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

Keynote with General David W. Allvin, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, at GASCC 2024, filmed on 17 July 2024 at the IET, London:
View: https://youtu.be/U_yCqwwbmPY?si=y6mBB9L5m2Nrf9m8

Source:
www.twz.com

Air Force Floats Light Stealth Fighter Concept As Its Heavy Fighter Program May Be In Jeopardy

The Air Force’s top officer touted the concept as a path to develop a less expensive and more flexible fighter design, which is odd considering a top priority was the service’s NGAD heavy fighter. The Air Force’s top officer touted the concept as a path to develop a less expensive and more...
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
paralay said:
The size of the air intakes is noteworthy
Click to expand...
Yeah, those are much smaller than the F-35 intakes, which would suggest a step down in mass flow. What's the mass flow for an F135 versus an F119?

Assuming that's not just some AI bullshit.

fightingirish said:
Keynote with General David W. Allvin, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, at GASCC 2024, filmed on 17 July 2024 at the IET, London:
View: https://youtu.be/U_yCqwwbmPY?si=y6mBB9L5m2Nrf9m8

Source:
www.twz.com

Air Force Floats Light Stealth Fighter Concept As Its Heavy Fighter Program May Be In Jeopardy

The Air Force’s top officer touted the concept as a path to develop a less expensive and more flexible fighter design, which is odd considering a top priority was the service’s NGAD heavy fighter. The Air Force’s top officer touted the concept as a path to develop a less expensive and more...
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
I just cannot buy that. You're not flying a "light fighter" 3,000+nmi without air refueling.

The Pacific Ocean hasn't changed size magically. USAF needs to start prepping Congress for why the long range is needed.

"Senators, here is a graphic showing all the islands with 9000ft runways. The next image adds any 6000ft runways left over from WW2 that might be usable with some work. Next is a series of range bubbles, based on major Chinese military bases that we'd have to reach in a fight with China. As you can clearly see, there are (number) of bases within each range circle. The Pacific is the largest ocean on Earth, the range is not really an option we can do without."
"Shorter range means we need to buy a lot more tankers, which are just as expensive as the fighters."
 

Attachments

  • Keynote with General David W. Allvin, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, at GASCC 2024.mp4_snaps...jpg
    Keynote with General David W. Allvin, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, at GASCC 2024.mp4_snaps...jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 150
Last edited:
timmymagic said:
Or keep another prime in the game like Boeing...
Click to expand...
I think you can see via the CCA contract award that the DoD is happy to branch out. With GA, Andruil and Kratos all rising and 5th and likely even more so 6th gen being software dominant it is clearly time to move away from the historical primes.
 
Already got a light stealth fighter, why build another? If they're not going to build NGAD proper, they may as well work on improving the F-35 and building more. Heck, rebuild the F-22 to F-35 avionics standards with increased fuel capacity if you aren't making the proper NGAD, it's got to be cheaper than designing a completely new under-ranged POS. In fact, going to get flamed for saying this, but if you aren't building NGAD proper or doing any of the aforementioned, put the money into GCAP. Yes well, stupid outcomes deserve stupid suggestions.
 
Last edited:
A US GCAP/Tempest while I like that idea Forest Green it will never happen, there is too much at stake for the US aircraft companies.
 
FighterJock said:
A US GCAP/Tempest while I like that idea Forest Green it will never happen, there is too much at stake for the US aircraft companies.
Click to expand...
Just get one Boeing to build the US version.

I could see the single-engine light fighter working provided it 1) has longer range than the F-35, 2) Can operate from small airfields, 3) Is cheap. Kind of like a STOL F-16XL. Basically flood the area with a cheap air-superiority fighter.
 
On the topic of automation.
Radiation shielding for leading edge gpu.
https://www.space.com/ai-nvidia-gpu-spacex-launch-transporter-11
This should help in using latest hardware in fighters.
Nvidia Orin was released in 2022. Future nodes are rumoured to be built with some radiation shielding because of electron transport and some issues as transistors shrink. Also easier to implement new functions on such powerful hardware. No need to bang the head with 28nm cpu.
 
Last edited:
indicisivedivide said:
On the topic of automation.
Radiation shielding for leading edge gpu.
https://www.space.com/ai-nvidia-gpu-spacex-launch-transporter-11
This should help in using latest hardware in fighters.
Nvidia Orin was released in 2022. Future nodes are rumoured to be built with some radiation shielding because of electron transport and some issues as transistors shrink. Also easier to implement new functions on such powerful hardware. No need to bang the head with 28nm cpu.
Click to expand...
Big news for NVidia too, since it's potentially a new market.
 
