USAF/US NAVY 6G Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS news

[F-2]

Remember NGAD is a family of systems concept, the primary manned fighter may go to one entity but there's plenty of room for competition for the loyal wingmen. An arms race with drone warfare may see the manned combat platform be phased out before it even becomes mass produced if things get more competitive in the future.

On a side note, are they still planning to go with a digital century series or was that Roper dreamware?

I think they still need a manned fighter if nothing else to designate targets and run the mission.

 

[Josh_TN]

Remember NGAD is a family of systems concept, the primary manned fighter may go to one entity but there's plenty of room for competition for the loyal wingmen. An arms race with drone warfare may see the manned combat platform be phased out before it even becomes mass produced if things get more competitive in the future.

On a side note, are they still planning to go with a digital century series or was that Roper dreamware?

I think they still need a manned fighter if nothing else to designate targets and run the mission.

Most likely, but it isn’t clear to me that will be the sole user of the CCAs. The 1000 number that got thrown out specifically mentioned 600 for 300 F-35s. IMO the 600lb gorilla in the room is why you wouldn’t pair them with B-21s as a fighter escort.

 

[F-2]

I don’t know, but I would guess supersonic performance is desirable. Assuming B-21 is subsonic. I recall a paper with B-21 as NGAD.

 

[Josh_TN]

I don’t know, but I would guess supersonic performance is desirable. Assuming B-21 is subsonic. I recall a paper with B-21 as NGAD.

The NGB was basically going to be all offensive roles in one. Subsequently the strike role was broken out to the B-21 as purely subsonic strike asset (possibly with some A2A self defense capability). But there's no reason it can't operate a CCA if an F-35 can. The B-21 is purely subsonic, but most any fighter is as well for most of its combat mission outside the run up to an A2A weapons release. There would be no reason a subsonic bomber couldn't control a supersonic UAV, assuming the CCA is truly supersonic itself.

 

[In_A_Dream]

I think they still need a manned fighter if nothing else to designate targets and run the mission.

Command and control can still be done remotely in a safe location, much like what happens today. The pilot will still have all the fidelity of the unmanned sensors to keep him situationally aware and technology has come far enough to maintain a stable link between all players. At some point, much to the dismay of the fighter mafia, the drone arms race is going to take off in stride and unmanned aircraft are going to completely take over A2A and A2G roles.

The cost savings coupled with the power of AI and modern sensors, you won't need human pilots in the air for combat roles. Even if you still have a human in the chain somewhere.

Thankfully, hostilities between the US and China aren't there yet.

 

[X-39]

For a memo...

Still.. this BLOWS MY MIND OFF. What does that even mean and how exactly does an Air Force maintain "temporary air superiority"? If you can't afford to commit the necessary resources to keep your enemy under strain, how do you expect to succeed on the cheap?

 

[Josh_TN]

For a memo...
View attachment 699728
Still.. this BLOWS MY MIND OFF. What does that even mean and how exactly does an Air Force maintain "temporary air superiority"? If you can't afford to commit the necessary resources to keep your enemy under strain, how do you expect to succeed on the cheap?

I think it is a fancy way of saying you escort your strike missions, which is hardly revolutionary.

 

[kaiserd]

For a memo...
View attachment 699728
Still.. this BLOWS MY MIND OFF. What does that even mean and how exactly does an Air Force maintain "temporary air superiority"? If you can't afford to commit the necessary resources to keep your enemy under strain, how do you expect to succeed on the cheap?

I think it is a fancy way of saying you escort your strike missions, which is hardly revolutionary.

Effectively does it not mean that the US is not committing to have to maintain the capacity to maintain 24 hour a day complete air dominance deep inside potential adversaries airspace (say, over Beijing and/ or Moscow), but instead aims to be able to generate temporary air superiority in these types of the most demanding potential adversary airspace?

Even the latter could hardly be reasonably described as going for a “cheap” option.

 

[Josh_TN]

Effectively does it not mean that the US is not committing to have to maintain the capacity to maintain 24 hour a day complete air dominance deep inside potential adversaries airspace (say, over Beijing and/ or Moscow), but instead aims to be able to generate temporary air superiority in these types of the most demanding potential adversary airspace?

Even the latter could hardly be reasonably described as going for a “cheap” option.

Well they aren't explicitly saying how often or where they need to achieve temporary air superiority, just that it is a capability they will need/want. There are plenty of targets well short of Beijing and 24/7 probably isn't a realistic expectation; they seem to want to create moments of freedom inside defended Chinese airspace.

Peer warfare ain't cheap.

 

[jsport]

Air Force Fleshing Out Key Component Of NGAD Program

Air Force Fleshing Out Key Component Of NGAD Program

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

“It doesn't mean though that this is an attritable type of platform, and that's been a common misconception,” he continued. “We're going to reuse these air vehicles, and the decision for risk and the risk that we will take with these types of capabilities will be at the mission command or at the combined forces air component commander level.”

Thank you for posting GTX.
This CCA roles & mission is going to be a complex, never resolved, problem shared w/OMFV and its RSV.

UCAVs went out of favor but the same old risk/cost issues will return as fast as heat.

Deciding exact roles & missions as tech changes or promises to change will be like writing a new constitution for South American country. We have seen how that has gone.

PS: that is why a cannon fighter able to fire numerous UAV/missile/round which each can fullfill a different role depending the setting on the rd still makes sense for a max standoff craft.

Army researchers add power, range to artillery

Picatinny Arsenal engineers are improving artillery by extending its range, power and versatility by using an electrically-responsive method to control energetic materials such as propellants.

www.army.mil

being able to toggle energetics is what enables Missile/UAV/rounds to be developed as the future of precision munitions.

 

[raptor82]

It’s time.

Air Force solicits source selection proposals for NGAD Platform

The Department of the Air Force released a classified solicitation to industry for an engineering and manufacturing development contract for the Next Generation Air Dominance Platform with the intent

www.af.mil

Air Force solicits source selection proposals for NGAD Platform​

The Department of the Air Force released a classified solicitation to industry for an engineering and manufacturing development contract for the Next Generation Air Dominance Platform with the intent to award a contract in 2024.

 

[Moose]

Things are going to get interesting

 

[FighterJock]

That is for sure Moose. It has been a long time coming. There are only three aerospace companies left in the US and all that I can say is that one of them is going to be left disappointed at being down-selected.

 

[jsport]

Air Force Fleshing Out Key Component Of NGAD Program

Air Force Fleshing Out Key Component Of NGAD Program

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

“It doesn't mean though that this is an attritable type of platform, and that's been a common misconception,” he continued. “We're going to reuse these air vehicles, and the decision for risk and the risk that we will take with these types of capabilities will be at the mission command or at the combined forces air component commander level.”

This CCA roles & mission is going to be a complex, never resolved, problem shared w/OMFV and its RSV.

UCAVs went out of favor but the same old risk/cost issues will return as fast as heat.

Deciding exact roles & missions as tech changes or promises to change will be like writing a new constitution for South American country.

USAF Sees '100 Roles' for Its Robot Wingmen—and Firms Are Lining Up to Make Them

Air Force procurement chief offers the most detailed description yet of the collaborative combat aircraft program.

www.defenseone.com

 

[pedrospe]

That is for sure Moose. It has been a long time coming. There are only three aerospace companies left in the US and all that I can say is that one of them is going to be left disappointed at being down-selected.

If Lockheed martin is selected to produce the F-X variant of the NGAD for the Air Force and Boeing the FA-XX for the Navy (since they have more experience on naval fighters), everybody wins, since Northrop already builds the B-21 and probably will also produce the Air Force and Navy next generation UCAV's.

 

[FighterJock]

So it won't just be one company that wins like what happened in the ATF and JSF competitions. That will stop all the potential legal battles that happens when the US military down-selects.

 

[Josh_TN]

I wouldn’t assume an even divide of projects prevents lawsuits.

 

[RavenOne]

That is for sure Moose. It has been a long time coming. There are only three aerospace companies left in the US and all that I can say is that one of them is going to be left disappointed at being down-selected.

If Lockheed martin is selected to produce the F-X variant of the NGAD for the Air Force and Boeing the FA-XX for the Navy (since they have more experience on naval fighters), everybody wins, since Northrop already builds the B-21 and probably will also produce the Air Force and Navy next generation UCAV's.

so where does that leave N-G especially with whats been shown subtly or teased in the video. Unless N-G have lost out to the competition and deciding to reveal slowly.

cheers

 

[Dreamfighter]

so where does that leave N-G especially with whats been shown subtly or teased in the video. Unless N-G have lost out to the competition and deciding to reveal slowly.

I suspect as long as the EMD-contract is not awarded sometime next year, and maybe also afterwards, those who are still candidates for the EMD-contract won´t reveal much at all (with the exception of additional concept-art) due to the (more) classified nature of the program (when compared to the ATF-program and the YF-22 & YF-23 prototypes). To me, it looks like NG is in those videos - and contrary to what LM and Boeing have done so far - going a small step further then just showing concept-art, though without unveiling a (former) demonstator/prototype 'in the flesh'. Unless in the next weeks or months LM and/or Boeing also start revealing more about the (flying) NGAD-demonstators/prototypes they´re busy with as basis for EMD-phase proposals, my guess would be NG has been eliminated as a candidate for EMD and NG therefore decided (for commercial/publicity reasons) to slowly/partially reveil what it worked on for NGAD-manned and what it´s NGAD-demonstrator looks like.
Or, what NG is showing in the videos maybe has nothing to do with the 'NGAD-platform' at all, perhaps it is/was e.g. some kind of manned testbed for the B-21´s 'unmanned escort/companion', an idea or a plan which has been moved off the table not so long ago, IIRC.

 

[X-39]

Are they still targeting an EMD representative model with ACE engines flying by 2025 as envisioned by Roper? Or was that plan also scrapped along with the Digital Century Series?

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/usaf-us-navy-6g-fighter-programs-f-a-xx-f-x-ngad-pca-asfs-news.3536/post-278365

Here's The Air Force's Questionably Ambitious Plan To Develop New Fighters In Five Years

The service says it can outpace potential enemies by producing multiple short runs of fighters in tiny periods of time.

www.thedrive.com

Budget Shows Flightworthy Sixth-Generation Fighter Engines Ready By 2025 | Aviation Week Network

The Pentagon identified two programs to support NGAD in 2014, then went silent; one has reemerged in budget documents this year.

aviationweek.com

 

[Dreamfighter]

In Secret Solicitation, Air Force Starts Bidding for NGAD to Replace F-22

The Air Force has solicited industry for an engineering and manufacturing development contract for NGAD, planned for award in 2024.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[GTX]

`Interesting given all those people who kept claiming the platform was already flying. Fools!!

 

[Moose]

Are they still targeting an EMD representative model with ACE engines flying by 2025 as envisioned by Roper? Or was that plan also scrapped along with the Digital Century Series?

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/usaf-us-navy-6g-fighter-programs-f-a-xx-f-x-ngad-pca-asfs-news.3536/post-278365

Here's The Air Force's Questionably Ambitious Plan To Develop New Fighters In Five Years

The service says it can outpace potential enemies by producing multiple short runs of fighters in tiny periods of time.

www.thedrive.com

Budget Shows Flightworthy Sixth-Generation Fighter Engines Ready By 2025 | Aviation Week Network

The Pentagon identified two programs to support NGAD in 2014, then went silent; one has reemerged in budget documents this year.

aviationweek.com

The "digital century series" is sorta still alive, but it will be the Drones not the full fighters which are rapidly iterated on.

 

[Dreamfighter]

`Interesting given all those people who kept claiming the platform was already flying. Fools!!

What do you mean here with 'the flying platform'; an 'X-NGAD', an 'YF-NGAD', an 'EMD F-NGAD' or 'a production F-NGAD'?

 

[Dreamfighter]

Are they still targeting an EMD representative model with ACE engines flying by 2025 as envisioned by Roper? Or was that plan also scrapped along with the Digital Century Series?

Kendall Dispenses With Roper’s Quick NGAD Rhythm; System is Too Complex | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The crewed Next Generation Air Dominance airplane won’t follow timetables calling for versions to be fielded every five years or so.

www.airandspaceforces.com

Airplane-Makers Win Contracts as Part of Next-Gen Engine Prototyping Phase | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Air Force picked five companies to work on the prototyping phase of Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion, which will make engines for NGAD.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[In_A_Dream]

I wonder how cutting edge the manned bird will be, it sounds like they are taking it very seriously given the threat it's going to be designed for.

 

[FighterJock]

Very cutting edge I would think, so much so I fear that the USAF may stop it‘s export like what they did to the F-22.

 

[Forest Green]

NGAD Deadline: Air Force's next-generation fighter will be selected in 2024 - Breaking Defense

Little is known about the secretive sixth-generation Next Generation Air Dominance fighter, other than it will be extremely expensive.

breakingdefense.com

 

[dark sidius]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEqblCpg3-I

 

[bobbymike]

Another link

Air Force plans to award sixth-gen fighter contract in 2024

The Air Force has solicited proposals for the Next-Generation Air Dominance program and plans to award a contract in 2024, the service announced Thursday.

defensescoop.com

 

[FighterJock]

I for one personally cannot wait to see the contract awarded next year.

 

[GTX]

`Interesting given all those people who kept claiming the platform was already flying. Fools!!

What do you mean here with 'the flying platform'; an 'X-NGAD', an 'YF-NGAD', an 'EMD F-NGAD' or 'a production F-NGAD'?

Any.

 

[Dreamfighter]

`Interesting given all those people who kept claiming the platform was already flying. Fools!!

What do you mean here with 'the flying platform'; an 'X-NGAD', an 'YF-NGAD', an 'EMD F-NGAD' or 'a production F-NGAD'?

Any.

When the AF is planning to award an EMD-contract for NGAD next year, you don´t believe at all an 'X-NGAD' has already flown and/or an 'YF-NGAD' could be flying 'right now'? Why?

 

[GTX]

When the AF is planning to award an EMD-contract for NGAD next year, you don´t believe at all an 'X-NGAD' has already flown and/or an 'YF-NGAD' could be flying 'right now'? Why?

Read the article:

This solicitation release formally begins the source selection process providing industry with the requirements the DAF expects for NGAD, as the future replacement of the F-22 Raptor.

I have been in this industry long enough to know that you don't build platforms and then go out and ask people to do so afterwards. anyone who thinks there is already NGAD platforms flying, even prototypes is a fool who has no idea of how things work in reality.

 

[In_A_Dream]

I have been in this industry long enough to know that you don't build platforms and then go out and ask people to do so afterwards. anyone who thinks there is already NGAD platforms flying, even prototypes is a fool who has no idea of how things work in reality.

That's kind of brash, it's been out in the open that at least one NGAD demonstrator has been flying.

Who's to say the requirements you cite will be much different than the demonstrator(s)?

“We’ve already built and flown a full-scale flight demonstrator in the real world, and we broke records in doing it,” Will Roper told Defense News in an exclusive interview ahead of the Air Force Association’s Air, Space and Cyber Conference. “We are ready to go and build the next-generation aircraft in a way that has never happened before.”

Roper declined to comment on how many prototype aircraft have been flown or which defense contractors manufactured them. He wouldn’t say when or where the first flight occurred. And he refused to divulge any aspect of the aircraft’s design — its mission, whether it was uncrewed or optionally crewed, whether it could fly at hypersonic speeds or if it has stealth characteristics.

The US Air Force has built and flown a mysterious full-scale prototype of its future fighter jet

Does this give the Next Generation Air Dominance program more momentum, or does it open it up to more scrutiny?

www.defensenews.com

 

[GTX]

Rubbish. If you believe there is a NGAD flying wait one as I get the paperwork for a bunch of bridges to sell you.

 

[In_A_Dream]

Rubbish. If you believe there is a NGAD flying wait one as I get the paperwork for a bunch of bridges to sell you.

Do you have something that refutes the article's comments?

 

[MihoshiK]

It's more likely that they've flown a systems demonstrator than an actual NGAD prototype.

 

[Dreamfighter]

When the AF is planning to award an EMD-contract for NGAD next year, you don´t believe at all an 'X-NGAD' has already flown and/or an 'YF-NGAD' could be flying 'right now'? Why?

Read the article:

This solicitation release formally begins the source selection process providing industry with the requirements the DAF expects for NGAD, as the future replacement of the F-22 Raptor.

I have been in this industry long enough to know that you don't build platforms and then go out and ask people to do so afterwards. anyone who thinks there is already NGAD platforms flying, even prototypes is a fool who has no idea of how things work in reality.

I´ve read the article more then once, of course with inclusion of the sentence you highlighted.
I´ve also read this sentence: "The Department of the Air Force released a classified solicitation to industry for an engineering and manufacturing development contract for the Next Generation Air Dominance Platform with the intent to award a contract in 2024."
It´s an AF press-release without any mentioning of any date/time-period when exactly this classified solicitation was released to the industry, it just states industry has received such a classified solicitation, what the solicitation entitles, and that the EMD-contract will be awarded (to the winner) in 2024. Imho, but I could be wrong of course, the industry could have received such a classified solicitation yesterday, last week, a month ago, or a year ago.
What I think/believe, and of course I could be wrong again, is that this classified solicitation we now got to know about, has provided industry with the 'refined' or 'up-to-date' requirements and KPPs (Key Performance Parameters) which their EMD-proposals/prototypes should be able to achieve to enable an EMD-contract award next year.

I know YF-23 and YF-22 first flew only about a year (roughly) before the ATF´s EMD-contract was awarded in 1991.
I also know X-32 and X-35 first flew only about a year (roughly) before the JSF´s SDD (System Development and Demonstration) contract was awarded in 2001. But I don´t think timelines and milestones for the NGAD-program should necessarily be the same as those of the ATF- and/or JSF-programs. Especially if they don´t want to repeat the mistakes from the JSF-program/development.

When Will Roper said in Sept. 2020 a 'full-scale demonstrator' had already flown and had broken several records (whatever those records were about), I believe what he said. Having a demonstator and testing it, doesn´t mean such demonstrator has to test all requirements people have in mind (or had in mind in 2020, or earlier) for the NGAD-platform. A company having a demonstator also doesn´t prevent the AF from changing NGAD-requirements over time and it also doesn´t mean any additional requirements could not have been added later on. Remember Will Roper´s 'digital century series'-approach is not valid anymore for the 'platform'-part of the NGAD-program, so several requirements for the manned platform/fighter could have changed since 2020.

Also, Frank Kendall said last year NGAD had 'reached EMD' (or something very similar). A few days or weeks later, he retracted those words and said 'we still have competition'. Maybe he spoke a year too early, maybe not, we don´t know. I wouldn´t exclude something came up and they decided to postpone entering the EMD-competition for a while longer. I also recall some people at the time were asking to first provide 'more evidence' about NGAD-technologies being 'mature enough', before any EMD-decision would go ahead.

So, for a 'generational-leap' NGAD-platform program, I do believe some kind of demonstator will already have flown by now.
Whether that demonstrator would be just an X-plane or maybe something in between an X-plane and a true YF-prototype, I´ll leave that in the middle.
If I´m not mistaking, the AF wants to award an EMD-contract next year for a very, very expensive air-dominance 'platform' that comes with a lot of whistles & bells, and as I have read/understood during the past months, one that will already incorporate as much as possible all of the desired technologies & subsystems at the time the EMD-contract decision has to be made, to avoid (another) prolonged and more complicated development later on. I would assume the AF is taking a similar path with the NGAD-platform as with the B-21; to be able to move from developmental aircraft to production-aircraft as swiftly as possible.
But maybe my thoughts are wrong and indeed foolish, and there isn´t any real-world NGAD demonstrator at all. Maybe the 'demonstrator' Roper talked about is just a mirage and we have to be satisfied with the demonstations performed by a 'mirror-plated' F-22...
Maybe there won´t even be NGAD-prototypes before the EMD-contract gets awarded next year, maybe everything will now be digitally engineered, assembled and tested in a virtual environment and they´ll award a contract to the company which comes up with the best virtual proposal/prototype, without any flight-testing in the real world. (All my fingers crossed and glued together for if that would be the case.)

 

[GTX]

It's more likely that they've flown a systems demonstrator than an actual NGAD prototype.

Exactly. for instance one could classify the Lockheed Martin CATBird as a "full-scale flight demonstrator" and yet if you think that is representative of what the F-35 is other than the systems/software than you are going to be seriously disappointed. The same goes for the reporting here I believe. People are wanting to see things that simply aren't there.

By the way, I can also point out to the following from the same individual:

Roper revealed to Defense News his thinking for how the program might work:

• Put at least two manufacturers on contract to design a fighter jet. These could include the existing companies capable of building combat aircraft — Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman — as well as new entrants that could bring a unique technology to the table.
• Have each company create a hyper-realistic “digital twin” of its fighter design using advanced 3D modeling. Use those models to run myriad simulations of how production and sustainment could occur, hypothetically optimizing both and reducing cost and labor hours.
• Award a contract to a single fighter manufacturer for an initial batch of aircraft. Roper said that industry could build about a squadron’s worth of airplanes per year, or about 24 aircraft. Include options in the contract for additional batches of aircraft. Air Combat Command leadership has told Roper that 72 aircraft — about the number of aircraft in a typical Air Force wing — would be a viable amount for normal operations.
• While that vendor begins production, restart the competition, putting other companies on contract to begin designing the next aircraft.