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

[Training_Dummy]

F-15EX isn't a magic bullet, it is a marginal improvement over the F-15E fleet and it is pretty clear the USAF see it as that despite the marketing bluster from hacks like Axe. HACM is F-15E capable and will eventually make its way to the F-35 which is more than capable of lugging to HACMs externally should a cruise missile carrier role be required. AIM-174 I expect we won't see on the F-15EX or other USAF platforms, I can see it being a USN weapon only especially as the USAF seems all in on AIM-260 which likely matches better to the force structure and 5th gen platform intent.

The question is what role would an F-15EX play in a contested Taiwan straight conflict that is more important than the F-22? Sure it can launch long range AAMs and ASMs forward but who is going to target those and eventually you run out of targets and expensive weapons those F-15EXs can launch. SM-6 is not cheap nor will HACM be either and they likely will never have the stocks available comparted to other weapons. After you have expended those the F-15EX becomes a stooging 4.5 gen platform that cannot survive the dense IADS being developed and deployed by China without significant support likely better applied elsewhere.


NGAD isn't dead, it has been paused to ensure the direction and set of requirements matches what the USAF thinks it needs going forward. That may result in a change of direction but that change isn't no NGAD, just a different form. The tech developed for NGAD will continue into whatever new form it takes.


?? One of the two Primes expected to be in the running for the manned NGAD is LM which built both USAF 5th gen fighters. How is that not continuity?

no one said EX is a magic bullet. far from it. the whole premise of my post is to look at the realistic options that get us say 100 airframes in the next five years. because the only option is to buy F-15EX, magically restart F/A-18E/F line (for what purpose I have no clue), Bigfoot into the Viper production line, or do the same with F-35. We cannot buy more F-22. Absent a new fighter, these are the options.

F-35EX as a platform allows you to bring stand off weapons to the theaters with a threat that is completely independent to Raider or whatever B platform you're thinking of. My point was that having options for platforms that can launch HACM type weapon is valuable. you can focus on the yeah buts, but that's the reality. more platforms with different basing requirements to launch stand off weapons is a good thing. The other point I would make is that for inherently non-stealthy high value arial targets like tankers and AWACS, do you really want to dedicate Raptors or -35 to escort and defend? or do you use a couple of -15EX instead. A single EX can carry 12 AMRAAMs, which is 2x what a Raptor carries and 3x what a F-35 carries. show me one post where someone here is proposing that the use case for a -15EX buy is to have that type merge with a J-20 over the Taiwan straights as it dodge HQ-9 barrages.

as for surviving the dense Chinese IADS it doesn't have to, nor does it fit with how the US would deal with a IADS. As for how a F-15EX would contribute in a TS blockade or conflict I just told you - long range weapons. It would be a compliment to, not replacement for, heavier bomber capacity.

I didn't say 174. I said 174 class VLRAAM. Keep in mind the J in JATM comes from Joint. As in it's a JOINT USAF and USN missile. USN is all in on 260 and yet here we are with AIM-174... The reason is simple (range), since JATM is a prisoner to the tyranny of the -35/-22 weapons bay (which in turn is a slave to the AMRAAM OML) and absent any huge leaps in propellant chemistry or lightweight, medium duration power sources for seeker engagement post propellent exhaustion, JATM can only evolutionarily improve the range (seeker might be a different question altogether if GAN TRM can be made cheaply enough) over AMRAAM.

F-15E is a 20 year old airframe with city miles bc of GWOT. Guess what? it will have to be replaced, along with the C models aging out.

Im trying to have a sincere conversation but your comments are coming off as unconstructively pedantic about NGAD being a family of systems. Everyone here understands that. We are discussing the manned component of NGAD that was becoming pretty well characterized as a long-range, high MTOW, high-fuel fraction /pacific theater range and a $300mm price tag. There have been very clear, very obvious signs that this aircraft was intended to integrate many cutting edge technologies. What am I hearing is that there is a real conversation as to what extent any of those technology leaps actually improve the odds for air superiority.

There is a real conversation about the value for money at $300mm / airframe, and beneath that conversation is another one about how that $300mm/airframe is going to be inevitably too low (as has been the case with literally almost every fighter and aircraft airframe the US government has purchased in the last 45 years and then there is another conversation about when USAF would actually be able to field a reasonable number of NGADs, which is always longer than we think, and results in fewer airframes than hope.

The other reason the way this played out is frustrating is because a re-scoped, less-complicated, more affordable NGAD doesn't come quicker. On the contrary, in all likelihood.

As for the prime thing, I was referring to the fact that Boeing literally cannot design anything at the moment (T-7 canopy/seat issue, T-7 wing issue, B737 MAX, B777x, Starliner) and all signs point to relations between USAF and LM being pretty tense at the moment, especially around the software and supporting architecture side. NG is out of NGAD as we know, so its pick your poison.

 

[Training_Dummy]

The AF's leadership does not give you much confidence. Frank Kendall is an engineer and acts like one, throwing one idea out after another, before reversing course, pausing programs to reassess, then going off on another tangent. The AF needs leadership that knows what it's doing and sticks with a plan.

I've said this perviously, a CCA, costing $20-30 million, being attritable or semi-attritable and having a shelf life of ten years, is a terrible value. Much worse than paying $300 Million for NGAD. An F-35A will be able to carry 6 AMRAAM sized weapons in the near future. It also has a robust sensor suite and is much more versatile than a CCA in terms on weapons load. Seemingly for the price of an F-35A you get three CCAs. But mass has a quality of its own they say. But not if they get shot down like the Iranian and Houthi drones did once they were confronted with 4th and 5th Gen fighters from a first rate military with advanced ISR capabilities.

CCAs will be more capable than the suicide drones produced by Iran. But the AF needs to examine whether the US will be the losing end of a modern Mariana's Turkey Shoot over the Taiwan Strait.

A key questions regarding CCAs will be whether more innovative smaller companies like Anduril can change the cost paradigm with regard to combat aircraft. CSIS has a new report out about CCAs. The author, Greg Allen, thinks that may be CCA manufacturers might follow Space X and find efficiencies by taking a different approach to designing and manufacturing combat aircraft. We will see.

https://defaeroreport.com/2024/08/2...st-aug-29-24-season-2-e32-no-crew-no-problem/

I agree with you. there is no way LM, NG or B are willing to abandon their current manufacturing footprint that they have sunk billions into, to say nothing of their workforce (this is probably more of a comment about Boeing than anyone else). We need new primes. We need primes that actually have a software-first technology skill. We need primes that can and are willing to bet on risky new manufacturing approaches. We need primes that are willing to look at new propulsion and planform ideas. I dont know if LM, NG or B *can* ever change, but I suspect that if they can, they won't until they feel like they have no choice... they need to be put into an existential situation. The leaders of these primes are like people who were born on third and feel like they hit a stand-up triple: they survived the great contraction (twice) and have forgotten what a brutal business this can be without an oligopoly and the artificial peace post the Soviet period.

 

[Training_Dummy]

The argument wasn't on the competency, only on the continuity.

Agree neither LM or Boeing are shining themselves in glory right now but NG isn't exactly blameless either, they are running Sentinel after all...

Im no fan of any of the primes, but we both know the reason why Sentinel is a disaster has far less to do with the missile itself and far more to do with having to rewire your grandparents 60s era system for secure, hardened fiber optics and all that good stuff.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The argument wasn't on the competency, only on the continuity.

Agree neither LM or Boeing are shining themselves in glory right now but NG isn't exactly blameless either, they are running Sentinel after all...

Sentinel's problem isn't the missile, it's the contract written assuming that the 1960s infrastructure was still usable when any of the USAF missile crews could have told them it wasn't and needed total replacement. To the point that attempting to refurbish the old stuff was significantly more expensive than just starting over with new construction.

All of which was not included in the original contract.

 

[eagle]

F-15E is a 20 year old airframe with city miles bc of GWOT. Guess what? it will have to be replaced, along with the C models aging out.

Make that 30 years, at least. Most of the Strike Eagles have been built around 1990.
Btw. earlier this year, the first Strike Eagle reached the 15k flight hours milestone. Fleet average is about 10k hours.

 

[NMaude]

Make that 30 years, at least. Most of the Strike Eagles have been built around 1990.
Btw. earlier this year, the first Strike Eagle reached the 15k flight hours milestone. Fleet average is about 10k hours.

Has the USAF started sending the oldest F-15Es to the Boneyard?

 

[eagle]

No. But also earlier this year, USAF has proposed to retire the 119 F-15Es powered by -220 engines by 2028.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Has the USAF started sending the oldest F-15Es to the Boneyard?

Not yet, the airframe life was supposed to be 16k hours. They should start hitting 16k about 2028.

No. But also earlier this year, USAF has proposed to retire the 119 F-15Es powered by -220 engines by 2028.

Assuming that those are the oldest birds, they'd be hitting 16k hours around then.

 

[Ozair]

no one said EX is a magic bullet. far from it. the whole premise of my post is to look at the realistic options that get us say 100 airframes in the next five years. because the only option is to buy F-15EX, magically restart F/A-18E/F line (for what purpose I have no clue), Bigfoot into the Viper production line, or do the same with F-35. We cannot buy more F-22. Absent a new fighter, these are the options.

F-35EX as a platform allows you to bring stand off weapons to the theaters with a threat that is completely independent to Raider or whatever B platform you're thinking of. My point was that having options for platforms that can launch HACM type weapon is valuable. you can focus on the yeah buts, but that's the reality. more platforms with different basing requirements to launch stand off weapons is a good thing. The other point I would make is that for inherently non-stealthy high value arial targets like tankers and AWACS, do you really want to dedicate Raptors or -35 to escort and defend? or do you use a couple of -15EX instead. A single EX can carry 12 AMRAAMs, which is 2x what a Raptor carries and 3x what a F-35 carries. show me one post where someone here is proposing that the use case for a -15EX buy is to have that type merge with a J-20 over the Taiwan straights as it dodge HQ-9 barrages.

as for surviving the dense Chinese IADS it doesn't have to, nor does it fit with how the US would deal with a IADS. As for how a F-15EX would contribute in a TS blockade or conflict I just told you - long range weapons. It would be a compliment to, not replacement for, heavier bomber capacity.

I didn't say 174. I said 174 class VLRAAM. Keep in mind the J in JATM comes from Joint. As in it's a JOINT USAF and USN missile. USN is all in on 260 and yet here we are with AIM-174... The reason is simple (range), since JATM is a prisoner to the tyranny of the -35/-22 weapons bay (which in turn is a slave to the AMRAAM OML) and absent any huge leaps in propellant chemistry or lightweight, medium duration power sources for seeker engagement post propellent exhaustion, JATM can only evolutionarily improve the range (seeker might be a different question altogether if GAN TRM can be made cheaply enough) over AMRAAM.

F-15E is a 20 year old airframe with city miles bc of GWOT. Guess what? it will have to be replaced, along with the C models aging out.

Im trying to have a sincere conversation but your comments are coming off as unconstructively pedantic about NGAD being a family of systems. Everyone here understands that. We are discussing the manned component of NGAD that was becoming pretty well characterized as a long-range, high MTOW, high-fuel fraction /pacific theater range and a $300mm price tag. There have been very clear, very obvious signs that this aircraft was intended to integrate many cutting edge technologies. What am I hearing is that there is a real conversation as to what extent any of those technology leaps actually improve the odds for air superiority.

There is a real conversation about the value for money at $300mm / airframe, and beneath that conversation is another one about how that $300mm/airframe is going to be inevitably too low (as has been the case with literally almost every fighter and aircraft airframe the US government has purchased in the last 45 years and then there is another conversation about when USAF would actually be able to field a reasonable number of NGADs, which is always longer than we think, and results in fewer airframes than hope.

The other reason the way this played out is frustrating is because a re-scoped, less-complicated, more affordable NGAD doesn't come quicker. On the contrary, in all likelihood.

As for the prime thing, I was referring to the fact that Boeing literally cannot design anything at the moment (T-7 canopy/seat issue, T-7 wing issue, B737 MAX, B777x, Starliner) and all signs point to relations between USAF and LM being pretty tense at the moment, especially around the software and supporting architecture side. NG is out of NGAD as we know, so its pick your poison.

You replied to my response to an article by David Axe claiming to retire F-22s in favour of F-15EXs. Nothing you have said or I have stated contradicts the stupidity of Axe's claim.

As for the F-15EX I don't think it is the solution and clearly the USAF agrees. If we push forward X number of years to a Taiwan straight conflict there are three main issues that the EX doesn't address. Ramp space, target types and weapons stocks.

There will be finite ramp space available for tactical aviation to operate from. Using that on F-15EX which cannot penetrate sufficiently into the IADS doesn't help the overall force structure. I'd trade F-15EXs for CCAs from those same locations accompanying F-35s and F-22s into theatre.

There are also a finite number of targets that can be prosecuted with long range stand off precision weapons. For land and sea based targets that are mobile the USAF will need platforms and weapons that can dynamically target those and last time I looked at the Chinese structure a huge amount of them are mobile which does not lend themselves to prosecution by long range generally slow weapons fired from stand off fighters. For air based targets the F-15EX stooging around outside the IADS but close enough to support with 174 "class VLRAAM" or JATM or whatever is also within range of Chinese similar based weapons. If the Chinese are seeing anything on their radar scopes at that range it is the tennis court with a load of external missiles.

Finally weapons stocks today and likely for the next ten years will never approach the number of targets they are required to hit. If we look at the April 2018 attacks against Syrian military targets by Coalition forces they used 105 cruise missiles against three small targets. The US has approx 7000 JASSM today but if we projected a US strategic bomber fleet using those weapons they would likely not last more than five to seven days (the B-52 fleet maxed on JASSM would use approx 2000 a day... and that is before you add B-1s to the mix) before the inventory was depleted. What value is there in F-15EX flying after seven days when most JASSM stock are gone. HACM will never be a large volume weapon and there are already sufficient F-15E in the fleet, even after the -220 fleet retires, to support that mission. That is before we get into how few Tomahawk the USN would actually be able to use, both from a small inventory, approx 4000 weapons, and their inability to reload while underway. If we move to AAMs how many 174 "class VLRAAM" will ever be acquired given the SM-6 is costly and likely prioritised for sea based assets. I could see the USN having perhaps 200 total in a few years if they were lucky given production is going to only 300 a year by 2028 and the USN and US Army are also using the missile. For JATM/AIM-260 who knows what the production rate will be, there have been statements of more than AMRAAM by 2026 but is that pre or post AMRAAM scaling. Either way the weapons will flow to the F-22 and F/A-18 fleet while the EX fleet is a lower priority.

I am all for a long range large payload stealthy manned NGAD and I still think the USAF will get there but I also can fully understand why they have decided to pause for a moment to ensure they have all their ducks lined up in a row. Manned NGAD without a complementary CCA is probably a lot less effective and potentially less survivable. I see no value in a 6th gen platform that doesn't address long range long persistence and large payload.

Re the primes there isn't a good one (NG despite their claims knew exactly what they were doing signing up to Sentinel and the expected cost growth going forward) and all are locked into a cost structure that is unsustainable and none are blameless. That doesn't mean they aren't trying to do the right thing but they are beholden to the stock market and their shareholders. No wonder why Andruil and GA are the first two for CCA phase one and the US is beginning to turn towards silicon valley.

 

[DrRansom]

The prime situation is really bad now, the USAF needs 1.5 - 3 new aircraft designs and it cannot rely on any of the 3 main primes to deliver.

I do have a criticism about the software-focused description. Yes, better architected software fixes the F-35 mission software catastrophe, but it isn't as helpful for Taiwan scenario. Useful payload, range, speed, operating envelope all come with heavier weight.

What the US really needs is Anduril or GA to get to 40kLbs-60kLbs MTOW size-class ASAP, preferably manned. Give a real option for a 4+ Gen fighter or 4.9+ gen interdictor, something that can do multiple missions with useful payloads in the Pacific. Something that's easy to upgrade, easy to update, put on latest payloads, sensor pods, whatever, and not leave the USAF waiting years for a normal block upgrade.

Lastly, there doesn't seem to be a worthwhile operational concept for the Pacific. The Taiwan Strait battle is closer to WW3, Fulda-Gap scenario than anything else. In such an environment, air superiority is very nice to have, but rather secondary to achieving the immediate mission (sinking Chinese ships or preventing Soviet Armored Divisions from overrunning Western Europe). There doesn't seem to be a cross-service coherent view of what to do and how that can inform procurement.