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

[sferrin]

You have it single engine NGAD by Skunk Works
View attachment 741232
F-35 size.

Hard pass.

 

[sferrin]

Because F-22 are 15 years old plane, they can't stay forever and is capacity are very well known by China

It was a rhetorical question. It's already accepted it doesn't have the range for the Pacific so why would anybody think an NGAD with similar range miraculously would?

 

[TomcatViP]

New engine, modern structure, more compact avionics, rationalized mission objectives, refined aerodynamics, new weapons with more efficient energetics and kinetics payload, offloaded weapon magazine, smaller size...
If the B-21 ended up smaller than the B-2 with an increase in range, so can NGAD-mini do.

Think Mustang.

 

[TAOG]

You have it single engine NGAD by Skunk Works
View attachment 741232
F-35 size.

YesYesYes

I like it.

 

[FighterJock]

If they can try to emulate the B-21 for the NGAD Mini in terms of range then I am all for the downsizing TomcatVIP.

 

[Dreamfighter]

Personally I can´t see how a US fighter-jet, even a single-engine one, to be produced starting in the 2030s, could cost (much) less then an F-35(A) today. Unless it´s a 'fighter-jet' which is much more similar to a Scaled Composites Model 437 then to an F-35. Or a small hot-rod without radar, without weapons, without fuel, and without sensors except for a phone to call in the CCAs (when they´re not on vacation).

 

[Hydroman]

How'd you get that picture of the NGAD development roadmap on the left?

Next Generation Alternate Direction, Dimension or Delusion (NGAD), take your pick. NGAD production to begin when F-22's begin to go to Carvana and Carmax.

 

[BDF]

Right to me the question in all of this drama is: what exactly is the primary role for the manned component? If it's merely a battle manager (with maybe a couple JATMs/AMRAAMs as self defense weapons) then maybe a light single engine "fighter" could work. Where the primary weapons are off board in CCAs. But for the life of me, I can't see how you could possibly have a stand-in manned capability that has a medium to large responsibility as a shooter being a small single engine platform unless it goes 200nm.

My hope (but admittedly doesn't seem likely) is that most of this talk from the SecAF is still posturing to get more funding and/or putting pressure on the primes to drive costs down. I'm all in on CCAs but I would feel a ton better if we still fielded a F-22 sized force of flying star destroyers.

 

[sferrin]

New engine, modern structure, more compact avionics, rationalized mission objectives, refined aerodynamics, new weapons with more efficient energetics and kinetics payload, offloaded weapon magazine, smaller size...
If the B-21 ended up smaller than the B-2 with an increase in range, so can NGAD-mini do.

Think Mustang.

All the buzz words in the world aren't going to double its range.

 

[sferrin]

Right to me the question in all of this drama is: what exactly is the primary role for the manned component? If it's merely a battle manager (with maybe a couple JATMs/AMRAAMs as self defense weapons) then maybe a light single engine "fighter" could work. Where the primary weapons are off board in CCAs. But for the life of me, I can't see how you could possibly have a stand-in manned capability that has a medium to large responsibility as a shooter being a small single engine platform unless it goes 200nm.

My hope (but admittedly doesn't seem likely) is that most of this talk from the SecAF is still posturing to get more funding and/or putting pressure on the primes to drive costs down. I'm all in on CCAs but I would feel a ton better if we still fielded a F-22 sized force of flying star destroyers.

Better yet, a J-20 sized force.

 

[TomcatViP]

Regarding those that are skeptical about the cost objectives being lower than the F-35, I think they are referencing to the program as a whole.

Also, it was stated lately that NGAD won't be the battle manager for those CCA. Something that is then also out of the cost equation for that airframe.

CCA drones may not be tied to NGAD, need line-of-sight control: Kendall - Breaking Defense

The Air Force Secretary emphasized whatever plane flies with CCAs, it'll be manned and will need line-of-sight to maintain "tight control."

breakingdefense.com

Remark that despite many here pointing at the apparent confusion as a lack of direction, it appears, if you read across the whole spectrum of the news reports today, that they have now quite a solid idea of where they are going. Hence, I guess, the review by the senior staff that is happening now.

Something that is seldom discussed is the net increase in sorties that can be generated with a nimbler airframe. Think that all the burden on logistics and survivability that a massive airframe, let´s say NGAD-Macro would impart on an expedition force that has to be agile and remain nimble to be coherent and survivable within the battle area.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think shorting NGAD on range is a huge mistake. And costly too. What happens when the tanker gets cancelled? Or it's bought in token numbers?

Exactly.

I think the question to ask is: where exactly is NGAD going to be based out of? And the sevetal answers are basically first island chain (Japan, possibly PI), second island chain (U.S. and associated protectorates), or Australia. The first option requires no large increase to combat radius. The third requires a likely unachievable combat radius for anything with fighter-ish performance. The second option is limited to a small handful of airports/bases with runways capable of handling large aircraft, and no longer offers much more protection against PRC PGMs as their effective range has increased.

First Island Chain is well within Chinese ballistic and hypersonic missile range.

Second Island Chain is already farther than F-22s or F-15s can fly with a warload and no external tanks.

Basing in Aus requires something the size of an F-111, 105klbs plus. And that's not a problem if you use the F-35 sized adaptive engines, since they'd give you a T/W >1 at 90klbs gross. 15klbs of fuel to fly to the combat area, 15klbs to burn in combat, 15klbs to fly home.

Right to me the question in all of this drama is: what exactly is the primary role for the manned component? If it's merely a battle manager (with maybe a couple JATMs/AMRAAMs as self defense weapons) then maybe a light single engine "fighter" could work. Where the primary weapons are off board in CCAs. But for the life of me, I can't see how you could possibly have a stand-in manned capability that has a medium to large responsibility as a shooter being a small single engine platform unless it goes 200nm.

Think you meant 2,000nmi, but yes. And honestly, I'm thinking more like 3000nmi on internal fuel, so you can fly 1000nmi to the target in cruise, use 1000nmi of fuel in combat, and still fly 1000nmi home afterwards.

My hope (but admittedly doesn't seem likely) is that most of this talk from the SecAF is still posturing to get more funding and/or putting pressure on the primes to drive costs down.

Last time the Pentagon did that, the A-12 never happened.

I'm all in on CCAs but I would feel a ton better if we still fielded a F-22 sized force of flying star destroyers.

No, I want an F-15 sized force of flying star destroyers. 500ish planes.

 

[kqcke for you]

I mean an F-35XL like the F-16 XL without the dual roles (B and C versions) could give ous an F-35 like jet with better kinematics and more fuel fraction.

 

[4decaa]

Next Generation Alternate Direction, Dimension or Delusion (NGAD), take your pick. NGAD production to begin when F-22's begin to go to Carvana and Carmax.

I think we’d be lucky to have a contract awarded by that point

 

[dark sidius]

Regarding those that are skeptical about the cost objectives being lower than the F-35, I think they are referencing to the program as a whole.

Also, it was stated lately that NGAD won't be the battle manager for those CCA. Something that is then also out of the cost equation for that airframe.

CCA drones may not be tied to NGAD, need line-of-sight control: Kendall - Breaking Defense

The Air Force Secretary emphasized whatever plane flies with CCAs, it'll be manned and will need line-of-sight to maintain "tight control."

breakingdefense.com

Remark that despite many here pointing at the confusion as a lack of direction, it appears if you read across the whole spectrum of the news reports that they have know quite a solid idea of where they are going. Hence, I guess, the review by the senior staff.

They know very well what they want , there is a timing reason for something behind this story.

 

[Dreamfighter]

Regarding those that are skeptical about the cost objectives being lower than the F-35, I think they are referencing to the program as a whole.

Also, it was stated lately that NGAD won't be the battle manager for those CCAA. Something that is then also out of the cost equation for that airframe.

https://breakingdefense.com/2024/09...-ngad-need-line-of-sight-control-kendall[/B]/

Remark that despite many here pointing at the apparent confusion as a lack of direction, it appears, if you read across the whole spectrum of the news reports today, that they have now quite a solid idea of where they are going. Hence, I guess, the review by the senior staff.

TWZ thinks/interprets/writes the opposite;

"Kendall also suggested that more narrowly focusing the design of a planned crewed sixth-generation stealth combat jet around the drone controller mission might offer a path to dramatically reduce the unit cost of those aircraft. He has left the door open in the past to the potential for this aircraft, which is part of the larger Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) initiative, to be pilot-optional or even entirely uncrewed in the end but has also said a crewed design of some kind is still likely to emerge. "
...
"The F-35 kind of represents, to me, the upper bounds of what we’d like to pay for an individual [NGAD combat jet] aircraft,” the Secretary of the Air Force said yesterday. “I’d like to go lower though … once you start integrating CCAs and transferring some mission equipment and capabilities [and] functions to the CCAs, then you can talk about a different concept, potentially, for the crewed fighter that’s controlling them.”
...
"The original NGAD combat jet concept that is now under review has been expected to have a unit cost roughly three times that of an F-35. Kendall said that the Air Force could still pursue a design like that if the ongoing reassessment determines that to be the best course of action."

No Flying Wing UCAVs Being Developed By U.S. Air Force While China Surges Ahead

The U.S. continues to pass over very stealthy, long-range, highly autonomous UCAVs in favor of pursuing lower-cost 'loyal wingman' drones.

www.twz.com

 

[Scott Kenny]

it was stated lately that NGAD won't be the battle manager for those CCA. Something that is then also out of the cost equation for that airframe.

If not NGAD as the battle manager, then what? B-21s?!?

Something that is seldom discussed is the net increase in sorties that can be generated with a nimbler airframe. Think that all the burden on logistics and survivability that a massive airframe, let´s say NGAD-Macro would impart on an expedition force that has to be agile and remain nimble to be coherent and survivable within the battle area.

The whole point of the F-111 sized NGAD-Macro was that its bases would not be in the battle area.

I mean an F-35XL like the F-16 XL without the dual roles (B and C versions) could give ous an F-35 like jet with better kinematics and more fuel fraction.

Okay, I see what you were thinking about. But that would be a much bigger redesign on the F-35 than on the F-16 due to LO edge alignment shaping rules. New inlet mouths, new wings, new tails (or no tail, which still requires a lot of design work). Maybe even new panel shapes!

 

[joshjosh]

Next Generation Air Dominated by China

 

[joshjosh]

If you just need a stealthy drone controller, why do you even need to build Penetrating Counter Air? What exactly would you build for less than the cost of an F-35, and why not just use the F-35? If you're going to "disaggregate" your missiles, sensors, fuel, pilot, etc. then you already have a really good platform in the F-35 which can carry the exquisite sensors, the pilot, and some internal stores.

But that just doesn't really sound like air dominance to me. The F-35 was really meant to be the "low" in the future "hi-low mix." It was designed to be affordable and maintanable. It's not very maintanable, and cost per flight hour is expensive, but it certainly is cheap to procure given the sensing/computing/penetration capabilities. PCA/NGAD was meant to be the "high" portion of the mix, the air supremacy fighter.

Kendall isn't proposing a revolutionary paradigm, not really. CCAs plus some cheap pilot-carrying drone controller isn't a new paradigm, it's just "relatively affordable and mildly attritable fighters in decent quantities and with moderate capabilities." Building millions of FPV drones to take on the J-20 fleets would be a revolutionary paradigm, but that's not what we're talking about here.

Technological superiority has been proven in recent decades, in actual hot wars fought by the United States. Kendall just wants to give that up? Why, because he doesn't think we can compete any longer? None of this make sense to me.

 

[BDF]

Think you meant 2,000nmi, but yes. And honestly, I'm thinking more like 3000nmi on internal fuel, so you can fly 1000nmi to the target in cruise, use 1000nmi of fuel in combat, and still fly 1000nmi home afterwards.

No what I mean is that if you want to make the manned component the primary shooter in this proposed architecture, with a reasonable magazine depth and some of the other qualities such as wide band VLO etc in a cheaper than F-35, single engine package, then you're going to have a range of just 200nm. I am being hyperbolic but the point I am making is that you'd have to give up a lot to keep that stand-in primary shooter role.

1000nm worth of fuel for combat would be a really difficult to achieve in a fighter sized platform. As I recall most of the mission sets defined in USAF pubs define combat in terms of a few minutes of afterburner use. Personally I would shoot for radius of 1500nm+ plus a allocation for combat.

Last time the Pentagon did that, the A-12 never happened.

I am aware but that wasn't identified as the root failure(s) in the program. This situation is far from ideal even my hope is correct.

No, I want an F-15 sized force of flying star destroyers. 500ish planes.

Yeah so would I but that isn't the budgetary reality...

 

[raptor82]

Lockheed Eyes Low-Cost Attritable Drone for CCA Increment 2

Lockheed Martin will focus on lower cost, more attritable aircraft in its proposal for Increment 2 of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA).

www.airandspaceforces.com

Lol.

Because of the physical characteristics of the winning designs for the current generation of CCA aircraft, and in particular the tail fins, they are likely to be visible to the enemy long before they are able to deploy their sensors, Clark said.

“These tails on the side … are big reflectors,” he said, making the aircraft visible to enemy radar, “which is why, when you look at things like the B-21 [bomber] or … the RQ-170 [Sentinel UAV] they don’t have tails.”

 

[4decaa]

Is there a reason selected CCA designs/majority of 'offered' designs are not flying wings/bwb/tailless? Is it too expensive to manufacture? design? not modular enough? Seems like that has been the better choice from the start at least from the perspective of LO.

 

[Moose]

Is there a reason selected CCA designs/majority of 'offered' designs are not flying wings/bwb/tailless? Is it too expensive to manufacture? design? not modular enough? Seems like that has been the better choice from the start at least from the perspective of LO.

I'm guessing cost/rapidity of development, but with Kendall I'm not ruling out anything

 

[Ozair]

Is there a reason selected CCA designs/majority of 'offered' designs are not flying wings/bwb/tailless? Is it too expensive to manufacture? design? not modular enough? Seems like that has been the better choice from the start at least from the perspective of LO.

LO wasn't a primary driver for Phase 1, cost was. GA has spoken about how the aircraft is primarily metal as the bending metal part is easy to do, well understood and more available than carbon fibre construction. Later phases may go into more exotic materials and lower RCS/IR signatures but that also depends on the CONOPS. If the CCA is just being sent forward by itself or in a pod of aircraft to accomplish a mission and returns to the mothership afterwards then low RCS isn't as important. If they are being designed to shepherd F-35s/F-22s/manned NGAD into a high threat zone then clearly LO matching the host platform would make more sense.

 

[Scott Kenny]

No what I mean is that if you want to make the manned component the primary shooter in this proposed architecture, with a reasonable magazine depth and some of the other qualities such as wide band VLO etc in a cheaper than F-35, single engine package, then you're going to have a range of just 200nm. I am being hyperbolic but the point I am making is that you'd have to give up a lot to keep that stand-in primary shooter role.

Ah, gotcha.

1000nm worth of fuel for combat would be a really difficult to achieve in a fighter sized platform. As I recall most of the mission sets defined in USAF pubs define combat in terms of a few minutes of afterburner use. Personally I would shoot for radius of 1500nm+ plus a allocation for combat.

I mean, the F-35 has a combat radius of ~675nmi, so +50% fuel over an F-35 would get you there. 28,000lbs internal fuel for a single engine plane.

My mental image for NGAD was something F-111 sized, ~105klbs, with ~50,000lbs of fuel internally. Which isn't out of line for a stealthy chonk airframe that's only carrying ~6,000lbs of AAMs. The trick is convincing the USAF to make the weapons bays deep enough to hold things like JASSMs and 2000lb bombs (and/or AIM174s) in the design phase, and leave enough strength in the airframe to take the MTOW up to 125k for a strike version later on. In any case, it's a two-seater so the pilot can concentrate on flying and/or dogfighting while the backseater quarterbacks the CCAs.

My mental goal for the NGAD as a system was to have basically one manned plane per strike package, with everything else being CCAs. But right now, it looks like the limits are about 3x CCA per manned plane.

I am aware but that wasn't identified as the root failure(s) in the program.

Should have been identified as one of the root causes, after the Program Office told MDD to go cheaper even after NG gave a non-compliant bid...

Is there a reason selected CCA designs/majority of 'offered' designs are not flying wings/bwb/tailless? Is it too expensive to manufacture? design? not modular enough? Seems like that has been the better choice from the start at least from the perspective of LO.

I'm not sure how many companies have a solid set of flight control laws for a tailless aircraft. Lockmart and NG do, but that's about it.

Also, metal bending is easy to change, while composite layups need a new mandrel/tool made for every iteration, which gets expensive. CCA Increment 1 was chosen based on price and IIRC immediate availability, probably to get USAF, Inc used to working with CCAs. I suspect Increment 2 is when the real capabilities will start showing up.

 

[Forest Green]

Skunk Works' Losing Loyal Wingman Drone Was Very Stealthy "Gold Plated" Design

Lockheed Martin is now exploring optionally expendable designs to propose in an attempt to win the second round of the CCA program.

www.twz.com

 

[kqcke for you]

Okay, I see what you were thinking about. But that would be a much bigger redesign on the F-35 than on the F-16 due to LO edge alignment shaping rules. New inlet mouths, new wings, new tails (or no tail, which still requires a lot of design work). Maybe even new panel shapes!

It was meant more symbolic given that a new airframe is more efficient as we don't have the STOVL and CTOL requierments which shape all 3 airframes. But an improved engine which has F-135 efficiency if needed or F-119 like kinematics trought an adaptiv design with an large welta wing design could make an fighter getting close to the requierments if we use the LO tanks of Raptor.

Edit: Something akin to this. Larger than an F-35

 

[bring_it_on]

My guess is that the spiraling costs forced a harder look at the survivability of the platform given its basing scheme. That may or may not force a major change to the program requirements. But it is worth reconsidering the program if basically every suitable runway at the range band the aircraft can achieve is located in Guam. It seems to me having a fighter and tanker force with better short/rough airstrip performance is a more flexible basing concept, even if it comes at the sacrifice of absolute range of the combat platform.

All valid considerations. My guess is that a potential IG investigation, Sentinel overrun and the election season played some role here. There is a chance that the requirements get validated in a couple of months and the program proceeds. In the absence of that, there will most likely be more public congressional scrutiny leading up to the FY26 budget rollout. If not, then its pretty much going back to square one and starting from scratch (programmatically speaking)

 

[bring_it_on]

​

Fast Review​

Whatever the Air Force does, it has to move quickly, Kendall said, citing expectations from Congress and industry as well as the need to submit a 2026 budget.

Kendall has previously said the NGAD contract would be awarded this calendar year, but that won’t happen now.

To aid the process, the Air Force has assembled a blue-ribbon committee of senior former service leaders to review and possibly vet the service’s new approach to NGAD. The panel members, listed alphabetically, include three former chiefs of staff and two other experts:

• Natalie Crawford, a former top analyst and vice president at RAND, former director of Project Air Force.
• Retired Gen. David L. Goldfein, chief of staff from 2016-2020
• Retired Gen. John P. Jumper, chief of staff from 2001-2005
• Paul Kaminski, an Air Force veteran, expert on stealth, and former Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology from 1994-1997
• Retired Gen. Joseph Ralston, vice chairman of the joint chiefs from 1996-2000 and head of Air Combat Command from 1995 to 1996
• Retired Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, chief of staff from 2008-2012

Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin, during his own press conference, said the group comprises “a broad portfolio of experts with a mandate to “really assess our assessments, look at the evaluations we’re doing, making sure we’re really not missing anything in our analysis, in how we understand the threat and how we understand the capabilities that are going to be required of our Air Force to meet that threat. Their job is to look at that and give us feedback and insights that they see that will help us do this analysis that we have to do in fairly short order.”

The group will not make the final decision, though, Allvin said. He and Kendall “will get the final say on what will be proposed to the Office of the Secretary of Defense.” And of course, Congress “will have a say after that.”

Whether all that can be accomplished quickly is uncertain, though. If a radical change is needed in NGAD, it would likely mean terminating the previous program and starting over with a new trip through the Pentagon’s Joint Requirements Oversight Council process. Then it would need to go through the Office of Management and Budget. Collectively, it is a process which could take many months and likely not before the fiscal 2026 budget submission without top-level intervention.

Kendall: New, Re-Imagined NGAD Could Cost Less Than an F-35

The Air Force is reconsidering the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program and looking to slash its cost, service leaders said.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[FighterJock]

I will believe it when I see the final price tag of the redesigned NGAD.

 

[joewee]

Presenting ... the NGAD Family of Systems

History Doesn't Repeat, But It Often Rhymes. --Mark Twain

 

[Moose]

​

Kendall: New, Re-Imagined NGAD Could Cost Less Than an F-35

The Air Force is reconsidering the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program and looking to slash its cost, service leaders said.

www.airandspaceforces.com

Oh good they assembled a bunch of brass. We're saved.

 

[totoro]

Better yet, a J-20 sized force.

Why a j20 sized force if j20 is not competitive enough with f22 (and f35?) to be at near parity?
And why a j20 sized force when there are going to be additional few hundred Japanese and British gcap fighters in the area, fighting alongside those f22s and f35s?

 

[totoro]

To aid the process, the Air Force has assembled a blue-ribbon committee of senior former service leaders to review and possibly vet the service’s new approach to NGAD. The panel members, listed alphabetically, include three former chiefs of staff and two other experts:

• Natalie Crawford, a former top analyst and vice president at RAND, former director of Project Air Force. -82 years old
• Retired Gen. David L. Goldfein, chief of staff from 2016-2020 -65 years old
• Retired Gen. John P. Jumper, chief of staff from 2001-2005 -79 years old
• Paul Kaminski, an Air Force veteran, expert on stealth, and former Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology from 1994-1997 -82 years old
• Retired Gen. Joseph Ralston, vice chairman of the joint chiefs from 1996-2000 and head of Air Combat Command from 1995 to 1996 -81 years old
• Retired Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, chief of staff from 2008-2012 -73 years old

I added the info on participants' age. As shown, that panel's participants average age is 77 years. Greatest majority of people at said age are unable to properly grasp newly learned concepts. If they have get real sway on decisions, USAF may be stuck in the past, instead of watching out for changes in tactics, strategy and doctrine that mew technologies are bringing.

 

[paralay]

The F/A-35F
has been increased by 3%, a two-seat cockpit, two weapon bay for the AGM-158. Two external fuel tanks. Three-circuit engine. Maximum speed M1.8 - 2.1, cruising speed M1.5
Flight range 3500 km, with two external tanks 4500 km

 

[Scott Kenny]

Why a j20 sized force if j20 is not competitive enough with f22 (and f35?) to be at near parity?
And why a j20 sized force when there are going to be additional few hundred Japanese and British gcap fighters in the area, fighting alongside those f22s and f35s?

1) Because there are 300x J20s in service, 50% more than there are F-22s.
2) GCAP won't be in service till well after the probable China/Taiwan crisis in 2027, likely not till 2035 or 2040.

 

[sferrin]

Why a j20 sized force if j20 is not competitive enough with f22 (and f35?) to be at near parity?
And why a j20 sized force when there are going to be additional few hundred Japanese and British gcap fighters in the area, fighting alongside those f22s and f35s?

There are more J-20s than F-22s. I thought that was obvious.

 

[Forest Green]

1) Because there are 300x J20s in service, 50% more than there are F-22s.
2) GCAP won't be in service till well after the probable China/Taiwan crisis in 2027, likely not till 2035 or 2040.

Where did this 2027 timescale come from?

How DC became obsessed with a potential 2027 Chinese invasion of Taiwan

Some in defense circles say the U.S. needs to prepare for Beijing's invasion of Taiwan in 2027. China experts say it isn’t a deadline.

www.defensenews.com

 

[totoro]

There are more J-20s than F-22s. I thought that was obvious.

But A) there are more f35 and f22 than j20.
And B) is not f22 often touted by many as more potent than j20? Some even say that f35 is more potent? If that is so, does it not mean that a force of 100 f22/f35 is just as capable as a force of >100 j20?

 

[dark sidius]

Where did this 2027 timescale come from?

How DC became obsessed with a potential 2027 Chinese invasion of Taiwan

Some in defense circles say the U.S. needs to prepare for Beijing's invasion of Taiwan in 2027. China experts say it isn’t a deadline.

www.defensenews.com

This is why accelerated NGAD program and all high end platforms.