bird-of-Prey, engine bay hump reminds of YF-23.
So F-47 NGAD = F/A-XX + BoP + YF-23.

I'm putting a smaller collage as the images are huge, bigger than the collage.



View: https://x.com/tomcat_fans/status/1904269703222083633

Some selected screenshots from animation showing specific angles to show airframe shape, parts:

 

[randombully]

Some 3D artist imagined & made 3D model & animation of F-47, whose fuselage looks like F/A-XX concept, upward tilted wings remind of Bird-of-Prey, engine bay hump reminds of YF-23.
So F-47 NGAD = F/A-XX + BoP + YF-23.

I'm putting a smaller collage as the images are huge, bigger than the collage.
View attachment 28584


View: https://x.com/tomcat_fans/status/1904269703222083633

Some selected screenshots from animation showing specific angles to show airframe shape, parts:
View attachment 28585

Given the high agility requirements.
The wings should be cranked arrow for more control surface area.
But these wings can also work because it needs to have big range, and can still have good manurablility with "thrust vectoring".


But for the engines, I'm very confident that it will feature thrust vecturing, so these yf23 style engine setup is big no no.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Given the high agility requirements.
The wings should be cranked arrow for more control surface area.
But these wings can also work because it needs to have big range, and can still have good manurablility with "thrust vectoring".
But for the engines, I'm very confident that it will feature thrust vecturing, so these yf23 style engine setup is big no no.

It is personal view of artist, still can be anything.
IDK how Lambda wing could be more agile than Delta/Diamond/Cropped-Diamond. Su-3X have cropped-delta wings. So i would say the pitch is handled primarily by tail-stab &/or carand.
The carands will help in the agility + possible TVC.
Some people are still speculating all-moving short rudders due to USA flag darkened in poster.
Let's see for how many weeks or months USA will hide its rear half fuselage.

 

[randombully]

It is personal view of artist, still can be anything.
IDK how Lambda wing could be more agile than Delta/Diamond/Cropped-Diamond. Su-3X have cropped-delta wings. So i would say the pitch is handled primarily by tail-stab &/or carand.
The carands will help in the agility + possible TVC.
Some people are still speculating all-moving short rudders due to USA flag darkened in poster.
Let's see for how many weeks or months USA will hide its rear half fuselage.

Lambda wings provide more "space" for bigger control surfaces than traditional diamond and delta wings if all have same sweep angle.

In the above lamba wing significant percentage of space on the back edge is still left not being utilised for control flaps.
Even then the inner control flap is much more bigger than control flaps on the below cropped delta wing.
Tho the wing on the bottom provides more lift and more fuel.

 

[GodEmperorDoom]

Some 3D artist imagined & made 3D model & animation of F-47, whose fuselage looks like F/A-XX concept, upward tilted wings remind of Bird-of-Prey, engine bay hump reminds of YF-23.
So F-47 NGAD = F/A-XX + BoP + YF-23.

I'm putting a smaller collage as the images are huge, bigger than the collage.
View attachment 28584


View: https://x.com/tomcat_fans/status/1904269703222083633

Some selected screenshots from animation showing specific angles to show airframe shape, parts:
View attachment 28585

It is not +YF-23 since it doesn't appear to have a lifting body.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Lambda wings provide more "space" for bigger control surfaces than traditional diamond and delta wings if all have same sweep angle.
View attachment 28594
In the above lamba wing significant percentage of space on the back edge is still left not being utilised for control flaps.
Even then the inner control flap is much more bigger than control flaps on the below cropped delta wing.
Tho the wing on the bottom provides more lift and more fuel.

That's cropped-diamond, not cropped-delta of new GCAP.
The F-35 A & B models have only flaps, only the C model has aelerons. My point is that it is overall a tricky thing how the maker wants to exploit aerodynamics & avionics programming.
If you take the perpendicular width of wing & consider the above Lambda to be 30 degrees off & below cropper-diamond to be 15 degrees off then the length of control surfaces are W*Sec(30)=1.15W & W*Sec(15)=1.03W. The Lambda wing provides increase in control surface by 1.15/1.03=1.11 or just 11% which won't increase agility so sharply.
Every shape has its +/- points.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

It is not +YF-23 since it doesn't appear to have a lifting body.

I counted YF-23 due to engine bay bumps on top.
Which part of YF-23 you say to be lifting body?

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Another artist's good imagination:
> This is tandem tri-plane, but putting canard just in front of intake could obstruct airflow, unless onlyouter 2/3rd or half of canard moves.
> Bcoz of darkened flag in poster, some people are still speculating small all-moving rudders.
> Like Bird-of-Prey the wing can still be slightly tilted up with with drooped winglet, but He forgot to allign the bend-axis longitudinally parallel to length. Such wing adds to stability while a fighter needs to be unstable for agility.
> Such platipus like flatter nose could mean lesser pitch agility & little more RCS return by nose.
> Overall this looks like 1 engine exportable jet. I wonder how in Trump's words "nothing even comes close from speed to maneuverability to payload" & this is "most advanced, capable, lethal".

 

[randombully]

Another artist's good imagination:
> This is tandem tri-plane, but putting canard just in front of intake could obstruct airflow, unless onlyouter 2/3rd or half of canard moves.
> Bcoz of darkened flag in poster, some people are still speculating small all-moving rudders.
> Like Bird-of-Prey the wing can still be slightly tilted up with with drooped winglet, but He forgot to allign the bend-axis longitudinally parallel to length. Such wing adds to stability while a fighter needs to be unstable for agility.
> Such platipus like flatter nose could mean lesser pitch agility & little more RCS return by nose.
> Overall this looks like 1 engine exportable jet. I wonder how in Trump's words "nothing even comes close from speed to maneuverability to payload" & this is "most advanced, capable, lethal".

View attachment 28643
View attachment 28644
View attachment 28645

The artist has great imagination, but this one is never coming true.
That nose itself is a Big no.
Those downward canted outer section of the wings impose lots of limitations for manurablility, the only advantage they provide is aerodynamic stability, which Boeing bird of Prey needed due to its design.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

The artist has great imagination, but this one is never coming true.
That nose itself is a Big no.
Those downward canted outer section of the wings impose lots of limitations for manurablility, the only advantage they provide is aerodynamic stability, which Boeing bird of Prey needed due to its design.

It is opposite actually. When i googled about "winglets" then multiple sites say that downward winglets are better than upwards ones for combat jets as the upward ones being far more dihedral would obrtruct roll & yaw adding to stability not agility, while downward ones being more anhedral would add to agility not stability.
Hence although there are many types of winglets with different angles & dimensions, the airliners mostly have upward Winglets. Some have dual up+down but the upward section is larger than downward one.
But the confusing part is that the big wing itself is tilted up adding to stability.
A horizontal wing with downward winglet can be understood.

 

[randombully]

It is opposite actually. When i googled about "winglets" then multiple sites say that downward winglets are better than upwards ones for combat jets as the upward ones being far more dihedral would obrtruct roll & yaw adding to stability not agility, while downward ones being more anhedral would add to agility not stability.
Hence although there are many types of winglets with different angles & dimensions, the airliners mostly have upward Winglets. Some have dual up+down but the upward section is larger than downward one.
But the confusing part is that the big wing itself is tilted up adding to stability.
A horizontal wing with downward winglet can be understood.

How about no winglets at all, that will aligity more either having upwards or downwards canted wings.
And that's too big to be called a winglet.
The upwards winglets are generally used to reduce the tip vortex drag.
The.
And probably from the same site that you visited
"One aspect of efficiency that downward pointing wingtips improve is increased bottom lift from increased compression of air underneath. "End caps", wing tip fuel tanks, anhedralled wings, Lippisch ears, downward folding wing tips (as seen on the XB-70), and downward pointing winglets achieve the same effect.

These benefits must be weighed against the increased drag (with the exception of the XB-70) adding them to the design produces.

However, for the smaller drone pictured above, the downward pointing wingtips also serve a very important function best described by one of my mentors as follows: "If you were a seagull, you would not want a cross wind blowing you into a cliff." The downward pointing wingtips roll and yaw the plane into a cross wind gust, whereas the "classic" upward pointed vertical stabilizer design will tend to roll away from the gust, especially if the gust gets "under" the windward wing. For a very light model (or bird), the result is getting rolled and pushed downwind. Not a good day for that seagull."

So downward canted wings provide more stability against cross winds.