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

[jsport]

Deterrence during Great Power Competition: Allies must build fighter capability - Breaking Defense

Real deterrence has to be underpinned by military capability, particularly in the skies, author and Atlantic Council expert Scott Cooper writes.

breakingdefense.com

 

[bobbymike]

Deterrence during Great Power Competition: Allies must build fighter capability - Breaking Defense

Real deterrence has to be underpinned by military capability, particularly in the skies, author and Atlantic Council expert Scott Cooper writes.

breakingdefense.com

Yes why we should have had 450+ F-22s. That’s aerial deterrence. Imagine you’re an adversary knowing you’d have to go up against multiple hundreds of them.

 

[Sundog]

Deterrence during Great Power Competition: Allies must build fighter capability - Breaking Defense

Real deterrence has to be underpinned by military capability, particularly in the skies, author and Atlantic Council expert Scott Cooper writes.

breakingdefense.com

Yes why we should have had 450+ F-22s. That’s aerial deterrence. Imagine you’re an adversary knowing you’d have to go up against multiple hundreds of them.

Actually, the F-22 isn't actually that great for the Pacific due to it's short range, relatively speaking. It was built for the European theater and for a supercruise aircraft it's fuel fraction is marginal. It's a good thing they're going with NGAD and didn't build too many F-22s. With the combo of NGAD and F-35s, we should have the tactical spectrum covered with aircraft that will both have excellent range capability. They can use the F-22s for defending the bases the NGAD and F-35s will operate from.

 

[TomcatViP]

Well, who wouldn't want to see a Papagein painted Raptor!

 

[In_A_Dream]

By the time the US starts fielding NGAD assets, China will already have a counter.

1) an aircraft to sever the link between operator & aircraft
2) swarm tech to immediately eliminate the disconnected aircraft

Our well educated adversaries aren't stupid. Hopefully the US capitalizes on destabilizing tech to maintain their asymmetric advantage in the Pacific.

 

[apparition13]

Actually, the F-22 isn't actually that great for the Pacific due to it's short range, relatively speaking. It was built for the European theater and for a supercruise aircraft it's fuel fraction is marginal. It's a good thing they're going with NGAD and didn't build too many F-22s. With the combo of NGAD and F-35s, we should have the tactical spectrum covered with aircraft that will both have excellent range capability. They can use the F-22s for defending the bases the NGAD and F-35s will operate from.

It may not be the asset for conducting offensive counter air in the Pacific, but it's still better than anything else existing for defensive counter air protecting Japan, South Korea, Guam, and the like, and it is still capable of offensive and defensive fighter operations in Europe as a NATO asset. Three-hundred more would be mighty useful, both in Europe and East Asia.

And this is coming from someone who still thinks the F-23 was the better option for a whole host of reasons including range and Lockheed's inability to not double the develpoment time and triple the cost of any program they get their hands on. F-22 production should never have been halted, just like C-17s. Both had production stopped, and a couple years later both decisions were regretted. You don't stop production of a military asset until it's replacement is in production*.

*I'd include the B-2 in this calculus, but since 21 airframes is pretty much a development program not a production program, perhaps it's the B-1 that should still be in limited production pending the B-21.

 

[Sundog]

Actually, the F-22 isn't actually that great for the Pacific due to it's short range, relatively speaking. It was built for the European theater and for a supercruise aircraft it's fuel fraction is marginal. It's a good thing they're going with NGAD and didn't build too many F-22s. With the combo of NGAD and F-35s, we should have the tactical spectrum covered with aircraft that will both have excellent range capability. They can use the F-22s for defending the bases the NGAD and F-35s will operate from.

It may not be the asset for conducting offensive counter air in the Pacific, but it's still better than anything else existing for defensive counter air protecting Japan, South Korea, Guam, and the like, and it is still capable of offensive and defensive fighter operations in Europe as a NATO asset. Three-hundred more would be mighty useful, both in Europe and East Asia.

And this is coming from someone who still thinks the F-23 was the better option for a whole host of reasons including range and Lockheed's inability to not double the develpoment time and triple the cost of any program they get their hands on. F-22 production should never have been halted, just like C-17s. Both had production stopped, and a couple years later both decisions were regretted. You don't stop production of a military asset until it's replacement is in production*.

*I'd include the B-2 in this calculus, but since 21 is pretty much a development program not a production program, perhaps it's the B-1 that should still be in limited production pending the B-21.

Yes, I still think the YF-23 was the better choice, which makes sense, because it shows I'm being consistent in my reasoning with regard to NGAD. There isn't an air threat in Europe we can't handle right now. Russia isn't going to invade western Europe. They may go after the Ukraine and we'll let them, because we aren't going to get into a massive war with a nuclear power. Just like when China actually moves to take Taiwan, we aren't going to do anything about that other than offer sternly worded statements, since our economies are intertwined. It's called living in the real world. But we are going to use a containment strategy on China and to do so will require long range assets. The F-22 is the past. NGAD is the future, and rightly so. They aren't going to really be defending Japan or S. Korea in a major war, because if such a thing happened, they would take S. Korea in a heart beat and all of the air fields in S. Korea and Japan would be gone in the first few days, so there wouldn't be anywhere for them to operate from. Hence the need for longer range. Guam may last a little longer, but you can only protect one base from so many missiles for so long. More F-22s would not have changed that calculus.

 

[rooster]

Deterrence during Great Power Competition: Allies must build fighter capability - Breaking Defense

Real deterrence has to be underpinned by military capability, particularly in the skies, author and Atlantic Council expert Scott Cooper writes.

breakingdefense.com

Yes why we should have had 450+ F-22s. That’s aerial deterrence. Imagine you’re an adversary knowing you’d have to go up against multiple hundreds of them.

Actually, the F-22 isn't actually that great for the Pacific due to it's short range, relatively speaking. It was built for the European theater and for a supercruise aircraft it's fuel fraction is marginal. It's a good thing they're going with NGAD and didn't build too many F-22s. With the combo of NGAD and F-35s, we should have the tactical spectrum covered with aircraft that will both have excellent range capability. They can use the F-22s for defending the bases the NGAD and F-35s will operate from.

Short of an sr71 sized aircraft, nothing is going to take a fight into Chinese airspace.

450 f22 would still be a deterrence to China by deterring Russia from going into the Ukraine and keeping US forces free for an Asian campaign.

Some of the early ATF concepts were large aircraft like this 75ft Boeing study but even this would fall short in range.

An aircraft built for the Pacific theater will be purpose built and too large to be a fighter in a European theater.

I'm afraid they will compromise and still get nothing useful for the pacific. They really need 2 new aircraft and like 200 raiders.

https://yf-23.webs.com/Pics/ATF/Boeing/Boeing%20ATF%20impression%201023.jpg

 

[bring_it_on]

I'm afraid they will compromise and still get nothing useful for the pacific. They really need 2 new aircraft and like 200 raiders.

Why wouldn't they have two or more aircraft? Will NGAD be the last fighter we ever build? Once the F-35 production ends, I'm sure there will be need for something else and likewise, between the F-35, Euro-Canards, FCAS/Tempest etc there is plenty of TacAir capability in Europe through the 30s, 40s and into the 50s. It is the Pacific where there is a capability gap that is likely to emerge in the 2030s so optimizing the current NGAD around that will be helpful.

 

[Ainen]

but it's still better than anything else existing for defensive counter air protecting Japan, South Korea, Guam, and the like

DCA and intercept were two sides that got the least from stealth revamp in the first place(a mild way of saying they were sidelined).
There are(and were) quite a few better ways to do both than the way F-22 does them.

And then we get offensive counter-air centric aircraft that struggles to get to where the offensive is supposed to be, and is at best highly limited as a strike platform (can't do anything that stand-off munitions can't do without it already, for a very comparable price tag).

 

[Deino]

Any guess or idea, when that already flying "fighter demonstrator" will be unveiled for the first time?

 

[Josh_TN]

I believe there were already statements to the effect that there would, or might, be two NGAD aircraft optimized for different theaters (Europe and Asia).

Though personally I don’t think much consideration needs to be given to Russia. It’s a country with a GDP less than California trying to maintain great power status. It is maintaining and upgrading its strategic weapons but its conventional modernization is lagging. The plan right now is for some 70+ Su-57s by 2027-28. They would be outnumbered more than 10:1 by USAF F-35s alone (they currently are outnumbered 100:1). The Su-35 fleet is some hundred or so machines. The Russians will be hard pressed to keep up with the US in either numbers or quality.

China is pacing threat, and IMO all aircraft should be optimized for roles relevant to that theater and opponent.

 

[bring_it_on]

Any guess or idea, when that already flying "fighter demonstrator" will be unveiled for the first time?

Probably not for a while unless they begin to run into funding headwinds and need to begin opening certain aspects of the program to shore up funding. The AF got 100% funding levels for NGAD for its FY-22 request so its not yet a funding issue for them. There are likely to be additional demonstrators and testbeds given what they're spending and senior AF leaders have in the past mentioned that secrecy is important on this program.

 

[robunos]

Any guess or idea, when that already flying "fighter demonstrator" will be unveiled for the first time?

Probably not for a while unless they begin to run into funding headwinds and need to begin opening certain aspects of the program to shore up funding. The AF got 100% funding levels for NGAD for its FY-22 request so its not yet a funding issue for them. There are likely to be additional demonstrators and testbeds given what they're spending and senior AF leaders have in the past mentioned that secrecy is important on this program.

It's my opinion, that this 'Demonstrator', is a technology / systems demonstrator / testbed, using an existing airframe or airframes, and that we won't see an actual NGAD aircraft, until at least after it's first flight . . .

cheers,
robin.

 

[Josh_TN]

I agree with tech demonstrator, but I doubt existing aircraft. Supposedly a number of records were broken, and many including myself believe those were design/production records, not performance records. It also maybe the case that demonstrator was only testing design/production tech and little else. It also might not have been a manned demonstrator.

In any case using a surrogate airframe for testing and then claiming it as ‘a demonstrator has flown’ would really stretch USAF credibility.

 

[bring_it_on]

Any guess or idea, when that already flying "fighter demonstrator" will be unveiled for the first time?

Probably not for a while unless they begin to run into funding headwinds and need to begin opening certain aspects of the program to shore up funding. The AF got 100% funding levels for NGAD for its FY-22 request so its not yet a funding issue for them. There are likely to be additional demonstrators and testbeds given what they're spending and senior AF leaders have in the past mentioned that secrecy is important on this program.

It's my opinion, that this 'Demonstrator', is a technology / systems demonstrator / testbed, using an existing airframe or airframes, and that we won't see an actual NGAD aircraft, until at least after it's first flight . . .

cheers,
robin.

It would be a stretch to call a "testbed" a "full scale flight demonstrator" if your reference for "testbed" implies something like a CATBird. If it means they've literally built another F-22 or F-15 to test something on NGAD then that's also unlikely. It is likely validating several technologies for NGAD including digital design so it is possible that the eventual NGAD has very little resemblance to what they've flown given the actual demonstrator attributes might not matter other than it validating signature, digital engineering capabilities and other technologies. Frank Kendall also repeatedly mentioned "X-planes" as in more than one what the AII he championed was funding so there is a possibility that there are additional such demonstrators already flying or in the works.

 

[LMFS]

Wasn't NGAD supposed to come in several iterations? Maybe they have one iteration that is relatively close in time and a later one with the kind of technologies that are still not mature enough is still in early development. That would make the statement about the demonstrator less of an stretch.

 

[In_A_Dream]

Wasn't NGAD supposed to come in several iterations? Maybe they have one iteration that is relatively close in time and a later one with the kind of technologies that are still not mature enough is still in early development. That would make the statement about the demonstrator less of an stretch.

Think of it like the Avengers, a powerful strike group where each platform will have a unique purpose with well-networked special abilities.

 

[Josh_TN]

Wasn't NGAD supposed to come in several iterations? Maybe they have one iteration that is relatively close in time and a later one with the kind of technologies that are still not mature enough is still in early development. That would make the statement about the demonstrator less of an stretch.

It seems likely that at a minimum there will be a manned platform and an unmanned component, possibly related to loyal wingman type UAVs. So it may well be that was has been demonstrated is an unmanned platform, which is generally much quicker to design, iterate, and manufacture in the first place. I think the AFRL threw together Grey Wolf in under two years. But it seems doubtful we'll see that demonstrator any time soon. In fact I'd guess we'd get a look at the EMD or production aircraft first, the way the USAF has been classifying its projects recently.

 

[bring_it_on]

Its too easy to get lost in acquisition jingo and use milestones from past program as a yardstick. Certainly some have done that and concluded that NGAD should be ready to jump into EMD by 2025 or so. Others have further extrapolated that it is going to take 12-15 years for it to complete EMD using F-22 and F-35 as a benchmark. That however does not factor in that schedule, and reversing the trend of ever complex and long-duration EMD programs may in fact be a key performance parameter on the first few spirals that come out of the NGAD effort (could well be a drone but could also be the F-X). With that said, I personally feel that the current US Air Force leadership is saying the right things, and asking for the right amount of money for something that is going to pick up pace (whether that is a formal/traditional EMD or some acquisition-reform version of it) around 2025. So far, Congress seems to be in-line but that may not be the case in the future (it was certainly not the case when Will Roper was around and trying to sell a whole lot of buzzwords to Congress).

 

[rooster]

Wasn't NGAD supposed to come in several iterations? Maybe they have one iteration that is relatively close in time and a later one with the kind of technologies that are still not mature enough is still in early development. That would make the statement about the demonstrator less of an stretch.

It seems likely that at a minimum there will be a manned platform and an unmanned component, possibly related to loyal wingman type UAVs. So it may well be that was has been demonstrated is an unmanned platform, which is generally much quicker to design, iterate, and manufacture in the first place. I think the AFRL threw together Grey Wolf in under two years. But it seems doubtful we'll see that demonstrator any time soon. In fact I'd guess we'd get a look at the EMD or production aircraft first, the way the USAF has been classifying its projects recently.

I think the unmanned part is loyal wingman with cuda or perigrine and whatever EW drones are being planned.

 

[X-39]

Top view render of Collin's Aerospace "NGAD". Looking way less cartoony than the previous illustration:

https://www.collinsaerospace.com/-/media/project/collinsaerospace/collinsaerospace-website/product-assets/marketing/p/perigon-vmc/perigon-brochure.pdf?rev=72936c0e2aa944dcb5af551daaa094f9

 

[Sundog]

Deterrence during Great Power Competition: Allies must build fighter capability - Breaking Defense

Real deterrence has to be underpinned by military capability, particularly in the skies, author and Atlantic Council expert Scott Cooper writes.

breakingdefense.com

Yes why we should have had 450+ F-22s. That’s aerial deterrence. Imagine you’re an adversary knowing you’d have to go up against multiple hundreds of them.

Actually, the F-22 isn't actually that great for the Pacific due to it's short range, relatively speaking. It was built for the European theater and for a supercruise aircraft it's fuel fraction is marginal. It's a good thing they're going with NGAD and didn't build too many F-22s. With the combo of NGAD and F-35s, we should have the tactical spectrum covered with aircraft that will both have excellent range capability. They can use the F-22s for defending the bases the NGAD and F-35s will operate from.

Short of an sr71 sized aircraft, nothing is going to take a fight into Chinese airspace.

450 f22 would still be a deterrence to China by deterring Russia from going into the Ukraine and keeping US forces free for an Asian campaign.

Some of the early ATF concepts were large aircraft like this 75ft Boeing study but even this would fall short in range.

An aircraft built for the Pacific theater will be purpose built and too large to be a fighter in a European theater.

I'm afraid they will compromise and still get nothing useful for the pacific. They really need 2 new aircraft and like 200 raiders.

https://yf-23.webs.com/Pics/ATF/Boeing/Boeing%20ATF%20impression%201023.jpg

Actually, no. We've been designing fighters for the Pacific theater for decades and none of them were the size of the SR-71. More like the size of the CF-105. Having said that, advanced propulsion greatly changes the sizing paradigm. Especially the new three stream powerplants. Also, the group in charge of the NGAD systems have stated they want two versions of the same aircraft, one for the European theater and one for the Pacific. Therefore, the Pacific version will most likely have a slightly larger wing and an added fuselage plug.

 

[rooster]

Top view render of Collin's Aerospace "NGAD". Looking way less cartoony than the previous illustration:
View attachment 672338

https://www.collinsaerospace.com/-/media/project/collinsaerospace/collinsaerospace-website/product-assets/marketing/p/perigon-vmc/perigon-brochure.pdf?rev=72936c0e2aa944dcb5af551daaa094f9

Needs a tail

 

[Geo]

Top view render of Collin's Aerospace "NGAD". Looking way less cartoony than the previous illustration:
View attachment 672338

https://www.collinsaerospace.com/-/media/project/collinsaerospace/collinsaerospace-website/product-assets/marketing/p/perigon-vmc/perigon-brochure.pdf?rev=72936c0e2aa944dcb5af551daaa094f9

Needs a tail

I bet there will be a tail. Low, but there will be some.
The only authoritative visions come from Lockheed. And they all have tails.

 

[bring_it_on]

authoritative visions

??

 

[flateric]

Are you really going to discuss placeholder art?

 

[Geo]

authoritative visions

??

???

 

[Geo]

Are you really going to discuss placeholder art?

Is it really that difficult to understand the meaning of the word "vision"?

And is this whole discussion about something else?

 

[Rhinocrates]

There's an old joke in the aircraft design community, I'm told: Planes are like men - they always gain weight as they get older and they can never get enough tail.

 

[flateric]

Are you really going to discuss placeholder art?

Is it really that difficult to understand the meaning of the word "vision"?

And is this whole discussion about something else?

This whole discussion is on bits of real info on a real project, not on product of Collins art department and someone's bets.

 

[rooster]

Are you really going to discuss placeholder art?

Is it really that difficult to understand the meaning of the word "vision"?

And is this whole discussion about something else?

This whole discussion is on bits of real info on a real project, not on product of Collins art department and someone's bets.

Reminds me of that f19 drawing I used to dream about during algebra... Or wait pre algebra

 

[NeilChapman]

A way of doing digital "century"?

Kratos Reveals Existence Of Secretive Demogorgon Unmanned Combat Aircraft Program (Updated)

The company has a rapidly growing portfolio of combat drones, over half of which remain classified, as the Air Force signals an appetite for more.

www.thedrive.com

 

[books]

USAF Sec’y Kendall says that they are only now starting to put together a planning framework for deciding drone fleet sizes:

Classified Air Force Drone Teaming Programs to Face Questions of Scale

Classified Air Force Drone Teaming Programs to Face Questions of Scale

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

So, sounds like the “tacair study” and other work for the new administration’s national defense/security strategy and FY23 budget didn’t answer that question.

Maybe it just said that sixth gens and drones from NGAD will replace Raptors, and called the specific numerical mix among them an extraneous question? That way it could zero in on the question they really wanted to ask, new F-16s vs a new low-end fighter vs being patient with F-35 maintenance costs and engine backlogs.

 

[jsport]

USAF Sec’y Kendall says that they are only now starting to put together a planning framework for deciding drone fleet sizes:

Classified Air Force Drone Teaming Programs to Face Questions of Scale

Classified Air Force Drone Teaming Programs to Face Questions of Scale

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

So, sounds like the “tacair study” and other work for the new administration’s national defense/security strategy and FY23 budget didn’t answer that question.

Maybe it just said that sixth gens and drones from NGAD will replace Raptors, and called the specific numerical mix among them an extraneous question? That way it could zero in on the question they really wanted to ask, new F-16s vs a new low-end fighter vs being patient with F-35 maintenance costs and engine backlogs.

expendable vs attritible ..what a industry challenge!

 

[books]

I read that as:

Expendable: planned to die in a high threat environment. Only basic sensors, modest signature management, modest engines, maybe modest speeds. Most sensing info from ABMS, most decisions from drone controller. Pretty much just flies right at bogeys and SAM sites for mutual kill (though it can jink and evade), but lots of them and many munitions per drone.

Attritable: no pilot and cheaper than an F-35 by a longshot, but more like an X-45C or X-47B — still a sophisticated aircraft with VLO and pricey sensors. You do use it for DEAD against triple digit SAMs and flying into areas heavily patrolled by J-20s and Su-57s, but it’s still more of a BVR and longer range PGM approach, and a stealth approach….or at least, that’s your first choice, and something you paid a fair sum to have the real option of doing, as well as an option you selected instead of going for greater numbers. Probably more AI as well.

I don’t mean that the former would be unrecoverable or that you wouldn’t be glad to get them back. Just that you would expect much greater loss rates per sortie wave in the former case.

 

[jsport]

attritable vs expendable will even start effecting mini-munitions costs, onboard sensor capabilites etc.. when does a expendable have cheaper and cheaper and smaller and smaller munitions, even expendable guns.

 

[X-39]

So what are your realistic guesstimates on what the manned (fighter) component will look like? Can we start ruling out concepts that are likely to be (A) Too old at this point (B) Not Official/Fan Concepts(C) Unlikely to represent a feasible configuration/Too outlandish?

One key difference between the ATF and NGAD competitions is that these official 80s Super cruiser and Missileer concepts were studies of aircraft configurations being pursued at the time, but the later addition of stealth requirements drastically changed the appearance of the product resulting of years of R&D. While the winners YF-22 & YF-23 did retain the supercruise capability, one could say the redesigns were substantially different to what was envisioned before.

But...

After stealth became the rage in the 90s when ATB & ATF were revealed, concepts released for the JSF competition would actually look very close to the real thing!


There was even a X-35 mockup unveiled a couple of years before the real aircraft took flight:

On the other hand, Boeing also showcased a model, that was in 2010, far too old at this time. If there was a breakthrough in new advantages USAF isn't telling anyone about, what could these technologies be? Quantuum/(if that's even a thing yet?)Top Down/Bottom Up/UV/Visual Stealth? Brain Computer Interfaces? Just let's keep in mind they are keeping it's details under extreme secrecy, aswell as the demonstrator physical appearance and any representation that gives a clue of what "Family of Systems" approach is. The latest concepts keep depicting the same vision of Single Manned Fighter + Unmanned Fighter from years ago, but just like in the ATF era, likely this program has already evolved, first with the F-X, which was changed to PCA and in turn, morphed into NGAD.

 

[books]

I personally like the Lockheed NGTF and Rodrigo Avella’s “Manitou” concept the best, and then I remain a big fan of the YF-23 RTA as well.

(While I’m a Raptor fan, I kinda have a thing for the Black Widow…)

Configurationally, though, it’s pretty tough to say. Most of the key sixth-gen technologies we know about (big data, multispectral imaging, adaptive engines, manned-unmanned teaming, electronic attack, AI, maybe hypersonic munitions someday, maybe directed energy defenses against incoming missiles someday) don’t have any straightforward, obvious implications for the general shape of the aircraft. Outside of rudiments like twr, lift/drag, wing loading, x-band signature, or the area rule, the greater importance of thermal signature management and low frequency radar signature are probably the main things driving shape, and a flat shape with a good mixing of exhaust air is probably best from a signature standpoint.

This is where I think Rodrigo’s Manitou is interesting. It’s tailless for (presumably) subsonic cruise, and maybe even for static supercruise, but it has recessed, deployable fold-up control surfaces for times when your signature management has failed and you want maneuver kinematics instead, especially supersonically. I kind of doubt the practicality of this vs just having a butterfly/pelikan type tail, but it is intriguing. For people eager to interpret statements about the NGAD program setting records as being about aircraft performance rather than just about the schedule and design process, it offers an answer: supersonic tailless flight.

Rodrigo Avella - Manitou - Sixth generation fighter concept

Concept for a next generation air dominance. NGAD - FX - F/A-XX - STEALTH - GCAP - FCAS - SCAF - FSAC - GLOBAL COMBAT AIR PROGRAMME - FUTURE COMBAT AIR SYSTEM - UCAV - UAV - USAF - NAVY - DRONE

rodrigoavella.com

Obviously, supersonic tailless flight might be possible with just an X-36 like configuration. But maximum intensity dogfighting with no tail at supersonic speeds would be a giant step even beyond that. Manitou offers an exciting compromise that theoretically might let you have your cake and eat it too.

That said, if I had to bet, I would vote for Lockheed’s NGTF as probably the most likely template. I don’t feel like I have a good sense of how big the aircraft needs to be, because I don’t know what its range is supposed to be, but NGTF is my choice. I know we are now in an era where real concepts are not shared with the public as freely as they were in the Cold War or the 90s, and that comparison to those eras is more likely to lead to overconfidence than knowledge, but NGTF seems like the most practical thing I have to go on.

 

[books]

I just realized that “NGTF” may be an eccentric term I memorized from a model vendor.

By that term I meant the Lockheed concept shown, among other places, here:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/usaf-us-navy-6th-generation-fighter-programs-f-a-xx-f-x-ngad-pca-asfs.3536/page-14

and here:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/usaf-us-navy-6th-generation-fighter-programs-f-a-xx-f-x-ngad-pca-asfs.3536/page-19

I think the design was first shown in a 2012 promotional calendar and called “Miss February” or “Miss November” or something like that.