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

Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s unclear to me if either CCA model has internal bays for BVR AAMs. It is a little challenging to have a 12’+ aperture on a 30’ airframe. The XQ-67A does not appear to have such to my eyes but perhaps the CCA version does. Fury’s CCA may or may not as well.

I think it is important to remember that these aircraft will not serve as wingmen in a traditional sense of the word and likely would be quite a distance from the controller. And as unmanned aircraft, their signature reduction matters less.
 
FQ-44 with external stores can be used for DCA, CAP and escort applications to name a few roles that are less LO sensitive; heck they’d be perfect for enforcing no fly zones, be they in the Middle East or Eastern Europe! Alternately, if GA can roster as least two AAMs in the -42s IWB, a heterodimer (sorry to use the protein engineer term) of a FQ-42 shooter coupled with a FQ-44 spotter as a two ship hunter/killer concept, seems very doable in the very near term. I think this concept is “ok” with AMRAAM, but could get quite spicy with JATM. Further CCA increments with long-loiter time and larger IWB capacity might help create an effector “cloud”. Like in certain parts of the world, no target is more than 100 miles away from at least one “remote effector node” that you can order timely AAM tasking from. That would be something nice to have if DAF can get its air and space based sensor network and transport layers built up for real time, theater wide A/GMTI.

Edit: thanks for pointing out my fqup nmaude!
 
Last edited:
Training_Dummy said:
Qf-44 with external stores can be used for DCA, CAP and escort applications to name a few roles that are less LO sensitive; heck they’d be perfect for enforcing no fly zones, be they in the Middle East or Eastern Europe! Alternately, if GA can roster as least two AAMs in the -42s IWB, a heterodimer (sorry to use the protein engineer term) of a QF-42 shooter coupled with a QF-44 spotter as a two ship hunter/killer
Click to expand...

FQ-42 and FQ-44 as these are drone-fighters not drone conversion of fighter jets.
 
It should also be noted that this is just the first iteration of these craft, and that they are probably for testing as much as operational use.

External carriage of a pair of AAMs on pylons only rated for ~500 pounds probably does not make a huge radar target if they are shaped correctly. Most any non 5th gen fighter would have a larger return than either FQ.
 
As we are now seeing what seems to be Chinese next Gen. prototypes in flight.
More of a curiosity (after 245 pages) After all this time, Is there any actual evidence the US. has built or flown manned demonstrators of the '6th Gen.' proposals ? (other than hinted UAV. configuration demonstrators ?) or are we still talking design studies at this stage ?
 
Last edited:
Training_Dummy said:
FQ-44 with external stores can be used for DCA, CAP and escort applications to name a few roles that are less LO sensitive; heck they’d be perfect for enforcing no fly zones, be they in the Middle East or Eastern Europe! Alternately, if GA can roster as least two AAMs in the -42s IWB, a heterodimer (sorry to use the protein engineer term) of a FQ-42 shooter coupled with a FQ-44 spotter as a two ship hunter/killer concept, seems very doable in the very near term. I think this concept is “ok” with AMRAAM, but could get quite spicy with JATM. Further CCA increments with long-loiter time and larger IWB capacity might help create an effector “cloud”. Like in certain parts of the world, no target is more than 100 miles away from at least one “remote effector node” that you can order timely AAM tasking from. That would be something nice to have if DAF can get its air and space based sensor network and transport layers built up for real time, theater wide A/GMTI.

Edit: thanks for pointing out my fqup nmaude!
Click to expand...
What is the sweet spot for the loyal wingman role for OCA? If the FQ-44 cannot carry at least two AMRAAM sized weapons internally for a reduced signature then I am not sure if that is not great value at $25-30 million. Not sure if you want Increment 1 at the front of the spear if you do not have it in high numbers. Does the Air Force consider that a little better than attritable? The other options are to go more exquisite with a low observable platform approaching half the cost of an F-35 or cheaper?

As costs go up the better value is just to buy F-35s. Larger weapons load, man in the loop, better mission systems with greater reach. You need to recapitalize the manned fighter fleet anyway - F-16s, F-15C/Es, and A-10s.

The other option is to go with a lower cost option that can be bought in higher numbers that is attritable. Kratos said it could produce the XQ-58 at between $2-4 million a piece several years ago. They were working on a block 2 version which could carry two AMRAAMs externally. Adding passive sensor might push size and cost up a little. In wargam Mitchell ran they found value in attritable CCAs in the initially phases of the conflict when air superiority was contested. I wonder what the trades were between Increment 1 and a less expensive system?
 
Not saying that this is necessarily how the FQ-44 will do it, but one way to greatly mitigate the effects of external weapons is to carry them conformally. Of course, you’d be locked in to that approximate form factor, but with the AIM-260 having the same envelope as the AIM-120, that may not be too big of a concern. It probably won’t get you to VLO levels of RCS reduction, but for a lower cost, more minimalist aircraft design, it may work.
 
Given the projected costs and level of uncertainty with the manned component of NGAD, I think it would be wise for the DOD to take their time with it. Compensate the primes for any infrastructure investments and re-evaluate.

In the meantime, pump & integrate CCA because that's a sure deal for the future.
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
Both the Navy and Air Force need their respective programs to replace their ageing fighters.
Click to expand...

Both the USAF and USN are long overdue for a recapitalisation of their respective tactical aircraft fleets as the average IIRC is pushing 50.
 
Josh_TN said:
That does not mean it will happen.
Click to expand...

True up to a point but at some stage the US will have to bite the bullet and spend serious money replacing these airframes not only are they getting old they're obsolescing too.
 
NMaude said:
True up to a point but at some stage the US will have to bite the bullet and spend serious money replacing these airframes not only are they getting old they're obsolescing too.
Click to expand...

They could easily just build more CCAs and F-35s; another manned platform for either service is not a given.
 
I'm hearing that Hegseth was briefed very recently on NGAD-PCA and F/A-XX by Gen Allvin and Adm Kilby, respectively. Hegseth was very supportive, but said he won't/can't make the call -- "it's up to Trump and Musk". Hegseth added, that if asked by the boss, he would tell him he's fully onboard with the USAF and USN acquisition plans and source selections.

I'm getting the impression that the same aircraft company has been selected (independently) by both services, althought they are distinct programs and designs. Announcement(s) are pending Trump's go-ahead. TBD if Trump will object to having one winner take on both major contracts, but apparently OSD and the services think that's a manageable risk.

No word on the choice for NGAD's propulsion system contractor. A derivative of GE's F110 remains the likely choice for F/A-XX.
 
joewee said:
I'm hearing that Hegseth was briefed very recently on NGAD-PCA and F/A-XX by Gen Allvin and Adm Kilby, respectively. Hegseth was very supportive, but said he won't/can't make the call -- "it's up to Trump and Musk". Hegseth added, that if asked by the boss, he would tell him he's fully onboard with the USAF and USN acquisition plans and source selections.

I'm getting the impression that the same aircraft company has been selected (independently) by both services, althought they are distinct programs and designs. Announcement(s) are pending Trump's go-ahead. TBD if Trump will object to having one winner take on both major contracts, but apparently OSD and the services think that's a manageable risk.

No word on the choice for NGAD's propulsion system contractor. A derivative of GE's F110 remains the likely choice for F/A-XX.
Click to expand...


phantomworks-310x215.jpeg
 
NMaude said:
Both the USAF and USN are long overdue for a recapitalisation of their respective tactical aircraft fleets as the average IIRC is pushing 50.
Click to expand...
Not sure where that stat came from?

In 2022 the USAF average fighter fleet age was 28 years,
Today, the average fighter aircraft in the service is about 28 years old.
Click to expand...
www.defensenews.com

US Air Force warns of aging fighters, poor purchasing efforts

Amid a high global demand for air power, as well as domestic hurdles in Congress and the White House, the service is racing to rebuild its fighter fleet.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

and the USN average fighter fleet age is much less given it now operates only SH.
 
books said:
I personally always kind of thought Boeing would win F/A-XX, and LM would win NGAD-high, but Boeing NGAD-medium. Seems to me like Boeing’s confidence last year might have related to the growing budget issues following FRA ‘23 and the Sentinel crisis, while rumored USAF leanings toward the Boeing NGAD may have been leanings toward a smaller size well before the review kicked off.
Click to expand...

 
Moose said:
Knew it was going to be silly when he decided to announce it himself. OTOH, if this is how DoD professionals are able to keep capability alive for the next four years then might as well. Next stop, 30 ships named after Trump family members.
Click to expand...

USS Hannibal Lecter

Agree that something stupid like that was likely if Trump was doing the announcement, but no big deal. Not much worse than the CVN names.
 
https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...ration-fighter-contract-this-week-2025-03-25/

Boeing, Northrop Grumman await US Navy next-generation fighter contract this week, sources say
By Mike Stone
March 25, 202512:08 PM GMT+3Updated 8 hours ago

WASHINGTON, March 25 (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy is expected to announce this week who will build its next-generation carrier-based stealth fighter - a program worth hundreds of billions over its lifetime and a key part of plans to confront China, people familiar with the decision said.
The F/A-XX program is one of several advanced capabilities the U.S. military is developing to counter China's growing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region. The contract would be worth single-digit billions of dollars in the short term, and potentially hundreds of billions over the decades it is expected to run.
Make sense of the latest ESG trends affecting companies and governments with the Reuters Sustainable Switch newsletter. Sign up here.

The Navy will choose one winner for the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase - a significant milestone for the F/A-XX, which is meant to replace the Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fleet.
The new jet is expected to feature advanced stealth capabilities, improved range and endurance, and the ability to integrate with both uncrewed combat aircraft and the Navy's carrier-based air defense systems.
The U.S. Navy did not respond to a request for comment. The new Secretary of the Navy, John Phelan, was confirmed on Monday.

The competition has been intense, with Boeing Co (BA.N), opens new tab, Lockheed Martin (LMT.N), opens new tab, and Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N), opens new tab submitting detailed proposals and prototypes for evaluation.
Boeing, hit hard by a recent labor strike, engineering layoffs, problems with its Starliner capsule and the troubled KC-46 tanker program, got a recent shot in the arm when it won the Air Force's F-47 contract. It also produces the MQ-25 carrier-based uncrewed refueling aircraft.
Taking on two fighter jet programs may offer economies of scale if the company can make larger purchases of raw materials and share technology between the aircraft.
Northrop Grumman has a strong track record of producing innovative aircraft, including the B-2 and B-21 stealth bombers.
Lockheed Martin was initially seen as a strong contender, but the company struggled to meet the Navy's specific requirements, including the need for a more advanced radar system and improved carrier landing capabilities. Reuters reported on March 4 that Lockheed had been eliminated from the competition, but the Navy has not made a formal announcement.
The first production jets are expected to enter service in the 2030s, while F/A-18s are expected to remain in service into the 2040s.

Reporting by Mike Stone in Washington. Editing by Gerry Doyle
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom