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

Josh_TN said:
I think people need to start considering the fact that most every platform is going to be detectable in the medium term. The Space Force already has access to more cheap lift to LEO than it could use. SDA plans to launch 200 plus satellites every two years starting next year and that will only go up. NRO has already placed 80 recon satellites in orbit since May in four launches with two more expected before Christmas, and those satellites were contracted just in 2021. Detection technology cycles are literally already down to several years, and global radar satellite networks are coming this decade (the USAF GMTI program looks to put test satellites up in several years). A large fast aircraft likely is going to be visible from orbit by the time it enters service, possibly in multiple wavelengths. Putting all your eggs in one expensive basket is likely not a viable solution. I think this is also one of the reasons the USAF has not shown enthusiasm for dramatically accelerating B-21 production - they are concerned its stealth has a shelf life, even at subsonic speeds.
Click to expand...
Medium term has an uncomfortably labile definition, but I take your point. That said, B-21 is being made today and even if we theoretically agreed that in the "medium term" a Raider might not do as well in/within the first or second island chain, there are many other geographies (likely most of the rest of the world) where it would be a phenomenal upgrade over B-52, B-2 and B-1 for penetrating strike. Add potential, future unmanned piloting, throw in some software upgrades for its AESA arrays to add air to air fluency plus longer ranged missiles and post increment 1 CCAs, and it makes perfect sense to me; perhaps the only thing that makes real sense to invest in, in 2024.
 
Josh_TN said:
B-21 makes perfect sense. It is here now.

A several hundred million dollar manned NGAD post 2030 does not make sense to me.
Click to expand...

The often quoted $300m price for NGAD is from 2018/2019 when the vision for the aircraft and program was very different.

A large driver for the costs is the engine program though even today.
 
quellish said:
The often quoted $300m price for NGAD is from 2018/2019 when the vision for the aircraft and program was very different.

A large driver for the costs is the engine program though even today.
Click to expand...

And i think that is why the program might be scaled down to something more like a modern F-35: not one can afford that bespoke tech.
 
Josh_TN said:
And i think that is why the program might be scaled down to something more like a modern F-35: not one can afford that bespoke tech.
Click to expand...

It was scaled down long ago. In the 2018 timeframe the intent was to put all of the 5 key technologies into one new manned aircraft. Not long after that the objective changed to maturing those technologies and begin incorporating them into other existing systems rather than one new manned aircraft.

The Nearly Decade-long Story That Led To NGAD Flight Demonstrator | Aviation Week Network

How a massive budget cut, a DARPA program and a lengthy internal debate transformed the NGAD program.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
 
Training_Dummy said:
Medium term has an uncomfortably labile definition, but I take your point.
Click to expand...
Before we sell the farm we need to remember that this is just a continuation of the game. For every advance there will be similar advance on the counter side. Being so worried about detection from long range or from space just provides an opportunity for decoys to advance further. In the example of the B-21 I could see a decoy that could potentially match IR and RCS signature complicating the targeting picture the same way a towed decoy or MALD might today.

Training_Dummy said:
That said, B-21 is being made today and even if we theoretically agreed that in the "medium term" a Raider might not do as well in/within the first or second island chain, there are many other geographies (likely most of the rest of the world) where it would be a phenomenal upgrade over B-52, B-2 and B-1 for penetrating strike. Add potential, future unmanned piloting, throw in some software upgrades for its AESA arrays to add air to air fluency plus longer ranged missiles and post increment 1 CCAs, and it makes perfect sense to me; perhaps the only thing that makes real sense to invest in, in 2024.
Click to expand...
Noting that sensors can be not only deceived but also destroyed. We might have a longer air campaign to create a more permissive or maybe the better term is less hostile environment to fly within. For the peer v peer there won't be air supremacy but the intent to create short windows of air superiority to achieve the aims of the raid. Knock out the right sensors, network nodes etc and prosecute the targets.

The other key is mass. When you have enough mass in the battle space the high cost exquisite platforms are more likely to hide within the noise.
 
Last edited:
Fully agree with you dark sidius, why not develop the SR-72 into a fully fledged hypersonic interceptor UCAV as a replacement for NGAD it would be much cheaper overall than developing the NGAD as it would use the existing systems on the SR-72, the only thing that would need to be developed would be a long range air to air radar.
 
FighterJock said:
Fully agree with you dark sidius, why not develop the SR-72 into a fully fledged hypersonic interceptor UCAV as a replacement for NGAD it would be much cheaper overall than developing the NGAD as it would use the existing systems on the SR-72, the only thing that would need to be developed would be a long range air to air radar.
Click to expand...
(1)Sr-72 doesn't exist either, and it's up to debate what is further.
(2)Practicality of hypersonic fighter is under a question mark.
(3)High speed one trick interceptor, as history has shown, is not a fighter.
(4)...and while independent unmanned interceptor or reconnaissance aircraft is indeed nothing magical since 1960s(though since 1960s it's a proven way to share your advanced tech with adversaries), independent fighter is very much a case of sci-fi thinking.
 
Who knows what is being developed in the Black World Ainen. We were all shocked when the F-117A was revealed back in 1988.
 
Ozair said:
For the peer v peer there won't be air supremacy but the intent to create short windows of air superiority to achieve the aims of the raid. Knock out the right sensors, network nodes etc and prosecute the targets.
Click to expand...

Fast transients all over again, this time with a very different meaning. I totally agree.

Ozair said:
The other key is mass. When you have enough mass in the battle space the high cost exquisite platforms are more likely to hide within the noise.
Click to expand...

Again, agreed. Mass in the form of CCAs, next gen MALDI like decoys and more survivable, effective longer ranged weapons seems to be absolutely critical in at least some of the large peer on peer war games.
 
Training_Dummy said:
Fast transients all over again, this time with a very different meaning. I totally agree.



Again, agreed. Mass in the form of CCAs, next gen MALDI like decoys and more survivable, effective longer ranged weapons seems to be absolutely critical in at least some of the large peer on peer war games.
Click to expand...

One huge advantage of the subsonic realm is that cost effective decoys are a thing, be it MALD-Ns mixed with tomahawks or some flavor of CCA launched effector. Once you go supersonic, the weapon/aircraft is pretty much on its own: it is expensive in money, volume, and mass to create a supersonic decoy/stand in jammer. You basically have paid the cost of the full aircraft/weapon once you invest in it being supersonic; you might as well give it a warhead.
 
When one billionaire thinks he knows everything about everything.

www.spacewar.com

Musk calls for US to replace fighter jets with drones

Washington (AFP) Nov 25, 2024 - Billionaire Elon Musk, tapped by US President-elect Donald Trump to slash federal government spending, lashed out at modern fighter jets on Monday, saying that drones were the future of air combat.
www.spacewar.com
 
Forest Green said:
When one billionaire thinks he knows everything about everything.

www.spacewar.com

Musk calls for US to replace fighter jets with drones

Washington (AFP) Nov 25, 2024 - Billionaire Elon Musk, tapped by US President-elect Donald Trump to slash federal government spending, lashed out at modern fighter jets on Monday, saying that drones were the future of air combat.
www.spacewar.com
Click to expand...
But his opinion is starting to spread through the media space like an avalanche. It's everywhere.
Public opinion is changing rapidly, and legislators are beginning to adapt. Traditional manufacturers and the US Air Force are facing tough times.
 
Geo said:
But his opinion is starting to spread through the media space like an avalanche. It's everywhere.
Public opinion is changing rapidly, and legislators are beginning to adapt. Traditional manufacturers and the US Air Force are facing tough times.
Click to expand...
They must stop with their F... drones you don't win war with it , look Uhraine war this is with fire power you win a war not f...k chinese toys. Hypersonic missile or bomber/fighter is the way to win war of the futur, and winning the war in space too.
 
Forest Green said:
When one billionaire thinks he knows everything about everything.

www.spacewar.com

Musk calls for US to replace fighter jets with drones

Washington (AFP) Nov 25, 2024 - Billionaire Elon Musk, tapped by US President-elect Donald Trump to slash federal government spending, lashed out at modern fighter jets on Monday, saying that drones were the future of air combat.
www.spacewar.com
Click to expand...
He want to sell Starship with the NGAD budget. Look Starship is drone :D
 
Forest Green said:
When one billionaire thinks he knows everything about everything.

www.spacewar.com

Musk calls for US to replace fighter jets with drones

Washington (AFP) Nov 25, 2024 - Billionaire Elon Musk, tapped by US President-elect Donald Trump to slash federal government spending, lashed out at modern fighter jets on Monday, saying that drones were the future of air combat.
www.spacewar.com
Click to expand...
last I checked the F-35 doesn’t have a catastrophic failure and fall out of the sky when you point a high energy microwave at it, even though it’s a smaller fighter :cool:
 
Geo said:
But his opinion is starting to spread through the media space like an avalanche. It's everywhere.
Public opinion is changing rapidly, and legislators are beginning to adapt. Traditional manufacturers and the US Air Force are facing tough times.
Click to expand...
People are dumb. That's not a revelation.
 
Forest Green said:
When one billionaire thinks he knows everything about everything.

www.spacewar.com

Musk calls for US to replace fighter jets with drones

Washington (AFP) Nov 25, 2024 - Billionaire Elon Musk, tapped by US President-elect Donald Trump to slash federal government spending, lashed out at modern fighter jets on Monday, saying that drones were the future of air combat.
www.spacewar.com
Click to expand...

Hol' on, don't drones need AI for combat, but according to Musk, AI is EEEVIILL . . . !!

cheers,
Robin.
 
Geo said:
But his opinion is starting to spread through the media space like an avalanche. It's everywhere.
Public opinion is changing rapidly, and legislators are beginning to adapt. Traditional manufacturers and the US Air Force are facing tough times.
Click to expand...
Back on earth one, the problem with the F-35 is not Elon Musk, but rather that of demand exceeding supply and the contractor and program office trying to overcome development challenges with the next block upgrade which everyone seems to want.
 
bring_it_on said:
Back on earth one, the problem with the F-35 is not Elon Musk, but rather that of demand exceeding supply and the contractor and program office trying to overcome development challenges with the next block upgrade which everyone seems to want.
Click to expand...
There is no problem with the F-35 there is 1000 of them ever built, the Block 4 seem to have realy enormous capacity and the F-135 with Ecu enhanced surely will boost the performance and the top speed of the F-35 , now it is time to continue and build the NGAD.
 
I think the F-35 is exhibit A in how not to run a program, though enough money was thrown at it to keep it going and the sheer size of the orders make its flyaway costs very reasonable for the capability. NGAD would absolutely fail if it ran into even half the delays and problems F-35 went through, since it will be bought in hundreds, not thousands, by only one organization. I think the only hope for success is the B-21 model: TR-6 or better, everything off the shelf. But on the other hand it seems more than likely the five enabling technologies are rather specifically not at that readiness level. That is probably a big part of the funding/speed to ramp aspects of the requirements review.

I suspect the end result is more of an all aspect stealth interceptor with largely F-35 based technology, possibly even the F135 power plant.
 
NMaude said:
I think you meant TRL-6, but, yes, having tech that is mature or very close to mature is a must here.
Click to expand...
I disagree. If the USAF doesn't push the envelope then it does not achieve the technical superiority it desires. Some of that takes time and money and there is no way around it.

Were the USAF still pursuing the digital century series methodology then perhaps they could have matured technologies through new digital century platforms but that concept/philosophy has ended. Even then digital century series was likely to cost more in the long run.
Josh_TN said:
I think the F-35 is exhibit A in how not to run a program, though enough money was thrown at it to keep it going and the sheer size of the orders make its flyaway costs very reasonable for the capability. NGAD would absolutely fail if it ran into even half the delays and problems F-35 went through, since it will be bought in hundreds, not thousands, by only one organization. I think the only hope for success is the B-21 model: TR-6 or better, everything off the shelf
Click to expand...
But the issue is you don't get to the B-21 without the F-35 program developing those technologies past TRL 6.
 
Last edited:
GTX said:
The amusing thing with those who like to criticise the F-35 and also want to go to a 6th Gen NGAD or similar is that you can't do that without the F-35
Click to expand...
I think the mindset there is that the NGAD jet component is somehow supposed to bandaid fix the F-35, not realizing that it isn't the solution or even remotely the purpose.
 
Ozair said:
But the issue is you don't get to the B-21 without the F-35 program developing those technologies past TRL 6.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but i feel from an avionics perspective the F-35 blk4 is good enough, and managing development costs matter. If you gave the blk4 avionics and powerplant a broadband aero shell optimized for speed/range instead of the pudgy F-35, you could likely get a super cruise and range boost. If you were willing to pursue the three stream engine option discarded for F-35, you could potentially gain more performance while still having a fallback engine option from the F-35 upgrade. Worse case, you use an existing engine and logistics stream.

From an electronics point of view, do we really need more capability than blk4 once they work the kinks out? It’s basically a complete refresh of the entire avionics - GaN radar, expanded ESM/ECM, new OETS, new DAS, 25 times the processing power…in another time it would have warranted a new letter designation.
 
Josh_TN said:
in another time it would have warranted a new letter designation.
Click to expand...

I've indicated several times upthread that new letter designation should be used for the Block-4 variant:

F-35A Block-4 -> F-35D
F-35A Block-4 -> F-35E
F-35A Block-4 -> F-35F
 
USN should move forward with the F/A-XX, they need a very good carrier defense/air superiority fighter. No more tri-service aircraft, not worth it, each service has their own missions. And F/A-XX should use an upgraded version of the F135 and current off the shelf avionics, again to move along quickly. In the end, the USN will have a very capable aircraft, look at the F-15EX, very capable and still very viable fighter.
USAF seems to either be confused or already has a baseline, black program aircraft selected and building but not from NGC. CCAs make for very good extra mission capability and USAF may be using CCAs as a public smoke screen, just my assumptions. B-21 having a fighter mission as articles have mentioned, not happening. Stand-off missiles (cruise, anti-radiation, anti-shipping yes and etc), its a bomber, a flying wing and fairly large but will be extremely stealthy as its intended purpose.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think the F-35 is exhibit A in how not to run a program, though enough money was thrown at it to keep it going and the sheer size of the orders make its flyaway costs very reasonable for the capability. NGAD would absolutely fail if it ran into even half the delays and problems F-35 went through, since it will be bought in hundreds, not thousands, by only one organization. I think the only hope for success is the B-21 model: TR-6 or better, everything off the shelf. But on the other hand it seems more than likely the five enabling technologies are rather specifically not at that readiness level. That is probably a big part of the funding/speed to ramp aspects of the requirements review.

I suspect the end result is more of an all aspect stealth interceptor with largely F-35 based technology, possibly even the F135 power plant.
Click to expand...
I'd want a dual approach to the problem. Have the USAF buy GCAP with F-35 avionics as the interim F-15C replacement, while keeping NGAD as the experimental design with all the new tech. So you fix the short-term issues with an off-the-shelf design while still pushing NGAD forward but with less pressure.
 
Josh_TN said:
Fair enough, but i feel from an avionics perspective the F-35 blk4 is good enough, and managing development costs matter. If you gave the blk4 avionics and powerplant a broadband aero shell optimized for speed/range instead of the pudgy F-35, you could likely get a super cruise and range boost. If you were willing to pursue the three stream engine option discarded for F-35, you could potentially gain more performance while still having a fallback engine option from the F-35 upgrade. Worse case, you use an existing engine and logistics stream.

From an electronics point of view, do we really need more capability than blk4 once they work the kinks out? It’s basically a complete refresh of the entire avionics - GaN radar, expanded ESM/ECM, new OETS, new DAS, 25 times the processing power…in another time it would have warranted a new letter designation.
Click to expand...
Blk 4 is a great capability but it probably doesn't keep the USAF ahead in 2040 which is the issue Kendall is trying to address with the review.

It also doesn't really address the range issues that NGAD is meant to overcome. You get part of the way there with the F135 improvements but not enough to significantly change the dynamic.
Desertfox said:
I'd want a dual approach to the problem. Have the USAF buy GCAP with F-35 avionics as the interim F-15C replacement, while keeping NGAD as the experimental design with all the new tech. So you fix the short-term issues with an off-the-shelf design while still pushing NGAD forward but with less pressure.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure buying GCAP, which hasn't even provided a representative image yet of the aircraft, would come any earlier. Nor would the risks reduce by trying to apply F-35 avionics to the design. The USAF is essentially ready to award a contract to a vendor, GCAP isn't even at that stage yet.
 
Hydroman said:
USN should move forward with the F/A-XX, they need a very good carrier defense/air superiority fighter. No more tri-service aircraft, not worth it, each service has their own missions. And F/A-XX should use an upgraded version of the F135 and current off the shelf avionics, again to move along quickly. In the end, the USN will have a very capable aircraft, look at the F-15EX, very capable and still very viable fighter.
USAF seems to either be confused or already has a baseline, black program aircraft selected and building but not from NGC. CCAs make for very good extra mission capability and USAF may be using CCAs as a public smoke screen, just my assumptions. B-21 having a fighter mission as articles have mentioned, not happening. Stand-off missiles (cruise, anti-radiation, anti-shipping yes and etc), its a bomber, a flying wing and fairly large but will be extremely stealthy as its intended purpose.
Click to expand...
My suspicion for FAXX is that it's basically a bunch of F35 parts in an F111B sized airframe.

Pair of F135 engines (but the big adaptive engines are preferred), almost all the F-35 avionics, then add the stuff to control CCAs in the back seat.
 
Ozair said:
Blk 4 is a great capability but it probably doesn't keep the USAF ahead in 2040 which is the issue Kendall is trying to address with the review.

It also doesn't really address the range issues that NGAD is meant to overcome. You get part of the way there with the F135 improvements but not enough to significantly change the dynamic.
Click to expand...

What issues is NGAD going to address? What dynamic is it changing?
 
Scott Kenny said:
My suspicion for FAXX is that it's basically a bunch of F35 parts in an F111B sized airframe.

Pair of F135 engines (but the big adaptive engines are preferred), almost all the F-35 avionics, then add the stuff to control CCAs in the back seat.
Click to expand...

Super confident it doesn’t involve a pair of F-135s.
 
Re social media owners on air superiority: as with the majority of technical subjects he opines on, meme level understanding. Modern life is super complicated even for highly technical people taking one step out of their familiar lanes. Of course being a super billionaire (who lucked into SpaceX and had the capital to f*ck up its way to success) gives you lots of run off to absorb stupid takes.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom