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

The B-21 comparison is apt. If I were the USAF and it was determined there was a major requirement change, I would hand it to the RCO and just let them work their magic again. Tech readiness level 6 or above, maybe an exception for the adaptive engine.

I would also take a close look at the USN requirements and make sure there was not some convergent evolution there.
 
I fully expect the US Army to drop their MQ-1C Gray Eagles for Mojaves here pretty soon. More capacity, uses the same ground stations, only a little retraining on the engine side. (I'm sure there's stuff in the US Army inventory using PT6s)
There may be too many vested interests to allow that to happen though.
 
Several of us have made clear our lack of confidence in USAF leadership w.r.t. NGAD-PCA. Overkill as it may be, here's another dose of fuel for the dumpster fire...

I'm roughly familiar with how the services and the OSD CAIG estimate aircraft unit cost. Using a learning curve assumption of 85% and constant-year dollars, here's 3 calculations to consider:

1. F-35A 1000th unit $90M current status, based on total F-35 deliveries to date
200th unit $135M matching F-35 buy size to the planned NGAD-PCA quantity
2. NGAD-PCA 200th unit $90M NGAD-PCA unit cost goal
1000th unit $60M matching NGAD-PCA buy size to F-35 current status
3. F-22A 750th unit $35M original plan for cost & quantity
190th unit $55M actual buy size

To satisfy Kendall's wish, an apples-to-apples comparison is in order. Calculations 1 and 2 say that a "$90M" NGAD needs to be 33% cheaper than a F-35A: derived either from 1-(90/135) or from 1-(60/90). That is, the comparison ought to be for the same production quantities.

Calculation 3 is included to remind readers that the Air Force had similar cost guidelines during the ATF competition in the late 1980s. Although the production run was truncated to less than 200 aircraft, the learning curve effect is only a partial explanation for the actual, higher-than-anticipated unit cost.

Caveat: if the Air Force intends the "$90M" NGAD-PCA production run to be triple the prior buy plan for 200 aircraft, then a comparison with the current F-35A unit cost is reasonable.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Lmao…

Speaking to Breaking Defense on the show floor, General Atomics spokesman C. Mark Brinkley called Anduril “the Theranos of defense,” referring to the much-hyped but ultimately hollow promises from the infamous pharma tech firm. He questioned how the Fury could carry weapons and host a landing gear with a large bottom inlet along the belly of the aircraft.

Among the biggest differences between the General Atomics and Anduril drones was the smaller size of the Fury, though analyst Byron Callan noted that the final version of the Anduril CCA will be “slightly larger” than the model. (Brose described the Anduril model as “full-scale.”)

Another “very apparent difference” between the two is that the Fury vehicle will carry weapons externally, while the General Atomics CCA has an internal weapons bay, Callan said in a Sept. 17 note to investors. “That could create more drag and make the Fury less stealthy, though it may not matter if the initial increment of CCA is a relatively small buy of air vehicles to refine tactics and training,” he said.
 
has anything been shown of the Fury’s landing gear configuration?
There are the original renderings from Blue Force Technologies,
redmedium-rendering.jpg


blue-force-fury-aggressor-drone.jpg

Obviously those aren't necessarily what is present on the production vehicle by Andruil but I think likely won't be far off the mark.
 
has anything been shown of the Fury’s landing gear configuration?
The intake sweeps rather sharply upward after the boundary layer diverter, creating space under the engine for the landing gear and other hardware. This is the original design before the tail redesign
 

Attachments

  • 198303-1131e649073edde7cf878a4ed65a5837.png
    198303-1131e649073edde7cf878a4ed65a5837.png
    69 KB · Views: 77
  • 205990-60b3b8c4020d512c77238797a724a542.png
    205990-60b3b8c4020d512c77238797a724a542.png
    178.1 KB · Views: 92
I was debating with myself whether to post this Sandboxx video in this thread or the AIM-260 JATM thread but I decided this was themes appropriate thread to post it in:


As the U.S. Air Force continues to reshape its vision for the future of air superiority, one element of this new strategy has quickly set itself apart as perhaps the most promising: AI-enabled drones meant to fly and fight on behalf of human pilots, known to many as the Loyal Wingman concept, but known within the Air Force as Collaborative Combat Aircraft, or CCAs.
But fielding these platforms in the numbers the Air Force intends to will mean a huge production effort, and in order to keep the cost of that effort down... The U.S. Air Force needs to field new air-to-air missiles for them to carry.

If this isn't the right thread (I don't know of any other more appropriate ones to post it in) please move it to the right thread.
 
The intake sweeps rather sharply upward after the boundary layer diverter, creating space under the engine for the landing gear and other hardware. This is the original design before the tail redesign
Those pics suggest internal volume left for fuel is rather poor.
 
Are you sure? To me the bloated ventral volume is all fuel, hence quite a descent amount for a such propulsion.
 
Small wings, external weapons... Enough to keep up with the combat range of manned fighters?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom