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

Theres alot of doom and gloom here but think about this. What if NGAD was looking at 500 million a fighter plus another say 300million in CCAs per fighter? All that was going to happen was NGAD would eventually be canceled and we would get nothing. But say if we stop, reevaluate, and get an 80% solution for say 200 million a plane plus another 100 million in CCAs per? NGAD survives and we get enough planes.

I'll take Option 2 over Option 1. The 3 Seawolves are great but I'll take the 22+ Virginias.
 
From the airandspaceforce* report, I understand that range is no more a new paradigm since F-22, 35 and EX are now deemed relevant for part of the mission.
It looks also as if the persistence part of Air Dominance is demoted to a lower priority or offset on the CCA (or more probably on multiple CCA with a combined effect being persistence). But persistence also generally includes magazine size, something we already knew was discussed being replaced by CCA and Arsenal planes. So the end result might just be a nearly disarmed NGAD that would trade missile carriage for fuel, hence being hosted within a smaller, less complex airframe. Let´s say a sensor craft with teeth.

*See post here from @Dreamfighter
 
Last edited:
GTX said:
www.twz.com

Air Force "Starting At The Beginning" With NGAD 6th Gen Fighter Requirements Review

Signs that big changes are coming to the USAF's NGAD combat jet plans, or that the program may be supplanted entirely, are growing.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
A lot of waffle and not a lot of substance from TWZ. Am I the only one that find their articles hard to read, it's like they try to use 7000 words to say something that should take 10.

As for NGAD will see where the pause takes them but I still see a paired down platform emerging that has some characteristics that still meets the pacific theatre mission set.
TomcatViP said:
It looks also as if the persistence part of Air Dominance is demoted to a lower priority or offset on the CCA (or more probably on multiple CCA with a combined effect being persistence). But persistence also generally includes magazine size, something we already knew was discussed being replaced by CCA and Arsenal planes. So the end result might just be a nearly disarmed NGAD that would trade missile carriage for fuel, hence being hosted within a smaller, less complex airframe. Let´s say a sensor craft with teeth.
Click to expand...
That is my thinking. Reduce the requirement set of the NGAD but uplift requirements for the accompanying CCA. It is far easier to iterate over a CCA design, reuse or upgrade in service components for new generations and push that design to be built by multiple vendors than to do the same for the manned portion. The digital century series is alive today in CCA but has died for manned NGAD for obvious reasons.
 
Ah yes, the requirements developed starting in 2014 are now 10 years old, and the X-planes that have flown are now a bit obsolete. We have better ideas now!

We will start over with our new and improved ideas. In 3 years we will have the new requirements locked in. In 7 years the first demonstrators will fly. In 10 years the 6th-gen contract will be awarded.

But wait! In 10 years, we can build an AI to design our jets for us. We'll have to start over from scratch. And given that it will be an AI built by the DOD, you just know that it will recommend an indefinite program delay until the next new science thing comes along.

At what point do we just build the fighter that we already designed?

We've lost our way. China is going to absolutely dominate us. Good game, well played.
 
joshjosh said:
Ah yes, the requirements developed starting in 2014 are now 10 years old, and the X-planes that have flown are now a bit obsolete. We have better ideas now!

We will start over with our new and improved ideas. In 3 years we will have the new requirements locked in. In 7 years the first demonstrators will fly. In 10 years the 6th-gen contract will be awarded.

But wait! In 10 years, we can build an AI to design our jets for us. We'll have to start over from scratch. And given that it will be an AI built by the DOD, you just know that it will recommend an indefinite program delay until the next new science thing comes along.

At what point do we just build the fighter that we already designed?

We've lost our way. China is going to absolutely dominate us. Good game, well played.
Click to expand...
They can't win though. If they design a manned platform then people will likely complain it is too costly and overspecced, if they change direction people will likely complain about requirements creep or slow process. Roper's digital century series was envisioned to be a short generation design and build phase and was probably too radical for manned aircraft but is perfect for CCAs. Hence why I think a manned NGAD will still happen but will shift its focus. The USAF can probably take a whole bunch of requirements out of the design but retain the key aspects that combined with evolving CCAs will make manned NGAD survivable within the threat it needs to operate in.
 
Last edited:
So if members had to guess one or the other of the following statements had some impact on this delay decision.

1) The Chinese 5th Gen “aren’t” as good as we thought giving us more time to develop our 6th Gen aircraft.
2) The Chinese 5th Gen “are better” than we thought making us need a bigger jump in technology than we first imagined we needed in a 6th Gen aircraft.
 
bobbymike said:
So if members had to guess one or the other of the following statements had some impact on this delay decision.

1) The Chinese 5th Gen “aren’t” as good as we thought giving us more time to develop our 6th Gen aircraft.
2) The Chinese 5th Gen “are better” than we thought making us need a bigger jump in technology than we first imagined we needed in a 6th Gen aircraft.
Click to expand...
How about another option.

3) USAF development of CCA has progressed further than thought and replaced manned NGAD mission sets that were previously thought to require a manned aircraft.
 
Ozair said:
How about another option.

3) USAF development of CCA has progressed further than thought and replaced manned NGAD mission sets that were previously thought to require a manned aircraft.
Click to expand...
Oh I’m sure there are many other reasons that’s why I wrote which one might have had “some impact” on the decision.
 
16 years, 186 pages, 7,410 posts later and we're back to page 1. Oh well.

SPF members have probably spent more manhours discussing this than the USAF has!

If the USAF doesn't know how to operate in a contested airspace then I don't know what they are doing at Red Flag these days? Maybe it's just a cover for fighter pilots to gather for beer and barbecues and Las Vegas casino trips?
 
There is more and more rumor about the SR-72 living well in Lockheed is there a reason for this change in NGAD program ? USAF paying for this new capacity instead of a new fighter?
 
Honestly, I don't think a fast, but unmaneuverable plane is that hard to shoot down, especially if it's coming straight at you. Ben Rich mentioned in his Skunkworks book, that it was well within the capabilities of the SA-5 (or S-200) to shoot down the SR-71. There's a reason why the USAF went all in on stealth. When people within the USAF ordered a technical feasibility study of making a Mach-5 airplane, he described the impossibility of such an endeavor with rather colorful language.
 
Last edited:
Elysium said:
Honestly, I don't think a fast, but unmaneuverable plane is that hard to shoot down, especially if it's coming straight at you. Ben Rich mentioned in his Skunkworks book, that it was well within the capabilities of the SA-5 (or S-200) to shoot down the SR-71. There's a reason why the USAF went all in on stealth. When people within the USAF ordered a technical feasibility study of making a Mach-5 airplane, hedescribed the impossibility of such an endeavor with rather colorful language.
Click to expand...
A really fast plane at 40-50km altitude is really difficult to shoot down even if it doesn't manoeuvre at all.
 
The past few months have been really strange about the whole 6th gen (NGAD) saga. Top USAF leadership cant seem to come up with consistent messaging, flip-flopping back and forth like politicians. Perhaps its an indication, that senior brass isnt unified in their stance on how to approach the program further. Frank Kendall especially has become a defacto CCA advocate within the branch, which undoubtedly has influence on the (at least up until now) manned component of NGAD.

Considering how far along the program is with contract award slated for 2024, it seems rather foolish to suddenly "rock the boat" - unless they have a very good reason for it (which we dont know).
 
In the last 10 years we have had 1) An actual shooting war with combat experience, 2) A vastly changing Chinese threat, 3) Actual flying NGAD prototypes, 4) Minimized Russian threat. If this pause gets us a more tuned, cheaper, faster (IOC), design, then it is worth it. Let's not forget GCAP is an 80% OTS solution that we could always get.
 
Archibald said:
SR-72 engines runs on a mix of a) PR and b) bullshit
Click to expand...
We know that Lockheed have a classified aircraft in start of production.

The Debrief: Our Best Guess About Skunk Works’ Biggest Secret | Aviation Week Network

A Lockheed Martin classified contract that involves a “highly complex design and systems integration” project has fallen $45 million deeper into red ink.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
We are sure now that it is not the NGAD.
 
zebra159357 said:
The past few months have been really strange about the whole 6th gen (NGAD) saga. Top USAF leadership cant seem to come up with consistent messaging, flip-flopping back and forth like politicians. Perhaps its an indication, that senior brass isnt unified in their stance on how to approach the program further. Frank Kendall especially has become a defacto CCA advocate within the branch, which undoubtedly has influence on the (at least up until now) manned component of NGAD.

Considering how far along the program is with contract award slated for 2024, it seems rather foolish to suddenly "rock the boat" - unless they have a very good reason for it (which we dont know).
Click to expand...
Yes it is very strange...
 
Elysium said:
Honestly, I don't think a fast, but unmaneuverable plane is that hard to shoot down, especially if it's coming straight at you. Ben Rich mentioned in his Skunkworks book, that it was well within the capabilities of the SA-5 (or S-200) to shoot down the SR-71. There's a reason why the USAF went all in on stealth. When people within the USAF ordered a technical feasibility study of making a Mach-5 airplane, he described the impossibility of such an endeavor with rather colorful language.
Click to expand...
I watch enough DCS youtubers to know that a Mach 10 aircraft can't be shot down. It also can't turn, and I'm not sure how you can open the bay doors and what kind of munitions you can use, but you sure can fly around real fast.
 
joshjosh said:
I watch enough DCS youtubers to know that a Mach 10 aircraft can't be shot down. It also can't turn, and I'm not sure how you can open the bay doors and what kind of munitions you can use, but you sure can fly around real fast.
Click to expand...
There is realy few A/A system able to shoot a plane flying at mach 6 and 80000 feet , the react time is very very short and surely if it is a drone it can maneuver. It can be cover by electronic warfare system too.
 
dark sidius said:
We know that Lockheed have a classified aircraft in start of production.

The Debrief: Our Best Guess About Skunk Works’ Biggest Secret | Aviation Week Network

A Lockheed Martin classified contract that involves a “highly complex design and systems integration” project has fallen $45 million deeper into red ink.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
We are sure now that it is not the NGAD.
Click to expand...
Wait... Where did I see that link first?

Please, link the right source for breaking news, especially when it´s... us.
 
zebra159357 said:
The past few months have been really strange about the whole 6th gen (NGAD) saga. Top USAF leadership cant seem to come up with consistent messaging, flip-flopping back and forth like politicians. Perhaps its an indication, that senior brass isnt unified in their stance on how to approach the program further. Frank Kendall especially has become a defacto CCA advocate within the branch, which undoubtedly has influence on the (at least up until now) manned component of NGAD.

Considering how far along the program is with contract award slated for 2024, it seems rather foolish to suddenly "rock the boat" - unless they have a very good reason for it (which we dont know).
Click to expand...
Remember when Kendall said the B-21 was going to have a CCA, before reversing course a year later? This is a pattern with him. He talks too much and can't make up his mind.
 
Actually never mind, we don't need NGAD. F-22 is just fine, and we have, what, like dozens of them? Russia doesn't even have the best army in Russia, and China can't innovate as we all know. There is no real threat to the United States, none at all, we should reduce the defense budget.

Meanwhile...

www.twz.com

Chinese Flying Wing UCAV Testing Accelerating Based On Satellite Imagery, Videos

China's expanding work on flying-wing uncrewed combat air vehicles comes as similar designs have disappeared in the U.S., at least publicly.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
asia.nikkei.com

China's chip capabilities just 3 years behind TSMC, teardown shows

Analysis reveals limited impact of U.S. tech curbs on consumer products
asia.nikkei.com asia.nikkei.com
 
So China is where Europe was 15 years ago with projects like Taranis and Neuron and the US with the RQ-170?
Heck even Iran got a stealthy flying wing UCAV into service 10 years ago with the Shahad 171 Simorgh, so China is 10 years behind Iran.
 
Desertfox said:
4) Minimized Russian threat.
Click to expand...
Aside from the obvious loss of human capital that is harder to replace, i'd say that the threat has actually increased no matter the damage that Ukraine has caused them. Their industrial production is off the charts compared to before and they're beginning to quickly replace their losses and gain significant and valuable combat experience. Simply put, they're not as incompetent as before anymore.

There's a reason why the European NATO is rushing to order F-35s, aside from just replacing the aging aircraft. Now, Russian aircraft production is not quite where it needs to be yet, but their fleet is relatively modern and they will most likely switch the Su-35 and Su-30SM lines to churn out Su-57s not that far from now.
 
WatcherZero said:
So China is where Europe was 15 years ago with projects like Taranis and Neuron and the US with the RQ-170?
Heck even Iran got a stealthy flying wing UCAV into service 10 years ago with the Shahad 171 Simorgh, so China is 10 years behind Iran.
Click to expand...
Europe is 15 years behind China now , Rafale , Eurofighter are plane of the eighties, nothing in the Hypersonic in Europe if we don'have the USA we are completly lost.
 
dark sidius said:
Europe is 15 years behind China now , Rafale , Eurofighter are plane of the eighties,
Click to expand...
Like most of the chinese air force too. Also there not really a next door problem.
dark sidius said:
nothing in the Hypersonic in Europe if we don'have the USA we are completly lost.
Click to expand...
There some Hypersonic developments and given the scare amount of systems in service right now makes it not matter mutch.

There completely other things where china is 15 years ahead of europe.
 
kqcke for you said:
Like most of the chinese air force too. Also there not really a next door problem.
Click to expand...
Sorry to wake you up from hibernation (jk) but most of the Chinese fleet is composed of old Russian Flankers (Su-30MKKs and J-11As), their much improved Chinese derivatives (J-11B(G), B(G)H (MLU AESA upgrade), J-15 and J-16), J-10A,B,C,S and JH-7A. Those J-7s and J-8Fs that you think of haven't been relevant since 2016-17 and most have been retired already.

At least some of the J-10As and (probably?) S' are receiving air cooled AESA radars as well.

As a matter of fact, China fields more AESA-equipped fighters than the whole combined fighter force of European NATO and they're producing roughly 170 aircraft per year, the majority of them being J-20s.

On the other hand, SAC (with its J-15B and J-35) is building a new plant that is comparable to Lockheed's Forth Worth facility.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom