USAF/USN 6th Gen Fighters - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS News & Analysis

[X-39]

Variation of Boeing's old concept with slight differences. No canards, inlets moved to the top and clipped wings. But seriously.... Why is the canopy red???

 

[Grey Havoc]

Supposed to represent anti-laser / EM shielding, I think.

 

[flateric]

This is not a 'variation', just stupid fanart. 'Red' canopy should represent fading sun light in metallic coating of canopy.

 

[TomS]

Variation of Boeing's old concept with slight differences. No canards, inlets moved to the top and clipped wings. But seriously.... Why is the canopy red???
View attachment 687355

Because red ones go faster. Duh...

 

[X-39]

This is not a 'variation', just stupid fanart. 'Red' canopy should represent fading sun light in metallic coating of canopy.

Not totally BS Fanart this time, but rather "semi-official" we could say?

 

[flateric]

This is not a 'variation', just stupid fanart. 'Red' canopy should represent fading sun light in metallic coating of canopy.

Not totally BS Fanart this time, but rather "semi-official" we could say?

Nope. Still BS drawn by ASFM staff artist using Boeing art as refrerence. Just like their B-21s 'concept arts'.

 

[Forest Green]

Because red ones go faster. Duh...

Especially with two white stripes.

 

[Hood]

Hood's Rule #1
Never get steamed up about CGI art. Most of the time it's just cool looking graphics and is often replaced by newer cooler looking graphics. (Or in this case rather 90s style blocky graphics with weird shades pasted onto a new background.)

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

With the reveal of the B-21 Raider just yesterday, I was reminded of this summary from the CSBA's paper entitled "TRENDS IN AIR-TO-AIR COMBAT: IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE AIR SUPERIORITY". I will quote that part here:

If the analysis presented above is correct, it is possible that the desirable attributes of future
air-to-air platforms may be converging with those of long-range ISR/strike platforms, or that
at least large aircraft with good low observable (LO) characteristics may be able to give a good
account of themselves in aerial combat. If this is true, then a sixth-generation “fighter” may
have a planform that is similar to a future “bomber” and may even be a modified version of a
bomber airframe or the same aircraft with its payload optimized for the air-to-air mission. If
this is correct, then the United States may be in position to save tens of billions of dollars in
nonrecurring development costs by combining USAF and Navy future fighter development
programs with each service’s long-range ISR/strike programs.

Based on the quote, it implies that a future "fighter" would ideally be more of a larger aircraft, akin to a bomber, and it also suggests that the Next Generation Air Dominance program or Penetrating Counter-Air program could also be merged with the bomber program in order to make an aircraft with its weapons suited and optimized for the air-to-air missions, or as some of you like to call it, becoming a "Missile Truck"

As such, (And maybe this point has already been raised, especially with regards to the Penetrating Counter-Air), but do you guys think that it's possible that the Next Generation Air Dominance program might either merge with the Long Range Strike Bomber program, or at least take some technologies or cues from the B-21 in order to make the main fighter component a reality? Or is that just heresay? Just curious about what you think, and how the United States Air Force might think moving forward

 

[Flyaway]

With the reveal of the B-21 Raider just yesterday, I was reminded of this summary from the CSBA's paper entitled "TRENDS IN AIR-TO-AIR COMBAT: IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE AIR SUPERIORITY". I will quote that part here:

If the analysis presented above is correct, it is possible that the desirable attributes of future
air-to-air platforms may be converging with those of long-range ISR/strike platforms, or that
at least large aircraft with good low observable (LO) characteristics may be able to give a good
account of themselves in aerial combat. If this is true, then a sixth-generation “fighter” may
have a planform that is similar to a future “bomber” and may even be a modified version of a
bomber airframe or the same aircraft with its payload optimized for the air-to-air mission. If
this is correct, then the United States may be in position to save tens of billions of dollars in
nonrecurring development costs by combining USAF and Navy future fighter development
programs with each service’s long-range ISR/strike programs.

Based on the quote, it implies that a future "fighter" would ideally be more of a larger aircraft, akin to a bomber, and it also suggests that the Next Generation Air Dominance program or Penetrating Counter-Air program could also be merged with the bomber program in order to make an aircraft with its weapons suited and optimized for the air-to-air missions, or as some of you like to call it, becoming a "Missile Truck"

As such, (And maybe this point has already been raised, especially with regards to the Penetrating Counter-Air), but do you guys think that it's possible that the Next Generation Air Dominance program might either merge with the Long Range Strike Bomber program, or at least take some technologies or cues from the B-21 in order to make the main fighter component a reality? Or is that just heresay? Just curious about what you think, and how the United States Air Force might think moving forward

Haven’t they already indicated that the B-21 will have some air to air capability.

 

[Josh_TN]

Yes, but NGAD is still clearly a different manned platform. That said, I could see the B-21 having an A2A capability for self defense and likely will integrate with some of the same UAVs as the NGAD manned platform.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

With the reveal of the B-21 Raider just yesterday, I was reminded of this summary from the CSBA's paper entitled "TRENDS IN AIR-TO-AIR COMBAT: IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE AIR SUPERIORITY". I will quote that part here:

If the analysis presented above is correct, it is possible that the desirable attributes of future
air-to-air platforms may be converging with those of long-range ISR/strike platforms, or that
at least large aircraft with good low observable (LO) characteristics may be able to give a good
account of themselves in aerial combat. If this is true, then a sixth-generation “fighter” may
have a planform that is similar to a future “bomber” and may even be a modified version of a
bomber airframe or the same aircraft with its payload optimized for the air-to-air mission. If
this is correct, then the United States may be in position to save tens of billions of dollars in
nonrecurring development costs by combining USAF and Navy future fighter development
programs with each service’s long-range ISR/strike programs.

Based on the quote, it implies that a future "fighter" would ideally be more of a larger aircraft, akin to a bomber, and it also suggests that the Next Generation Air Dominance program or Penetrating Counter-Air program could also be merged with the bomber program in order to make an aircraft with its weapons suited and optimized for the air-to-air missions, or as some of you like to call it, becoming a "Missile Truck"

As such, (And maybe this point has already been raised, especially with regards to the Penetrating Counter-Air), but do you guys think that it's possible that the Next Generation Air Dominance program might either merge with the Long Range Strike Bomber program, or at least take some technologies or cues from the B-21 in order to make the main fighter component a reality? Or is that just heresay? Just curious about what you think, and how the United States Air Force might think moving forward

Haven’t they already indicated that the B-21 will have some air to air capability.

Ohhh, I see. That would be nice to have. Bombers having their own anti-air missiles for self-defense would be good, just in case they are found out and targeted by interceptors somehow.

Yes, but NGAD is still clearly a different manned platform. That said, I could see the B-21 having an A2A capability for self defense and likely will integrate with some of the same UAVs as the NGAD manned platform.

You took the words out of my mouth. But if the USAF will go with what the CSBA suggested, then it's possible that the Penetrating Counter-Air can also be a modified B-21 with primarily air-to-air missiles. An FB-21, I suppose.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

Oh wait, consider my previous point deunked

The Air Force Wants a New Fighter to Accompany Its New Stealth Bomber

"Penetrating Counter-Air" would accompany stealth bombers deep into enemy territory.

www.popularmechanics.com

The U.S. Air Force is planning to purchase a new long-range fighter that would accompany the forthcoming B-21 Raider stealth bomber deep into enemy territory. The new fighter, of which few details are known, would help the bomber survive enemy air defenses. The new fighter, known as "Penetrating Counter-Air" (PCA) was revealed during the Air Force Association's 2016 annual conference and reported by Breaking Defense.

 

[Josh_TN]

With the reveal of the B-21 Raider just yesterday, I was reminded of this summary from the CSBA's paper entitled "TRENDS IN AIR-TO-AIR COMBAT: IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE AIR SUPERIORITY". I will quote that part here:

If the analysis presented above is correct, it is possible that the desirable attributes of future
air-to-air platforms may be converging with those of long-range ISR/strike platforms, or that
at least large aircraft with good low observable (LO) characteristics may be able to give a good
account of themselves in aerial combat. If this is true, then a sixth-generation “fighter” may
have a planform that is similar to a future “bomber” and may even be a modified version of a
bomber airframe or the same aircraft with its payload optimized for the air-to-air mission. If
this is correct, then the United States may be in position to save tens of billions of dollars in
nonrecurring development costs by combining USAF and Navy future fighter development
programs with each service’s long-range ISR/strike programs.

Based on the quote, it implies that a future "fighter" would ideally be more of a larger aircraft, akin to a bomber, and it also suggests that the Next Generation Air Dominance program or Penetrating Counter-Air program could also be merged with the bomber program in order to make an aircraft with its weapons suited and optimized for the air-to-air missions, or as some of you like to call it, becoming a "Missile Truck"

As such, (And maybe this point has already been raised, especially with regards to the Penetrating Counter-Air), but do you guys think that it's possible that the Next Generation Air Dominance program might either merge with the Long Range Strike Bomber program, or at least take some technologies or cues from the B-21 in order to make the main fighter component a reality? Or is that just heresay? Just curious about what you think, and how the United States Air Force might think moving forward

Haven’t they already indicated that the B-21 will have some air to air capability.

Ohhh, I see. That would be nice to have. Bombers having their own anti-air missiles for self-defense would be good, just in case they are found out and targeted by interceptors somehow.

Yes, but NGAD is still clearly a different manned platform. That said, I could see the B-21 having an A2A capability for self defense and likely will integrate with some of the same UAVs as the NGAD manned platform.

You took the words out of my mouth. But if the USAF will go with what the CSBA suggested, then it's possible that the Penetrating Counter-Air can also be a modified B-21 with primarily air-to-air missiles. An FB-21, I suppose.

I don’t think so. The counter air mission likely still calls for supercruise even if maneuverability is being sacrificed for range. But I think that because the B-21 will enter service first and that iteration of UAVs will occur faster than the manned component of NGAD, the bombers might initially find themselves coordinating their own unmanned escorts.

 

[TomcatViP]

DCA is dynamic. You don't know where the next point of pressure from your opponent will be while battle field are vasts. Having a supercruiser, and also a fast accelerating aircraft, is primordial*.

Whatever your accountant says, You don't fight 21st century warfare with an AMRAAM equipped hot air balloon...

*as is range and loitering capability.

 

[Sciquest2525]

I'm late to the debate but wanted to ask if F/A-XX could be scaled to accept an eight-round internal rotary launcher able to handle long range AAMs, JASSM, JDAM 2000, AARGM-ER, AMRAAM or SDB II. Such a launcher requires a fuselage wide enough and high enough to accommodate eight of the large munitions/missiles or 16 AMRAAM or 32 SDB IIs. The entire payload save for smaller bays located in the inlets forward section ala the F-22 for self-defense Sidewinder and AMRAAM or the upcoming AIM-260 JATM would be in the internal bay with wing hardpoints for fuel tanks. The heavy load would require the a/c to takeoff with reduced fuel to meet carrier catapult weight limits though high thrust to weight ratios of F-135 and the ATEP variable cycle engines would perhaps, help out with that limit. USN wants 18,000lbs. or better payload and the rotary launcher could make it all internal for stealth.

 

[Sundog]

Man I hope it’s something that cool looking although LMs Lady Liberty is still my favourite

I hope this design is still on the table maybe two variants are still a wishful thinking but Tailless variant for long distance in the Pacific with greater need for stealth against new Chinese Radars & The Tail Airframe for Europe? I even had a custom model done cause I'm just in awe over the LM concept. Credits to Akelafreedom for the Model.

​

I doubt that's on the table, as there would be some serious issues with those inlets, especially at high alpha.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

Don't know how to filter out only Josh_TN's quote from the multitude of quotes that were in his reply, so here's the next best thing:

I don’t think so. The counter air mission likely still calls for supercruise even if maneuverability is being sacrificed for range. But I think that because the B-21 will enter service first and that iteration of UAVs will occur faster than the manned component of NGAD, the bombers might initially find themselves coordinating their own unmanned escorts.

If they want something as big as a bomber with a flying wing design to be capable of supercruise, then they probably have to work on that part first. Maybe the limitations of such planes would be more improved and less expensive RAM frames and coatings that can survive supersonic or even hypersonic speeds, which if I remember, is currently in the works. Also, Adaptive Engines would be more suited for such aircraft because that means more fuel efficiency and the capability to change their function at certain speeds.

As for the UAVs, I can see them also being part of the B-21's network. Perhaps as soon as the NGAD and F/A XX's drone networking capabilities will be matured, they can probably be set up on other types of aircraft, particularly bombers, electronic warfare, AWACS and patrol aircraft, as they would provide them with superb, if not excellent defenses against enemy interceptors

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

Man I hope it’s something that cool looking although LMs Lady Liberty is still my favourite

I hope this design is still on the table maybe two variants are still a wishful thinking but Tailless variant for long distance in the Pacific with greater need for stealth against new Chinese Radars & The Tail Airframe for Europe? I even had a custom model done cause I'm just in awe over the LM concept. Credits to Akelafreedom for the Model.

​

I doubt that's on the table, as there would be some serious issues with those inlets, especially at high alpha.

Agreed. Also, it kinda looks more like the Tempest

 

[rooster]

I don’t think so. The counter air mission likely still calls for supercruise even if maneuverability is being sacrificed for range. But I think that because the B-21 will enter service first and that iteration of UAVs will occur faster than the manned component of NGAD, the bombers might initially find themselves coordinating their own unmanned escorts.

This is what i said a few pages back. There are 2 being worked on. A shooter and a jammer. In about 3 years you can expect reveals of their own

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

This is what i said a few pages back. There are 2 being worked on. A shooter and a jammer. In about 3 years you can expect reveals of their own

Yep. Binkov also said something similar when he made his video about the NGAD

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMr7thd7qh0&t=84s

 

[Hydroman]

With the reveal of the B-21 Raider just yesterday, I was reminded of this summary from the CSBA's paper entitled "TRENDS IN AIR-TO-AIR COMBAT: IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE AIR SUPERIORITY". I will quote that part here:

If the analysis presented above is correct, it is possible that the desirable attributes of future
air-to-air platforms may be converging with those of long-range ISR/strike platforms, or that
at least large aircraft with good low observable (LO) characteristics may be able to give a good
account of themselves in aerial combat. If this is true, then a sixth-generation “fighter” may
have a planform that is similar to a future “bomber” and may even be a modified version of a
bomber airframe or the same aircraft with its payload optimized for the air-to-air mission. If
this is correct, then the United States may be in position to save tens of billions of dollars in
nonrecurring development costs by combining USAF and Navy future fighter development
programs with each service’s long-range ISR/strike programs.

Based on the quote, it implies that a future "fighter" would ideally be more of a larger aircraft, akin to a bomber, and it also suggests that the Next Generation Air Dominance program or Penetrating Counter-Air program could also be merged with the bomber program in order to make an aircraft with its weapons suited and optimized for the air-to-air missions, or as some of you like to call it, becoming a "Missile Truck"

As such, (And maybe this point has already been raised, especially with regards to the Penetrating Counter-Air), but do you guys think that it's possible that the Next Generation Air Dominance program might either merge with the Long Range Strike Bomber program, or at least take some technologies or cues from the B-21 in order to make the main fighter component a reality? Or is that just heresay? Just curious about what you think, and how the United States Air Force might think moving forward

Haven’t they already indicated that the B-21 will have some air to air capability.

Ohhh, I see. That would be nice to have. Bombers having their own anti-air missiles for self-defense would be good, just in case they are found out and targeted by interceptors somehow.

Yes, but NGAD is still clearly a different manned platform. That said, I could see the B-21 having an A2A capability for self defense and likely will integrate with some of the same UAVs as the NGAD manned platform.

You took the words out of my mouth. But if the USAF will go with what the CSBA suggested, then it's possible that the Penetrating Counter-Air can also be a modified B-21 with primarily air-to-air missiles. An FB-21, I suppose.

I don’t think so. The counter air mission likely still calls for supercruise even if maneuverability is being sacrificed for range. But I think that because the B-21 will enter service first and that iteration of UAVs will occur faster than the manned component of NGAD, the bombers might initially find themselves coordinating their own unmanned escorts.

This is what i said a few pages back. There are 2 being worked on. A shooter and a jammer. In about 3 years you can expect reveals of their own

I may be wrong but I think NG will be the go to company for advanced strike, ISR, etc platforms only and may not produce a 6th gen fighter platform. A lot of the following N/NG platforms design and performance features are still classified: XST, Tacit Blue, ATA, A/FX, YF-23/F-23 even potentially FB-23. I think NG is relegated in being the Flying Wing and Advanced Strike/ISR Company, developing very and highly advanced non-fighter air vehicles. I welcome comments.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

I may be wrong but I think NG will be the go to company for advanced strike, ISR, etc platforms only and may not produce a 6th gen fighter platform. A lot of the following N/NG platforms design and performance features are still classified: XST, Tacit Blue, ATA, A/FX, YF-23/F-23 even potentially FB-23. I think NG is relegated in being the Flying Wing and Advanced Strike/ISR Company, developing very and highly advanced non-fighter air vehicles. I welcome comments.

I agree. Northrop Grumman has proven their expertise in making stealth bombers, and as such, they should be the definitive company for these type of aircraft. Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin has specialties in both fighter (F-22, F-35) and surveillance-reconnaissance (The Blackbird Family) types of aircraft, so I expect Lockheed Martin to develop the NGAD and PCA in the long run.

But since there was no official competition of aircraft designs for the NGAD, and Will Roper said way back 2020 that the NGAD was designed, built, tested and flown in a single year, then it's possible that there's no official competition after all, rather a collaboration of a handful of companies, each making components for the so-called "Family of Systems". The way I see it, it's possible that Lockheed Martin is working on the main fighter or the Penetrating Counter-Air, and Northrop Grumman is working on any of the possible loyal wingmen drones for the NGAD, with Boeing working on some additional components and technologies for both, and other companies contributing more niche components.

 

[Hydroman]

I may be wrong but I think NG will be the go to company for advanced strike, ISR, etc platforms only and may not produce a 6th gen fighter platform. A lot of the following N/NG platforms design and performance features are still classified: XST, Tacit Blue, ATA, A/FX, YF-23/F-23 even potentially FB-23. I think NG is relegated in being the Flying Wing and Advanced Strike/ISR Company, developing very and highly advanced non-fighter air vehicles. I welcome comments.

I agree. Northrop Grumman has proven their expertise in making stealth bombers, and as such, they should be the definitive company for these type of aircraft. Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin has specialties in both fighter (F-22, F-35) and surveillance-reconnaissance (The Blackbird Family) types of aircraft, so I expect Lockheed Martin to develop the NGAD and PCA in the long run.

But since there was no official competition of aircraft designs for the NGAD, and Will Roper said way back 2020 that the NGAD was designed, built, tested and flown in a single year, then it's possible that there's no official competition after all, rather a collaboration of a handful of companies, each making components for the so-called "Family of Systems". The way I see it, it's possible that Lockheed Martin is working on the main fighter or the Penetrating Counter-Air, and Northrop Grumman is working on any of the possible loyal wingmen drones for the NGAD, with Boeing working on some additional components and technologies for both, and other companies contributing more niche components.

I agree with you, ultimately LMCO could build a USAF F-XX NGAD, Boeing a USN F/A-XX NGAD. Looking back at the YF-23/F-23 when I was involved back then, it was more like a 5.5 generation fighter and I don't think anyone would argue that point, the YF-23/F-23 was pretty advanced at the time. I do know for a fact that when we rolled out and flew the 23, it scared the heck out of LMCO. Do to our new three-way cold war between the US, China and Russia, the US will probably increase the number of new classified vehicles in development, I would not be surprised if of one these is a demonstrator FB-23-type vehicle.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

I may be wrong but I think NG will be the go to company for advanced strike, ISR, etc platforms only and may not produce a 6th gen fighter platform. A lot of the following N/NG platforms design and performance features are still classified: XST, Tacit Blue, ATA, A/FX, YF-23/F-23 even potentially FB-23. I think NG is relegated in being the Flying Wing and Advanced Strike/ISR Company, developing very and highly advanced non-fighter air vehicles. I welcome comments.

I agree. Northrop Grumman has proven their expertise in making stealth bombers, and as such, they should be the definitive company for these type of aircraft. Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin has specialties in both fighter (F-22, F-35) and surveillance-reconnaissance (The Blackbird Family) types of aircraft, so I expect Lockheed Martin to develop the NGAD and PCA in the long run.

But since there was no official competition of aircraft designs for the NGAD, and Will Roper said way back 2020 that the NGAD was designed, built, tested and flown in a single year, then it's possible that there's no official competition after all, rather a collaboration of a handful of companies, each making components for the so-called "Family of Systems". The way I see it, it's possible that Lockheed Martin is working on the main fighter or the Penetrating Counter-Air, and Northrop Grumman is working on any of the possible loyal wingmen drones for the NGAD, with Boeing working on some additional components and technologies for both, and other companies contributing more niche components.

I agree with you, ultimately LMCO could build a USAF F-XX NGAD, Boeing a USN F/A-XX NGAD. Looking back at the YF-23/F-23 when I was involved back then, it was more like a 5.5 generation fighter and I don't think anyone would argue that point, the YF-23/F-23 was pretty advanced at the time. I do know for a fact that when we rolled out and flew the 23, it scared the heck out of LMCO. Do to our new three-way cold war between the US, China and Russia, the US will probably increase the number of new classified vehicles in development, I would not be surprised if of one these is a demonstrator FB-23-type vehicle.

Wow, you were involved the YF-23? That's awesome! What did you do there, exactly (Or is it still classified?)

That being said, it's agreeable too, I totally forgot that Boeing will be primarily involved in the F/A-XX program. But given that Northrop Grumman made the X-47B for Carrier operations, then it's likely that Northrop Grumman will be making the loyal wingmen drones for both programs (Though they might be secondary to Kratos for the NGAD's loyal wingmen drones, possibly). Would be a Win-Win situation in my opinion.

 

[Hydroman]

I may be wrong but I think NG will be the go to company for advanced strike, ISR, etc platforms only and may not produce a 6th gen fighter platform. A lot of the following N/NG platforms design and performance features are still classified: XST, Tacit Blue, ATA, A/FX, YF-23/F-23 even potentially FB-23. I think NG is relegated in being the Flying Wing and Advanced Strike/ISR Company, developing very and highly advanced non-fighter air vehicles. I welcome comments.

I agree. Northrop Grumman has proven their expertise in making stealth bombers, and as such, they should be the definitive company for these type of aircraft. Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin has specialties in both fighter (F-22, F-35) and surveillance-reconnaissance (The Blackbird Family) types of aircraft, so I expect Lockheed Martin to develop the NGAD and PCA in the long run.

But since there was no official competition of aircraft designs for the NGAD, and Will Roper said way back 2020 that the NGAD was designed, built, tested and flown in a single year, then it's possible that there's no official competition after all, rather a collaboration of a handful of companies, each making components for the so-called "Family of Systems". The way I see it, it's possible that Lockheed Martin is working on the main fighter or the Penetrating Counter-Air, and Northrop Grumman is working on any of the possible loyal wingmen drones for the NGAD, with Boeing working on some additional components and technologies for both, and other companies contributing more niche components.

I agree with you, ultimately LMCO could build a USAF F-XX NGAD, Boeing a USN F/A-XX NGAD. Looking back at the YF-23/F-23 when I was involved back then, it was more like a 5.5 generation fighter and I don't think anyone would argue that point, the YF-23/F-23 was pretty advanced at the time. I do know for a fact that when we rolled out and flew the 23, it scared the heck out of LMCO. Do to our new three-way cold war between the US, China and Russia, the US will probably increase the number of new classified vehicles in development, I would not be surprised if of one these is a demonstrator FB-23-type vehicle.

Wow, you were involved the YF-23? That's awesome! What did you do there, exactly (Or is it still classified?)

That being said, it's agreeable too, I totally forgot that Boeing will be primarily involved in the F/A-XX program. But given that Northrop Grumman made the X-47B for Carrier operations, then it's likely that Northrop Grumman will be making the loyal wingmen drones for both programs (Though they might be secondary to Kratos for the NGAD's loyal wingmen drones, possibly). Would be a Win-Win situation in my opinion.

Air vehicle subsystems engineer (hydro, flight controls, landing gear, flight test, etc).

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

Air vehicle subsystems engineer (hydro, flight controls, landing gear, flight test, etc).

Ohhhh, I see. That's a very important part of the job, so salutes to you man!

The YF-23 is probably antiquated by now, but its design can be a good design for even the drones of the NGAD, if they utilize it properly

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

Not sure if it's ok to post this, since this was 2 or 3 weeks ago, but there was these bunch of pictures from Twitter, which you can see when you look up the #NGAD hashtag

https://twitter.com/x/status/1596961130697871360

View: https://twitter.com/rubenhofs/status/1596961130697871360

View: https://twitter.com/rubenhofs/status/1596961130697871360

The replies on the tweet have several answers, ranging from the nose cone of an SR-71, several drones (Ghost Bat in particular, even though it isn't a Skunk Works creation), or the nose cone of the Darkstar prop. Either way, this is quiet an interesting series of photos
And again, I'm posting it here because the Tweet's OP hash-tagged #NGAD, and nothing else. And if anyone here who knows better can examine or answer what this is, I'd be glad to hear from you.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

Not sure if it's ok to post this, since this was 2 or 3 weeks ago, but there was these bunch of pictures from Twitter, which you can see when you look up the #NGAD hashtag

https://twitter.com/x/status/1596961130697871360

View: https://twitter.com/rubenhofs/status/1596961130697871360

View: https://twitter.com/rubenhofs/status/1596961130697871360
View attachment 689015View attachment 689018
The replies on the tweet have several answers, ranging from the nose cone of an SR-71, several drones (Ghost Bat in particular, even though it isn't a Skunk Works creation), or the nose cone of the Darkstar prop. Either way, this is quiet an interesting series of photos
And again, I'm posting it here because the Tweet's OP hash-tagged #NGAD, and nothing else. And if anyone here who knows better can examine or answer what this is, I'd be glad to hear from you.

Object can also be seen in Google Maps, in which the satellite map data is dated around 2022

 

[Forest Green]

Possibly this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1597034070310936576

View: https://twitter.com/codejake/status/1597034070310936576?s=20&t=RNQSLkCGHynZ_1nO7ElI6w

 

[Hydroman]

Could be an SR-71 nose or LMCO's Common Reentry Vehicle?

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

Could be an SR-71 nose or LMCO's Common Reentry Vehicle?

Possibly. It seems more likely to be an SR-71 nose cone, but a drone from Skunk Works is also plausible

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1603782300961247232

View: https://twitter.com/dominicgates/status/1603782300961247232

The fuller quote since the Tweet left out the part about the F/A-XX, and the DoD's woes about having less competing defense companies:

The Air Force’s Next-Generation Air Dominance program looms large over this. If it excludes Boeing, and if the Navy’s F/A-XX either stalls or excludes Boeing, we can assume there are now two competitors for new fixed-wing military contracts, not three. The Defense Department does not want less competition for future programs and has signaled opposition to mergers resulting in that outcome, but it might have to live with that reality anyway.

Opinion: The National Security Implications of Boeing’s Woes | Aviation Week Network

Three areas of concern regarding the possible impact on U.S. defense of Boeing’s difficulties.

aviationweek.com

Seems like Boeing's woes might possibly take it out of the NGAD and F/A-XX programs. In the case of NGAD, there's still Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman to make their designs (Which may have happened a long time ago, given that they said a prototype flew in 2020), but for F/A-XX, it would be even harder to find a new company to make it, given that Boeing was the one primarily planning to make the F/A-XX. Unless Northrop Grumman will offer to step in, offer their NGAD proposal and have it modified into an aircraft suitable for the Navy and their Sixth-Generation Aircraft needs and requirements

 

[Deino]

Seems like Boeing's woes might possibly out it out of the NGAD and F/A-XX programs. In the case of NGAD, there's still Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman to make their designs (Which may have happened a long time ago, given that they said a prototype flew in 2020), but for F/A-XX, it would be even harder to find a new company to make it, given that Boeing was the one primarily planning to make the F/A-XX. Unless Northrop Grumman will offer to step in, offer their NGAD proposal and have it modified into an aircraft suitable for the Navy and their Sixth-Generation Aircraft needs and requirements

Interesting ... by the way, is there any realistic estimate, when - similar to the B-21 - a prototype will be unveiled for the first time?

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

Interesting ... by the way, is there any realistic estimate, when - similar to the B-21 - a prototype will be unveiled for the first time?

I doubt there will be a reveal anytime soon. Maybe 2025 at most, but as Binkov said in his video about the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) 3 months ago, it may be that far more secrecy is going into the Next Generation Air Dominance program than it is going to the B-21. I mean, we already know the full name and shape of the B-21, but neither for the NGAD. And they would probably prefer that it remains that way

 

[TomcatViP]

NGAD is consecutive to B-21 program. That's it.

And we've got Raider and Valor... Isn't that enough for a December?

 

[Moose]

Boeing's gutting of its own engineering is not something DoD can easily fix.

 

[Hydroman]

NGC could step in for F/A-XX, they did a great job with X-47B. Since the DOD has great concerns about Boeing and Boeing being their own worst enemy, LMCO could do the USAF NGAD and NGC the USN F/A-XX. Boeing has mucked up their commercial business and now its spread to St Louis (i.e. the T-7 program). Very bad times for Boeing, how do make Director-level managers from college new-grads with no industry aerospace/aircraft experience, this is what is currently going on at Boeing as one bad example.

 

[Ogami musashi]

A small 3D model of the LM ngad concept design
https://cults3d.com/fr/modèle-3d/gadget/lockheed-martin-ngad

 

[bobbymike]

To all the aero engineers out there how much of an advantage is no tail to highly canted tails for stealth? Assuming better stealth tailless is it a big enough advantage over less maneuverability (assuming the latter is more maneuverable).

Or am I out to lunch either way