FighterJock said:
A US GCAP/Tempest while I like that idea Forest Green it will never happen, there is too much at stake for the US aircraft companies.
Click to expand...
Oh I know, but it beats the idea of this light fighter, which is basically just a copy and pasted F-35 re-badged as an NGAD.
 
Why is everyone freaking out? It literally has built to adapt written on it, so I assume it will improve as time goes on.
 
Isn’t there a pilot retention issue and general shortage? Who’s going to fly these, I’m assuming hundreds maybe thousands, of light fighters in addition to what we have in terms of other aircraft?

Another dumb dead end idea IMHO. Just build the darn NGAD.
 
bobbymike said:
Isn’t there a pilot retention issue and general shortage? Who’s going to fly these I’m assuming hundreds of light fighters? Another dumb dead end idea IMHO. Just build the darn NGAD.
Click to expand...
That's why I posted the article about GPUs. They can theoretically allow autonomous tech beyond anyone's wildest dreams. It should solve pilot retention problem and leave a ton of space on the jet. Full cost analysis which includes increased cost of research but should allow lower operation costs will need a full study. But I am confident that total autonomy is possible.
 
If they are worried about pilot retention issues and shortage then why not build a fully unmanned twin engined NGAD just like the designs that LM released? It would not be that expensive to do would it?
 
Generals don't know what they wants , one time a F-22 successor, one time F-35 , after they are in love of the F-15 after they are in love with CCA , and now they are in love with a light fighter unable to fight the great distance of the Pacific. And what new in inventory since 10 years ? nothing . It change every two years, there was the century series of M Ropper who was a good idea too so why don't continue that strategy ?
 
Last edited:
dark sidius said:
Generals don't know what they wants , one time a F-22 successor, one time F-35 , after they are in love of the F-15 after they are in love with CCA , and now they are in love with a light fighter unable to fight the great distance of the Pacific. And what new in inventory since 10 years ? nothing . It change every two years, there was the century series of M Ropper who was a good idea too so why don't continue that strategy ?
Click to expand...
Well, this is what happens when many different groups or parties of military leaders have varying and contradicting ideas on what they think is best for the Military as a whole. Military politics and the like.
 
Model 437 has flown. Interestingly I did not known that a lot of detail was released on the aircraft, far more than Fury or QX-67. It is powered by a PW 535 with 3400 lbs thrust and a 10,000 lb MTOW with 4000 of that being fuel. Cruise speed Mach 0.8 and range said to be ~3000 miles. 1000# of stores including a central bay for two AIM-120 sized weapons.

This craft seems larger than the Incr1 vehicles - 41 x 41 feet. But I think it points to what the USAF wants for the first couple increments: a pair of AAMs on a subsonic platform using an off the shelf engine.
 
Ozair said:
Sure David Axe, replacing the F-22 fleet with F-15EXs makes a lot of sense... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What are we going to do? In the absence of a) actual cost certainty it’s impossible to the confidence and support in congress to b) fund it. USAF is pushing F-22 as much as possible with new avionics, adaptable compute systems, new LO IRST pods & drop tanks, new coatings all while they try to salvage and upgrade as many early Raptor airframes as possible. Look at all the money invested in F-35 and how all that’s resulted in is severe constipation for TR3/Block 4. Might as well invest in EX if it’s capable of taking a AIM-174 class VLRAAM or lugging a couple HACMs. Those are pretty interesting high volume rooks to move around the TO that are difficult to ignore. I don’t know.


The more I think about it the more I believe the USAF was right to kill NGAD. Right now they’d be better off approaching a new fighter as they did with Raider. The problem is they don’t have the prime continuity they did with NG to transmute B-2 into B-21, and NG has said NFW to NGAD.
 
Re the 437. That’s a
Josh_TN said:
Model 437 has flown. Interestingly I did not known that a lot of detail was released on the aircraft, far more than Fury or QX-67. It is powered by a PW 535 with 3400 lbs thrust and a 10,000 lb MTOW with 4000 of that being fuel. Cruise speed Mach 0.8 and range said to be ~3000 miles. 1000# of stores including a central bay for two AIM-120 sized weapons.

This craft seems larger than the Incr1 vehicles - 41 x 41 feet. But I think it points to what the USAF wants for the first couple increments: a pair of AAMs on a subsonic platform using an off the shelf engine.
Click to expand...

If you do the stupid person and multiply the cost per dry weight of the F-35 to a 10k pound estimate for 437 that’s a $30mm airframe just to lug two AMRAAMs / JATMs. These are pretty miserable maths to be dealing with tbh.
 
Training_Dummy said:
Re the 437. That’s a


If you do the stupid person and multiply the cost per dry weight of the F-35 to a 10k pound estimate for 437 that’s a $30mm airframe just to lug two AMRAAMs / JATMs. These are pretty miserable maths to be dealing with tbh.
Click to expand...

I think having three different platforms that could carry out an attack instead of one would have it’s benefits.
 
Training_Dummy said:
What are we going to do? In the absence of a) actual cost certainty it’s impossible to the confidence and support in congress to b) fund it. USAF is pushing F-22 as much as possible with new avionics, adaptable compute systems, new LO IRST pods & drop tanks, new coatings all while they try to salvage and upgrade as many early Raptor airframes as possible. Look at all the money invested in F-35 and how all that’s resulted in is severe constipation for TR3/Block 4. Might as well invest in EX if it’s capable of taking a AIM-174 class VLRAAM or lugging a couple HACMs. Those are pretty interesting high volume rooks to move around the TO that are difficult to ignore. I don’t know.
Click to expand...

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.

Training_Dummy said:
The more I think about it the more I believe the USAF was right to kill NGAD. Right now they’d be better off approaching a new fighter as they did with Raider.
Click to expand...
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.

Training_Dummy said:
The problem is they don’t have the prime continuity they did with NG to transmute B-2 into B-21, and NG has said NFW to NGAD.
Click to expand...
?? 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?
 
Training_Dummy said:
Re the 437. That’s a


If you do the stupid person and multiply the cost per dry weight of the F-35 to a 10k pound estimate for 437 that’s a $30mm airframe just to lug two AMRAAMs / JATMs. These are pretty miserable maths to be dealing with tbh.
Click to expand...
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 believe a key requirement of CCA will need to be having a sufficiently low enough RCS that it can get to AIM-120 firing range/no escape zone of an opponent without being detected by an airborne radar. At that point, it has about as much chance of killing a manned aircraft as the other way around. In that scenario, cost favors the less expensive platform. As for manufacturing costs, I think that will play heavily into who gets down selected. I consider 1/3 or 1/4 of the cost of F-35 to be a ceiling.

As for the manned component - I wonder if using something with better short runway performance is not a better concept than building a very large, long ranged aircraft (which is what most people suspect is the current direction). Hard to know anything without having any inkling of the program requirements.
 
Ozair said:
?? 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?
Click to expand...
LockMart is kinda busy with unfucking F35 TR3/Block 4. They have absolutely not exactly covered themselves in Glory on this, more like covered themselves in sewage for being so far behind on deliveries.

And Boing has proven themselves unable to engineer any new items.

Which leaves the one company that has delivered on time on budget, NG. Too bad NG said NFW are we bidding on NGAD...
 
Scott Kenny said:
LockMart is kinda busy with unfucking F35 TR3/Block 4. They have absolutely not exactly covered themselves in Glory on this, more like covered themselves in sewage for being so far behind on deliveries.

And Boing has proven themselves unable to engineer any new items.

Which leaves the one company that has delivered on time on budget, NG. Too bad NG said NFW are we bidding on NGAD...
Click to expand...
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...
 
Scott Kenny said:
Which leaves the one company that has delivered on time on budget, NG. Too bad NG said NFW are we bidding on NGAD...
Click to expand...
Back in the eighties, the Northrop-Grumman/LTV combination effectively refused to submit a fixed-price bid on the ATA - which morphed into the A-12 fiasco. NG corporate memory at work?
 
Arjen said:
Back in the eighties, the Northrop-Grumman/LTV combination effectively refused to submit a fixed-price bid on the ATA - which morphed into the A-12 fiasco. NG corporate memory at work?
Click to expand...
There is no indication that NGAD is going to be fixed price development or fixed price production (or both). With Boeing's leadership saying that they would not be bidding on FPC's, and knowing that it was one of the down selected OEM's it might suggest that the contract might not be as restricted in terms of fixed price components as the T-X, or the KC-46 that got the company in trouble over the last few years.
 
@bring_it_on It wasn't specifically the fixed-price shenanigans I had in mind, more NG's historical refusal to play ball with what NG apparently saw as a project unlikely to benefit the company.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom