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

It appears that Mr.Drummond finally reached something like

The Debrief: DARPA Signals Interest In Reusable Hypersonic Prototype | Aviation Week Network

A new kind of hypersonic vehicle could infiltrate an enemy’s most defended area, strike a target and then return to base to fight another day.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

DARPA Eyes Hypersonic Striker As Air Force Studies Long-Term Options | Aviation Week Network

A reusable hypersonic Next-Generation Responsive Strike prototype could be commissioned by the end of the decade.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
back from spring and marked DARPA hypersonic striker with 6G label and current USAF program sticker.
 
dark sidius said:

DOD Acquisitions Boss: NGAD, F/A-XX Will Continue | Aviation Week Network

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition Bill LaPlante says the U.S. Air Force and Navy need to be sure they are buying the right thing before pulling the trigger.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Good news
Click to expand...
From what the article says, the future sixth generation fighter will continue but in a different way.
I wonder if we will ever see what Boeing and Lockheed presented for the NGAD program. I think it would leave us aviation fans with our mouths open. Taking into account that the new variable cycle engine was going to be even larger than the current engines, I imagine both proposals as two enormous beasts.
What I wouldn't give to see just a sketch...
 
sublight_ said:
I think the speed that the Pacific is traversed may be the really expensive option that is tripping this whole thing up. Whatever the stealth option they use, be it the F35 generation, or something newer, the RCS is going to change significantly as the temperature from high speed runs get the airframe really toasty. The F35 already had a problem with hot fuel. Are they going to have to cryo cool the NGAD fuel to soak up some of that heat?
Click to expand...
When you are flying fast, the fuel burn is usually sufficient to cool both the engine oil and the airframe systems. The challenge is low speed and ground operations postflight when burn flow is low, and airflow thru coolers is low, and the low fuel state in the tanks can result in a runaway heat problem, resulting the need to shutdown prematurely. F-22 went thru several interations of software and hardware for its Thermal Management Mode to keep temperatures under control.
 
dark sidius said:
Speed is the response for the long distance, may be more than stealth.
Click to expand...
only 1 facet of the problem. it's also about range, but more specifically, combat range and ferry range (ferry range is important because US does not have stealthy tankers). and speed and range don't like each other very much because of physics.

Higher wing sweep allows for greater speed but less fuel efficient loitering time. Higher speed engines are not fuel efficient.

Things like adaptive cycle engine and morphing wings are meant to compensate (keyword) but not negate entirely the inherent physics of it all.

Btw, from artworks I've seen, far fetched with 0 evidence here (but that's pretty much summing up the thread at this point in time), but I think Northrop pitched morphing wings based on their manned and unmanned artworks. Pretty much same platform except wing sweep angle.
 

Attachments

  • NG-6th-Gen-fighter.jpg
    NG-6th-Gen-fighter.jpg
    328.7 KB · Views: 35
  • fighter02.jpg
    fighter02.jpg
    79.4 KB · Views: 35
flateric said:
NGB -> LRS-B dejavu
Click to expand...

NGB was cancelled in 2009.
NGB was replaced by the less ambitious LRS-B in 2010.
LRS-B contract was awarded to NG in 2015.
First B-21 pictures (*) photos were revealed in 2023 (**) Dec. 2022.

X-planes for what was to become NGAD were ordered in 2015.
At least one demonstrator supposedly flew in 2020.
NGAD(-manned) contract-award was going to happen in 2024.
It is 2024, and NGAD(-manned) is under review to check 'if it still fits the needs/requirements and the available budget'...
Maybe this thread - which was started in 2008 - will contain the first pictures (*) photos of a pre-production 'LRS-F' (USAF Long Range Stealth-Fighter, USN Long Range Strike-Fighter) somewhere between 2035 and 2040... :rolleyes:


Edit:
(*) I meant 'photos'. 'Pictures' can also mean drawings, concept-art, etc.
(**) First B-21 photos are from Dec. 2022.
 
Last edited:
quellish said:
Well that’s how you get those low low unit costs!
When they calculate the cost of a B-21 they do not include the R&D costs from the NGB program. If they did it would appear to be much more expensive.
Click to expand...
Ha. Sorta like a realtor pulling a stale listing, then listing it again to restart the clock.

If Kendall gold-plated the NGAD from the get-go, he should have known better than trying to sneak it by OSD. Sakes alive, he had LaPlante's job during NGB-->LRS-B.

If Kendall was caught by surprise by OSD's cost estimate, that tells me that Air Force estimators couldn't or wouldn't give him an honest estimate (shades of Lehman pre-A-12).

If this is all about finding a DAF bill-payer for the ICBM and 'unk' classified program, then LaPlante ought not to paint an "all is well" public picture for near-term USAF PCA or USN F/A-XX. Getting NGAD/PCA back to Milestone B readiness will take years if there's austerity in the POM-26 profile.
 
4decaa said:
I hope he meant to say it the other way around :eek:
Click to expand...
History would says stealth is the new speed but if you can develop a hypersonic bomber that release glide vehicles. It can be challenging to defend against. Though it offers some unique capabilities I fail to see how it can be more versatile and useful than an in theater ultra stealth bomber that can loiter and respond promptly to pop up and changing threats, extended IRS, and command center for other assets/drones.
 
Dreamfighter said:
NGB was cancelled in 2009.
NGB was replaced by the less ambitious LRS-B in 2010.
LRS-B contract was awarded to NG in 2015.
First B-21 pictures were revealed in 2023.

X-planes for what was to become NGAD were ordered in 2015.
At least one demonstrator supposedly flew in 2020.
NGAD(-manned) contract-award was going to happen in 2024.
It is 2024, and NGAD(-manned) is under review to check 'if it still fits the needs/requirements and the available budget'...
Maybe this thread - which was started in 2008 - will contain the first pictures of a pre-production 'LRS-F' (USAF Long Range Stealth-Fighter, USN Long Range Strike-Fighter) somewhere between 2035 and 2040..
Click to expand...

donnage99 said:
History would says stealth is the new speed but if you can develop a hypersonic bomber that release glide vehicles. It can be challenging to defend against. Though it offers some unique capabilities I fail to see how it can be more versatile and useful than an in theater ultra stealth bomber that can loiter and respond promptly to pop up and changing threats, extended IRS, and command center for other assets/drones.
Click to expand...
The speed reduce the distance , and there is not a lot of missile able to catch a plane flying mach 5 at 80000 ft.
 
donnage99 said:
History would says stealth is the new speed but if you can develop a hypersonic bomber that release glide vehicles. It can be challenging to defend against. Though it offers some unique capabilities I fail to see how it can be more versatile and useful than an in theater ultra stealth bomber that can loiter and respond promptly to pop up and changing threats, extended IRS, and command center for other assets/drones.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree... it's just that the current focus of say, the USAF, is to procure stealthy aircraft for strike and A2/AD missions. It's probably going to take a bit until something like the bomber concept you mentioned would be feasibly developed (and needed). Eventually, stealth may be a non-factor, and other ways to minimize the window that an adversary has to defend, such as utilizing extremely fast strike capabilities will be preferred.
 
Last edited:
Training_Dummy said:
does this all point to a bigger F-15EX buy or will NGAD “subsystems” and tech filter into subsequent CCA increments?
Click to expand...

Personally I think it points to:
1) Someone should have figured out a lot sooner the Sentinel ICBM program/missile would need much new infrastructure and/or a deep renovation of the old Minuteman III infrastructure, and what (high) costs that might entail.
2) Maybe they shouldn´t have given Kendall a ride in the backseat of an F-16 VISTA some weeks ago (or is it a few months already?) for an air-combat simulation of A.I. versus a human pilot, reportedly he got really impressed how the A.I. beat or at least equaled the human in most air-combat scenarios.
 
dark sidius said:
The speed reduce the distance , and there is not a lot of missile able to catch a plane flying mach 5 at 80000 ft.
Click to expand...
Speed does not solve the problem of distance. Many times quite the opposite. Please refer to my response to your comment earlier on this page. You might have missed.

Also if you're lobbing hypersonic glide vehicles at extremely high altitude, you're at significant standoff distance from threat envelope. Which missile that can intercept such aircraft?
 
Dreamfighter said:
Personally I think it points to:
1) Someone should have figured out a lot sooner the Sentinel ICBM program/missile would need much new infrastructure and/or a deep renovation of the old Minuteman III infrastructure, and what (high) costs that might entail.
2) Maybe they shouldn´t have given Kendall a ride in the backseat of an F-16 VISTA some weeks ago (or is it a few months already?) for an air-combat simulation of A.I. versus a human pilot, reportedly he got really impressed how the A.I. beat or at least equaled the human in most air-combat scenarios.
Click to expand...
unmanned vehicles have won 100% of air-to-air combat since vietnam war, because missiles are unmanned

but in every single one of those situations - a human made the shoot/no-shoot decision, and that's the hard part
 
zevets said:
unmanned vehicles have won 100% of air-to-air combat since vietnam war, because missiles are unmanned

but in every single one of those situations - a human made the shoot/no-shoot decision, and that's the hard part
Click to expand...
Which is why CCAs are in an interesting place, because there's going to be a human pilot pretty close that told the drones shooting was permitted.

I don't think we're anywhere near ready for completely autonomous fighters as the entire NGAD program.
 
yep, considering geopolitical fallout of a nuanced situation. What if it's a regular intercept and escort mission that rapidly escalates. The drone can be programmed to respond to such threat based on conventional rules of engagement and doctrines, but will it be able to decipher the political consequences of shooting down a Chinese aircraft vs Vietnamese aircraft? Can it take into account that for example, it's 1 month before election in Vietnam and the pro Chinese wing is looking for a scandal to topple the US friendly side vs just any regular day in Vietnam?

Also, having a drone intercepting a manned aircraft possibly provides less deterrence against a escalating situation. From the adversary's point of view, the political consequence of shooting down a drone and retaliation from US is alot less than killing one of US' combat pilots.

Loyal wingman is happy middle. A human must be in the loop not just for technological concerns but political concerns as well.
 
Dreamfighter said:
2) Maybe they shouldn´t have given Kendall a ride in the backseat of an F-16 VISTA some weeks ago (or is it a few months already?) for an air-combat simulation of A.I. versus a human pilot, reportedly he got really impressed how the A.I. beat or at least equaled the human in most air-combat scenarios.
Click to expand...
You've hit the nail on the head.
Kendall enjoyed his VISTA ride because he had a revelation during a 3g turn -- I know, an unmanned NGAD/PCA will be cheaper and as effective! Oh boy, a free lunch!
Being the Prince of DAF, the Duke of Combat Aircraft, doesn't mean he's a genius.
I fear this unmanned PCA stuff is Frank's hail mary pass.
 
joewee said:
f Kendall gold-plated the NGAD from the get-go, he should have known better than trying to sneak it by OSD. Sakes alive, he had LaPlante's job during NGB-->LRS-B.

If Kendall was caught by surprise by OSD's cost estimate, that tells me that Air Force estimators couldn't or wouldn't give him an honest estimate (shades of Lehman pre-A-12).

If this is all about finding a DAF bill-payer for the ICBM and 'unk' classified program, then LaPlante ought not to paint an "all is well" public picture for near-term USAF PCA or USN F/A-XX. Getting NGAD/PCA back to Milestone B readiness will take years if there's austerity in the POM-26 profile.
Click to expand...
Kendall spent years promoting how the Aerospace Innovation Initiative was his baby and the effort to design and fly multiple demonstrators and run engine programs. Now he's saying that the requirements need to change in a way calling into question what they've spent the last 6-8 years working towards. With NGAD potentially in a mess, NGAP is probably uncertain at this point (from a propulsion requirements stand point) and F-35 adaptive engine was cancelled because industry was getting NGAP (or so the argument went) so those efforts were being channelized there (we had NGAP contracts embedded in AETP etc). So this throws everyone off and I think Congress is going to want public discussion around this. I don't think they can continue to selectively leak through SecAF's chosen connections in the media (Vago Muradian etc) and avoid congressional scrutiny.
 
bring_it_on said:
Kendall spent years promoting how the Aerospace Innovation Initiative was his baby and the effort to design and fly multiple demonstrators and run engine programs. Now he's saying that the requirements need to change in a way calling into question what they've spent the last 6-8 years working towards. With NGAD potentially in a mess, NGAP is probably uncertain at this point (from a propulsion requirements stand point) and F-35 adaptive engine was cancelled because industry was getting NGAP (or so the argument went) so those efforts were being channelized there (we had NGAP contracts embedded in AETP etc). So this throws everyone off and I think Congress is going to want public discussion around this. I don't think they can continue to selectively leak through SecAF's chosen connections in the media (Vago Muradian etc) and avoid congressional scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Or how to go from a robust 3-stream engine development program to chaos in three easy steps.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom