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

bring_it_on said:
Either way, if you have identified a franchise program that you think you are competitively positioned to do well in, pursuing a fixed price production contract for it is not a bad strategy at all.
Click to expand...
Noone said there was anything wrong with bidding fixed-price contracts. I said, if someone gets burned, it is because they did a poor job of bidding.
 
_Del_ said:
Noone said there was anything wrong with bidding fixed-price contracts. I said, if someone gets burned, it is because they did a poor job of bidding.
Click to expand...

It does not have to necessarily mean that at all though it could. Same point as before..take that on a case by case basis. It could mean that they did not execute as well as they could have even though bid was smart based risk and reward. Or, losses could be despite bidding and executing well but due to externalities beyond your control (pandemic and the inflation we saw coming out of it that still lingers) that is impacting several programs (B-21, F-35, weapons etc) and suppliers.

We simply don't know and my point in this was that bidding on fixed price low rate production (say first 4-5 lots) is very different than bidding fixed price over the entire contract (development plus total production). That's the different say between B-21 and T-X for example. Given LM's losses appear to be localized during the production phase (they have been working on JATM since like 2017?), it points to early production lot losses which will rectify for the program as they renogotiate for follow on production once the initial production is out of the way. Either way, them even recognizing these future losses is good proof that the production program is secure and expected to proceed...so again, we really have no evidence at all to "JATM may not survive" line of argument..or at least the point you've highlighted to advance that argument is actually proving the opposite.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully someone will have the sense to tell Our Dear Leader that yes sir, we totally built iron dome," and then put that money into something actually useful like shipbuilding.
 
joshjosh said:
Hopefully someone will have the sense to tell Our Dear Leader that yes sir, we totally built iron dome," and then put that money into something actually useful like shipbuilding.
Click to expand...
It will never stop bugging me that Iron Dome is simply a C-RAM system not any kind of IAMD, but he likes the name so....
 
joshjosh said:
Hopefully someone will have the sense to tell Our Dear Leader that yes sir, we totally built iron dome," and then put that money into something actually useful like shipbuilding.
Click to expand...
More NGAD than shipbuilding to try to finish this program in a hurry in face of Chinese 6th gen fighters who will be soon in service.
 
TomcatViP said:
New majority plans to add an extra $150b to the yearly defense budget for Ships, Submarines, Iron Dome and 6th Gen fighters.

breakingdefense.com

Senate Republicans release budget plan with $150B more for defense - Breaking Defense

The new budget resolution tees up a separate process for the Senate and the House as the two legislative bodies grapple over how best to enact President Donald Trump’s policy agenda.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...

Its not $150 Bn annually. Its over four years.
 
Alex Hollings from Sandboxx has an interesting video concerning how CCA drones may change aerial warfare:


Despite all the focus we’ve placed on the next generation of fighter jets currently in the works (or on hold) for the U.S. Air Force and U.S. ‘Navy, it’s increasingly certain that the vast majority of the real fighting in the sky will soon be left up to a new slew of artificial-intelligence-powered drone fighters taking their cues from pilots in nearby stealth jets.
Click to expand...
 
I really am not a fan of the series. But I do think UCAVs will change the nature of air warfare. Previously the assumption would naturally be that the pilot will behave in a way to promote their survival. A flight of automated aircraft can adopt deliberately attritional strategies. It reminds me of the whole excitement about all aspect IR missiles: there was a fear that a larger, more complicated/expensive aircraft (F-4 would be the poster child at that point ) would launch a SARH missile and have to maintain a heading towards its target, and the target could be an A-4 or MiG de jour that closed the distance and launched a fire and forget AIM-9L or equivalent before it ate the SARH. This was always a rather contrived situation, though it did demonstrate a potential disadvantage of interceptors of the day.

But the things, a network of UCAVs could legitimately make moves like that - sacrificing an aircraft as a decoy or just closing to a more optimal firing position at the cost of their survival. The goal would be more consistent favorable attrition rates rather than survival or domination.
 
www.airandspaceforces.com

Defense Secretary Orders Air Force to Pause All Reorg Planning

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed the Department of the Air Force to pause all planning related to its re-organization effort.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
There will be pause for how many time ? The Chinese will be at the 7th gen fighter before the end of the pause :D It is not like a Air Force is vital for a conflict.....
 
dark sidius said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

Defense Secretary Orders Air Force to Pause All Reorg Planning

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed the Department of the Air Force to pause all planning related to its re-organization effort.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
There will be pause for how many time ? The Chinese will be at the 7th gen fighter before the end of the pause :D It is not like a Air Force is vital for a conflict.....
Click to expand...

It should be noted that the SecDef has already run two veterans organizations into the ground and his only qualifications outside an Army deployment are being a Fox News talking head. I doubt any new reorganization is going to yield an increase in NGAD deployment efficiency, but let’s be patient and see what happens in the first 100 days.
 
We generally accept that the Trump admin, like most GOP administrations before it (including its own first term), will increase defense spending and that bodes well for AF modernization that has been starved for funds of late... I think that could well be tested here if there's a push to make room for other spending priorities like space, drones, missile defenses and other capabilities. So a defense spending increase might not mean that NGAD-PCA is coming back..I certainly hope that it does but even Secretary Kendall said in his exit interview, that while NGAD was important, it was not the most important thing and that there were other service priorities as well that were equally or more important. One thing I am more certain about is that the new admin will prioritize investment account growth and O&S so we should see a healthy increase there..
 
Also, if the AF is indeed taking the approach to stand and fight inside China vaunted AIDS zone, it means that higher than usual attrition has to be factored-in with the new program. Why buy a fighter that needs X amount of years to be produced and cost ruining amount of money? (especially when you have already the F-35).
 
TomcatViP said:
Also, if the AF is indeed taking the approach to stand and fight inside China vaunted AIDS zone, it means that higher than usual attrition has to be factored in with the new program. Why buy a fighter that need X amount of years to be produced and cost ruining amount of money? (especially when you have already the F-35).
Click to expand...
The F-35 have realy big problems to be enhanced it is bad born and a plenty of problems to become a block 4 , I have the feeling that the SPACE domain will be the big invest with the Trump administration , a missile shield with space based interceptors and we will see soon Mr Musk selling his Starship to military for space operations. They seem more passionate by the Space Force than Air Force, I hope Navy will win more for his FA/XX.
 
TomcatViP said:
Why buy a fighter that needs X amount of years to be produced and cost ruining amount of money? (especially when you have already the F-35).
Click to expand...
Especially if you already are facing recap concerns. If there is to be a new manned tactical fighter, it should be quick development and cheap/easy to produce.
They must ignore major primes that keep telling them that trying themselves to bazillion dollar programs with long development time and 40 year service life "are actually more cost effective".
They are still poised to spend more money on R&D than procurement.
 
bring_it_on said:
We generally accept that the Trump admin, like most GOP administrations before it (including its own first term), will increase defense spending and that bodes well for AF modernization that has been starved for funds of late... I think that could well be tested here if there's a push to make room for other spending priorities like space, drones, missile defenses and other capabilities. So a defense spending increase might not mean that NGAD-PCA is coming back..I certainly hope that it does but even Secretary Kendall said in his exit interview, that while NGAD was important, it was not the most important thing and that there were other service priorities as well that were equally or more important. One thing I am more certain about is that the new admin will prioritize investment account growth and O&S so we should see a healthy increase there..
Click to expand...
It is for me the most important USAF programs , you don't win a war with out a air dominance and not be too much confident with AI and other gadgets like that, the Ukraine war show us that you still win a war with a powefull fire power.
 
_Del_ said:
Air dominance is a mission, not a plane.
Click to expand...
I know but for instance at a decade futur there will be just the F-22 to do this role , F35 is glued in his developpement and F-15-Ex is a good perfomance fighter but the lack of stealth could put the F-15 EX in difficulty in a high threat, and in face of Chinese 5th gen fighters.
 
_Del_ said:
Air dominance is a mission, not a plane.
Click to expand...

Exactly! And its not that the AF does not have other funding priorities inside this NGAD portfolio. Things like AMTI, CCA's, Space / Counter Space capability, weapons etc. There needs to be a substantial funding increase to not disrupt that balance while still allowing them to pursue their manned element. If that is not forthcoming, they'll have to make tradeoffs.
 
dark sidius said:
I know but for instance at a decade futur there will be just the F-22 to do this role , F35 is glued in his developpement and F-15-Ex is a good perfomance fighter but the lack of stealth could put the F-15 EX in difficulty in a high threat, and in face of Chinese 5th gen fighters.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced your shiny new toy will be ready in a decade anyway. I have low confidence a all-singing and dancing fighter will proceed more quickly than the F-35, and it'd be starting over a decade later. In that scenario you are still stuck with the same force structure without new added capability.
 
bring_it_on said:
Exactly! And its not that the AF does not have other funding priorities inside this NGAD portfolio. Things like AMTI, CCA's, Space / Counter Space capability, weapons etc. There needs to be a substantial funding increase to not disrupt that balance while still allowing them to pursue their manned element. If that is not forthcoming, they'll have to make tradeoffs.
Click to expand...
We will see the priority soon . Space have the favor of the new administration.
 
_Del_ said:
I'm not convinced your shiny new toy will be ready in a decade anyway. I have low confidence a all-singing and dancing fighter will proceed more quickly than the F-35, and it'd be starting over a decade later. In that scenario you are still stuck with the same force structure without new added capability.
Click to expand...
What is the solution for you ? we have losing a lot of time and money on the F-35 and realy it is a little scandalous after all the billions invest in it that Lockheed is unable to achieve the block 4 now. And they communicate a lot since weeks about F-35 is air dominante the better way , bla-bla they try to convince the new administration ?
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i46wVJcy-o&t=188s
They forgot the ennemy 5th/6th gen fighters in the video......
 
Last edited:
dark sidius said:
What is the solution for you ? we have losing a lot of time and money on the F-35 and realy it is a little scandalous after all the billions invest in it that Lockheed is unable to achieve the block 4 now.
Click to expand...

We are not going to get the block 4 'now'. We weren't even going to get it 'now' three years ago before delays. It was going to be a gradual addition of capabilities through the 2020's. That has been delayed, probably by 3-4 years. That sounds like a lot and the JPO, LM, P&W and other suppliers need to get their act together. I'm all for inflicting pain on these folks (JPO, LM and other suppliers) through harder negotiations and other processes at the Trump team's disposal but it is still the fastest way to field capability for this decade and most of the early to mid-next decade. That, and buying as many F-15 EX's, the AF can build and ramping up the B-21 Full Rate Production (from say seven a year to 10-12 a year) etc. Even if you go all in on NGAD, its still a decade long effort so realistically a mid to late 2030s capability (in quantity). If you can't wait that long and need capability inside the 10-15 years it is going to take to develop and put the NGAD PCA in full rate production (and have sizable inventory), you will need to explore faster options and compromises like derivatives, or trimming requirements around long lead RDT&E items like propulsion, mission systems etc. Those come with their own risk.
 
bring_it_on said:
We are not going to get the block 4 'now'. We weren't even going to get it 'now' three years ago before delays. It was going to be a gradual addition of capabilities through the 2020's. That has been delayed, probably by 3-4 years. That sounds like a lot and the JPO, LM, P&W and other suppliers need to get their act together. I'm all for inflicting pain on these folks (JPO, LM and other suppliers) through harder negotiations and other processes at the Trump team's disposal but it is still the fastest way to field capability for this decade and most of the early to mid-next decade. That, and buying as many F-15 EX's, the AF can build and ramping up the B-21 Full Rate Production (from say seven a year to 10-12 a year) etc. Even if you go all in on NGAD, its still a decade long effort so realistically a mid to late 2030s capability (in quantity). If you can't wait that long and need capability inside the 10-15 years it is going to take to develop and put the NGAD PCA in full rate production (and have sizable inventory), you will need to explore faster options and compromises like derivatives, or trimming requirements around long lead RDT&E items like propulsion, mission systems etc. Those come with their own risk.
Click to expand...
I totaly agree , 3-4 years more is unacceptable after all the money in this program , he is very away the SR-71, F-117 , F-22 time......They put the Air Force at risk with delay after delay. The China are not awaiting for new capacity.
 
Last edited:
dark sidius said:
What is the solution for you ? we have losing a lot of time and money on the F-35 and realy it is a little scandalous after all the billions invest in it that Lockheed is unable to achieve the block 4 now.
Click to expand...
The solution certainly is not another wunderwaffe we can't afford to wait to field and which ties up trillions for another two decades.

If they need to augment manned fighters, they should prioritize mature systems and range/endurance over speed, and leverage the "family of systems" no matter how great the shiny new toy looks on paper.

Slap together a design (or two or three) and just turn them out fast, even if it has warts. Keep both the costs and maintenance down by using mature technology. It doesn't need all the sensors on an F-35. It doesn't need a giant bay. Fuel fraction, signature, "kill chain"-cog, in that order. It just needs to be a capable node for the ABMS.
 
bring_it_on said:
Do Chinese aviation programs ever run into issues. What are those? Where can I read and understand them?
Click to expand...
The full capacity of J-20 , the sooner J-35 and more longer the J-36 /J-50 and for that there is just the never finish F-35 to opposite and the little fleet of F-22 , there is to worried about the decades to come, we read rumor on the web about a hypersonic air/air Chinese missile in a sooner futur, I don"t see the slow no stealth CCA being a response for this kind of weapon.
 
Last edited:
dark sidius said:
The full capacity of J-20 , the sooner J-35 and more longer the J-36 /J-50 and for that there is just the never finish F-35 to opposite.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you just wrote there exactly. You seem to be well up to speed on F-35 issues. I assume you follow the detailed tester and government documents pertaining to those discussions to see where they are at any given time on the follow on modernization?. How do I obtain similar information on the Chinese programs? Or do I just assume they simply never have any issues and this is really easy for them?
 
Sundog said:
USAF spending 2007 to 2024.
View attachment 759072
Click to expand...

Can you post this again? Looks like you just posted a thumbnail.

I attempted to do something similar using mostly requested money (vs enacted). These are DAF numbers so pass through would need to be stripped out to get the blue budget...With a largely flat budget, recapping ICBM, and strategic bomber while dramatically increasing space capability is basically going to mean the tactical fighter force pays the bill by shrinking dramatically and not modernizing.
 

Attachments

  • DAF_BudgetRequest_2010$.png
    DAF_BudgetRequest_2010$.png
    104.3 KB · Views: 17
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
We generally accept that the Trump admin, like most GOP administrations before it (including its own first term), will increase defense spending and that bodes well for AF modernization that has been starved for funds of late... I think that could well be tested here if there's a push to make room for other spending priorities like space, drones, missile defenses and other capabilities. So a defense spending increase might not mean that NGAD-PCA is coming back..I certainly hope that it does but even Secretary Kendall said in his exit interview, that while NGAD was important, it was not the most important thing and that there were other service priorities as well that were equally or more important. One thing I am more certain about is that the new admin will prioritize investment account growth and O&S so we should see a healthy increase there..
Click to expand...

Defense spending has generally increased ever since 9-11. It is not unique to specific parties. There has been nothing but continuous resolutions, ie spending at pre levels, for most of a decade because of the freedom caucus. That is going to continue. You don’t get a defense increase and tax cuts with a deficit decrease. Choose two at most. In practice, the Trump administration chooses more of the same, as it will now, because it cannot get the votes for cuts to social security or medicare.

So someone has to decide how important NGAD is compared to everything else.
 
Josh_TN said:
Defense spending has generally increased ever since 9-11. It is not unique to specific parties. There has been nothing but continuous resolutions, ie spending at pre levels, for most of a decade because of the freedom caucus. That is going to continue. You don’t get a defense increase and tax cuts with a deficit decrease. Choose two at most. In practice, the Trump administration chooses more of the same, as it will now, because it cannot get the votes for cuts to social security or medicare.

So someone has to decide how important NGAD is compared to everything else.
Click to expand...
It is time to modernize and replace the most part of the USAF fleet , this must be the high priority. The most of the USAF fleet is older than ever. Time to buy a lot of B-21 and going on the Air dominance whatever it is.
 
Josh_TN said:
It should be noted that the SecDef has already run two veterans organizations into the ground and his only qualifications outside an Army deployment are being a Fox News talking head. I doubt any new reorganization is going to yield an increase in NGAD deployment efficiency, but let’s be patient and see what happens in the first 100 days.
Click to expand...
To be frank Elbridge Colby will look after actual policy so atleast they have still kept some competence at the leadership of the DoD.
 
dark sidius said:
It is time to modernize and replace the most part of the USAF fleet , this must be the high priority. The most of the USAF fleet is older than ever. Time to buy a lot of B-21 and going on the Air dominance whatever it is.
Click to expand...
B-21 and Sentinel are not going to be touched. Nobody will touch the triad. Cuts are coming for the army and Marines though if Colby's policy is passed.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom