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

CZD said:
I think the USAF has come to the conclusion that you simply can't beat quantity with quality. At this point, I expect drones going forward will look a lot like reusable cruise missiles. A small bay to include 1 larger bomb / a couple SDB and a small AAM like a Stinger or equivalent, or 1 or 2 larger AAM.
Build them in the thousands so unit price is little more than the cost of a cruise missile. Make sure at least a few hundred of them are capable of reaching 85000+ feet for a period of time to cover high airspace.
Any conventional air force facing such a threat wouldn't stand a chance, and neither would NGAD; it simply won't have the magazine depth to do so.
Click to expand...

The USAF probably hasn't thought about this, but they are not going to beat the Chinese with quantity either. The PLAAF will also deploy mass via CCAs in mass. Then what? The Air Force will build a few hundred Increment I CCAs, aka the Air Force's version of LCS, in an attempt to figure it out and determine the Chinese are doing the same thing and then change course again, wasting more time and money.

The only way you beat and deter the Chinese is through superior technology - stealth, avionics, engines - and superior training. We need a high - low mix like we did during the Cold War. The services developed the exquisite first - F-14s/F-15s, then proceeded with mass - Hornets and F-16s. If CCAs have any hope of being successful in the next 5-10 years and beyond there needs to be an high end fighter with advanced sensors to cue and provide command and control to the CCAs. Otherwise, you will need to improve the sensors and increase the payload of the CCAs, increasing its the per unit cost. At some point it will approach the cost of a manned fighter. What the USAF is doing is putting the cart before the horse.

Until proven otherwise, I really don't think CCAs are a good value vs a manned fighter. There might be a tactical benefit in distributing sensors and firepower, but the cost per effect does not appear to be greater than a manned fighter. The USN is finding that out with the LUSV. The cost of an LUSV with 32 Mk-41 cells is approaching the cost of frigate.
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/12...e-navy-to-change-course-on-large-usv-program/
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/12...e-navy-to-change-course-on-large-usv-program/

Increment I is supposed to be focused on providing more mass and sensors to the penetrating counter air mission. There is not that much information on the capabilities of the first increment of CCAs. GA says it has modest stealth. Sensors may be mostly passive to keep the cost low. It would need to carry at least two AMRAAM sized weapons to augment a PCA manned fighter, an F-22 or NGAD. You would think that J-20s or even J-16s would be able to identify and target the CCAs well before they would be able to get a shot off. If the Chinese have CCAs then manned fighters will eventually end up fighting it out once the CCAs are attritted. If the CCAs are operating 50-100 nm in front of their manned fighters it is unlikely that he manned fighter would not be able to provide targeting info from their active sensors. Then how do the CCAs target enemy aircraft? Would it come from space and passive sensors?

A LongShot type CCA that carries an A2A missile or SDB sounds like a good idea. But once you consider what you need to support such a weapon it may not be. Do you need a mothership to launch it? How is it recovered? How is it supported? From a CONOPS point of view it may be over complicated. It also might be a lot more difficult to supported than manned fighters.

The high cost of NGAD might have given the AF cold feet. But not pursuing NGAD also comes with costs. CCAs may need a higher level of LO and may need better sensors, more payload. The USAF may rely more on expensive stand off munitions from bombers. It may offload some of the penetrating air function to the B-21, resulting in a need to increase B-21 procurement. Downsizing NGAD and abandoning the more fuel efficient adaptive engine drives the need for NGAS.

There is no free lunch. Stopping and starting programs results in a waste of money and time. Neither of which we have.
 
quellish said:
They want to be able to take the design, after development, and allow "any" contractor to produce it, modify it, etc. So some company making CCAs today may 5 years from now produce the manned aircraft with an Air Force license for the design. Obviously companies like Lockheed are not very comfortable with this.
Click to expand...

And this is the most critical aspect, maybe even more critical than the 5 "new" technologies they are touting.
 
Josh_TN said:
The issue I have with increasing range is: where exactly are you going to base your F-111 sized fighter from, and what range is necessarily that? If the answer is the second island chain and a roughly 1500-2000 mile combat radius…then how many air bases can support that? Anderson, GUM…and that’s probably it. Is that militarily useful? Let’s assume Australia is the goal. Is 3000 miles realistic? If not, can enough tankers be based there?

Another consideration: would any of these basing options generate a sufficient sortie rate?

I think the USAF has become unsure that extreme range buys them anything, or at least buys them enough to justify the cost in money and development time.

As for engines, I do not know enough about the adaptive engine programs to know how far along they are, how expensive they will be, or how much performance will improve. I’d think the F-135 update for F-35 would not be a bad place to start, mostly because it’s already developed and a single engine solution is generally less expensive when physically possible.
Click to expand...
Wargames have demonstrated that the US cannot win vs China in a Taiwan scenario by fighting with stand off forces - bombers and long range missiles originating from the Second Island Chain. Not enough bombers, long range munitions, and a low sortie generation rate due to the distances involved. The Second Island Chain is also not a safe bastion and will be targeted by Chinese IRBMs.

In addition, in the recent CSIS wargames the outcomes indicated that the US needed at minimum basing rights in Japan to prevail. Having the Philippines would be helpful, but Japan is the key. There are a large number of civilian and military air fields the USAF could use to employ ACE and as an advanced industrial nation the US would be able to take advantage of the its infrastructure to support and sustain US forces - fuel, munitions, and supplies - which other nations within the First Island Chain would not.

As such, the sweet spot for NGAD as far as range is a 1,000-,1,200 nm combat radius and 6-8 AMRAAM sized weapons. Tankers could top off NGAD as well as 4th and 5th Gen fighters while under the protection of Japanese airspace, on their way to Taiwan. Strikes into the interior of China would be more difficult but could be performed with B-21s with CCAs.
 
sublight_ said:
And this is the most critical aspect, maybe even more critical than the 5 "new" technologies they are touting.
Click to expand...

They would have to balance their needs there or their best engineers will stay at home pretending to have a cold while watching games.
IP is the most sacred asset an engineer can have. Politicians see unpopular weapons manufacturers but under the tagged box with a brand name there are people...

(this is what happened to the Soviets)

;)
 
TomcatViP said:
They would have to balance their needs there or their best engineers will stay at home pretending to have a cold while watching games.
IP is the most sacred asset an engineer can have. Politicians see unpopular weapons manufacturers but under the tagged box with a brand name there are people...

(this is what happened to the Soviets)

;)
Click to expand...
Digital Century series is dead for manned NGAD, has been for a number of years. It was less the big contractors won and more that PPBE just wasn't flexible enough for that to happen. Portions of it remain with CCA.
 
Ainen said:
The problem is I don't exactly see how USAF can outspam PLAAF with drones.

China is just getting that good in software, ai and comms/sensors, and no one is outproducing China in 2030s.

US advantages are ironically in manned (current fleet, pool of pilots and institutional knowledge, pilot training capacity), engine and other dedicated aerospace technology, i.e. things China can't cheat half-free through military-civilian tech loop.
To have advantage against PLAAF-2030, it's necessary to use them to the fullest.

CCAs are a necessary part of air warfare-2030, but betting solely on them is just not an option. Not against world factory.
Click to expand...
Great points.
 
Ainen said:
The problem is I don't exactly see how USAF can outspam PLAAF with drones.

China is just getting that good in software, ai and comms/sensors, and no one is outproducing China in 2030s.

US advantages are ironically in manned (current fleet, pool of pilots and institutional knowledge, pilot training capacity), engine and other dedicated aerospace technology, i.e. things China can't cheat half-free through military-civilian tech loop.
To have advantage against PLAAF-2030, it's necessary to use them to the fullest.

CCAs are a necessary part of air warfare-2030, but betting solely on them is just not an option. Not against world factory.
Click to expand...
The world factory only works though when the world provides it the materials it needs. China is in no way energy independent, it cannot mine most of the minerals it needs to manufacture to military goods it requires and cannot feed itself.

China also has the highest import/export ratios for raw materials and foodstuffs, i.e. it imports significantly more than it exports. These are about 60 to 1 for ores, 36 to 1 for meat and 18 to 1 for grain
Click to expand...
www.iwkoeln.de

[Translate to English:] Chinas Abhängigkeit vom Westen bei Importen und Technologien - German Economic Institute (IW)

[Translate to English:] Zwischen China und dem Westen bestehen gegenseitige Abhängigkeiten, die für beide Seiten das Potenzial haben, bei einem geopolitischen Konflikt hohe wirtschaftliche Kosten entstehen zu lassen.
www.iwkoeln.de www.iwkoeln.de

China also has a rapidly aging population and significant fiscal issues.

What does a 2030 China look like blocked from most shipping, global financial markets, without export markets for its goods and without the raw materials coming in to supply the factories. That smells more like internal insurrection than the world factory.

On the opposite side you have the US which would have access to most of the raw materials it needs domestically or via reasonably safe import and can more than feed itself. The National Defense Stockpile is woefully inadequate today but a national emergency would see that rise albeit slowly.

Conclusion is I would count on the US and its Allies being able to sustain a global conflict for a lot longer than its competitors ie China, Russia, Iran.
 
Ozair said:
Digital Century series is dead for manned NGAD, has been for a number of years. It was less the big contractors won and more that PPBE just wasn't flexible enough for that to happen. Portions of it remain with CCA.
Click to expand...

Nope, far from dead. As of early summer it was very much alive. USAF wants to produce small numbers at a time and constantly iterate. 3-6 years for each airframe iteration, with 8-16 year service life.

Each iteration could be made by a different contractor. They want to get away from “winner take all” and use CCA to incubate new contractors.
 
Ozair said:
China also has a rapidly aging population and significant fiscal issues.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The recent Funan-Techno canal scandal is a perfect example of this. Plus the real estate bubble, mass exodus of small investors to Vietnam and growing civil unrest (the official house bombing, Su-57 visit crash etc).

Massive manufacturing surplus is cool until automation and raw material issues slams... One could think less of the platform and more of the tactics, then use said tactics to inform platform choices.
 
quellish said:
Nope, far from dead. As of early summer it was very much alive. USAF wants to produce small numbers at a time and constantly iterate. 3-6 years for each airframe iteration, with 8-16 year service life.

Each iteration could be made by a different contractor. They want to get away from “winner take all” and use CCA to incubate new contractors.
Click to expand...
Which sources (research papers, publications, reports etc) have said this summer that century series approach is still happening for manned component?
Can you please be so kind to provide a link or two, not behind a paywall?
 
Ozair said:
The world factory only works though when the world provides it the materials it needs. China is in no way energy independent, it cannot mine most of the minerals it needs to manufacture to military goods it requires and cannot feed itself
Click to expand...
I'd rather keep to technical part, but not only China feeds itself and is rather resource rich(it's a large chunk of rather mountainous Asia) - Russia is next door, SEA next door, Central Asia next door.

Also...by 2030 I'd start questioning if any sort of blockade of China is still so indisputable.

Like, empire of Japan was also quite well contained on 6.12.1941. in few months containment turned into Japanese fortress, and (rather formidable) forces stretched from Rangoon to Wake were simply given to a concentrated opponent for breakfast.

Optimist will of course say that things like USMC FS2030, army Philippines structure, changes to attritable NGAD, B-21s in Australia are designed to bring fight closer to China.

WW2 enthusiast will see much darker analogies from the past.

Summary (and I really would like to stop talks about China collapse, Russia suddenly turning into a bulwark of liberal world order overnight, and other divine interventions) - it's a fight without easy answers. Even true Damocles sword of east Asia, demographics, will hit China much later (but is already eating hard Japan, and frankly I am in awe what Korea wants to do - both key american allies and only beacons of hope for actual shipbuilding prowess)

By 2030s fight within this region is for US to win and China to lose; US can't plan to win it without creativity anymore (or it has to be forced before, in a true Thucydides trap fashion).
So this thread should imho focus on discussion to technical aspects of these two aircraft (along with CCA) and fight in general.
 
Last edited:
I'd disagree. Politics informs doctrine and in turn design. What needs moderation is people's altitude and not getting out of line.
 
B2Blain said:
As such, the sweet spot for NGAD as far as range is a 1,000-,1,200 nm combat radius and 6-8 AMRAAM sized weapons. Tankers could top off NGAD as well as 4th and 5th Gen fighters while under the protection of Japanese airspace, on their way to Taiwan. Strikes into the interior of China would be more difficult but could be performed with B-21s with CCAs.
Click to expand...

The aircraft you describe is only modestly more capable in range and payload than F-35. I think that is the conclusion USAF has come to now; I am not convinced that was what the original manned NGAD was.

I think a recent strategic considerations changed the concept: the proliferation of IRBMs made basing further away pointless and the change in commitment/posture of US allies (especially Japan, as you note) opened up alternative basing options. All these options are also vulnerable to missile strikes, but there are vastly more of them to service. So the USAF is focusing on dispersed operations within the denial zone instead of increasing distance (with the exception of strategic bombers; I think these are still intended to operate largely from outside the theater).

I think that is the plan *now*; I do not think it was the plan in 2018. I suspect the experience of the war in Ukraine also influenced thinking as well - the ZSU continues to survive and launch small numbers of sorties despite the fact any base could be readily hit any day.
 
Ozair said:
The world factory only works though when the world provides it the materials it needs. China is in no way energy independent, it cannot mine most of the minerals it needs to manufacture to military goods it requires and cannot feed itself.


www.iwkoeln.de

[Translate to English:] Chinas Abhängigkeit vom Westen bei Importen und Technologien - German Economic Institute (IW)

[Translate to English:] Zwischen China und dem Westen bestehen gegenseitige Abhängigkeiten, die für beide Seiten das Potenzial haben, bei einem geopolitischen Konflikt hohe wirtschaftliche Kosten entstehen zu lassen.
www.iwkoeln.de www.iwkoeln.de

China also has a rapidly aging population and significant fiscal issues.

What does a 2030 China look like blocked from most shipping, global financial markets, without export markets for its goods and without the raw materials coming in to supply the factories. That smells more like internal insurrection than the world factory.

On the opposite side you have the US which would have access to most of the raw materials it needs domestically or via reasonably safe import and can more than feed itself. The National Defense Stockpile is woefully inadequate today but a national emergency would see that rise albeit slowly.

Conclusion is I would count on the US and its Allies being able to sustain a global conflict for a lot longer than its competitors ie China, Russia, Iran.
Click to expand...

Such a blockade would only occur after PRC military success. That seems like a poor fallback position. Ideally there should be sufficient deterrence to prevent action in the first place; there is no shortage of examples of nations choosing a militarily aggressive option that was diametrically opposed to their financial interests. A couple of them are currently ongoing…
 
quellish said:
Nope, far from dead. As of early summer it was very much alive. USAF wants to produce small numbers at a time and constantly iterate. 3-6 years for each airframe iteration, with 8-16 year service life.

Each iteration could be made by a different contractor. They want to get away from “winner take all” and use CCA to incubate new contractors.
Click to expand...

For CCA definitely, but for manned NGAD? That is not the impression I am getting.
 
So could the NGAD ultimately be a stop of point to test technology for an unmanned seventh generation fighter? The NGAD could well be the last manned fighter that we see enter service with the USAF.
 
War tells us that men are needed at the tip of the spear. There would ever be a platoon soldier.*
Why would you think it would be different in the air?
The problem in the vision is extreem simplification.

*for example, the cannon never replaced the long gun. The pistol never the blade. The blade never hand combat skills.
 
I see your point TomcatVIP. But there has to be a time when humans are ultimately replaced by unmanned fighters and bombers in the world's air forces and the sixth generation is the transition period, look at the CCA for example that is where we are going in the future and it will be the same when the seventh generation fighters start to appear.
 
quellish said:
I believe that title still belongs to The War Zone
Click to expand...
For all their flaws, they're at least easier to stomach than the Sandboxx and Defense Updates YouTube videos that some here incessantly link to. I think "churnalism" may be an apt way to describe those.
 
NMaude said:
A blockade would be imposed the moment the PRC decides to invade Taiwan and attempts to send PLA forces across the Taiwan strait.
Click to expand...

That likely would have no bearing on the outcome of a cross straight conflict. It would be decided one way or another before a lack of resources means anything to the PRCs production capacity. It’s a punishment the losers can dole out, not a major military consideration for China.
 
Josh_TN said:
That likely would have no bearing on the outcome of a cross straight conflict.
Click to expand...

It very likely would as the PRC for example depends on foreign imports for about 80% of its' energy needs (Crude-oil and LNG), if those are completely blockaded China will quickly run low on fuel. IIRC the PRC is also dependent on foreign imports for about 80% of its food and fertiliser needs too, those being blockaded would also quickly have an effect on its' population.
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
For all their flaws, they're at least easier to stomach than the Sandboxx and Defense Updates YouTube videos that some here incessantly link to. I think "churnalism" may be an apt way to describe those.
Click to expand...

TWZ is at least a good place to hear about something current so you can look it up in a better source. I feel almost all of their articles could be single paragraphs; they really drag a topic out with a lot of unnecessary supposition and back story/links.
 
NMaude said:
It very likely would as the PRC for example depends on foreign imports for about 80% of its' energy needs (Crude-oil and LNG), if those are completely blockaded China will quickly run low on fuel. IIRC the PRC is also dependent on foreign imports for about 80% of its food and fertiliser needs too, those being blockaded would also quickly have an effect on its' population.
Click to expand...

I do not have any of the stats handy, but I would expect the PRC petroleum reserve to be able to sustain a major war for months or more. At least some of their oil imports are via Russia by pipeline, though I think the majority is still by ship. We are off topic however. NGAD/CCAs goal is to deter a conflict or alternatively make it in winnable regardless of the economic situation.
 
bring_it_on said:
You seem to have the wrong impression.
Click to expand...

Could you point me in the right direction then? As far as I can tell it is a single prime contract award like other fighter programs, and I have not heard anything about shorting airframe life or development cycles in a couple years.
 
bring_it_on said:
You seem to have the wrong impression.
Click to expand...


Personally, I did think that Will Roper & Co were pushing for absolutely all programs to go that way, very much including NGAD/PCA.

Furthermore, I did think that Roper & Co might have had enough power & influence during the 2018-2020 period to get their preferences implemented as official policy. But I also thought that from 2021 until the money ran out in late 2023, Frank Kendall was calling the shots, and not interested in the radicalism of the short service life / rapid replacement model, nor in concurrency, at least for the big ticket, crewed NGAD/PCA.

I thought Kendall had nixed the short lifespan / concurrent development / rapid iteration model for the crewed fighter but kept it for CCAs, while nevertheless heavily embracing other aspects of the NGAM like government owned IP, MOSA, greater government involvement in systems integration, etc.
 
Josh_TN said:
TWZ is at least a good place to hear about something current so you can look it up in a better source.
Click to expand...

"TWZ" largely repeats information from else where - such as articles from other sites, forums, etc. One poorly sourced article gets repeated, with changes, over and over across different sites. Along the way the meaning changes. For example, the whole "B-21 as NGAD" idea was based on a poorly written article based on a single, prompted statement from DoD. They (Defense News) asked if B-21 could be part of NGAD, the Air Force said they were keeping all options open. They could have asked if a MiG-31 FIREFOX could be part of NGAD and would have gotten the same answer. And this single statement became an article postulating that B-21 was going to have some air to air role, and that was repeated as fact by other sites, etc.

These sources of information say that the NGAD program has been secret, shrouded in secrecy, etc. They were surprised when Roper talking about the demonstrator - which DoD had been talking about in public for years at that point. There has been a deluge of information about NGAD in public for many, many years that "TWZ" and similar sites have not reported on.

"TWZ" is not a good place to hear about things that you want to look up on "a better source". You will end up missing most of the story, and when you look things up on other sources you're going to find much the same BS as on "TWZ"

For example a 2022 article from "Breaking Defense" stated:
The Air Force first flew a prototype version of the NGAD fighter 2020, but officials at the time declined to disclose information about the plane or its manufacturer.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in that statement that is accurate. Yet this has been repeated as if it were fact alllllll over other "articles".

Josh_TN said:
Could you point me in the right direction then? As far as I can tell it is a single prime contract award like other fighter programs, and I have not heard anything about shorting airframe life or development cycles in a couple years.
Click to expand...

Testimony given in congressional hearings is a good start. DoD has been very consistent in their statements to Congress about NGAD over the years.

books said:
Furthermore, I did think that Roper & Co might have had enough power & influence during the 2018-2020 period to get their preferences implemented as official policy. But I also thought that from 2021 until the money ran out in late 2023, Frank Kendall was calling the shots, and not interested in the radicalism of the short service life / rapid replacement model, nor in concurrency, at least for the big ticket, crewed NGAD/PCA.

I thought Kendall had nixed the short lifespan / concurrent development / rapid iteration model for the crewed fighter but kept it for CCAs, while nevertheless heavily embracing other aspects of the NGAM like government owned IP, MOSA, greater government involvement in systems integration, etc.
Click to expand...

This seems to have been the result of a few comments Kendall has made at various points. At one point he said that some of Roper's initiatives had been "optimistic" and "overhyped" and he was skeptical without hard data (I have been unable to find the original source of these comments). At another point he said some of Ropers ideas did not scale well to a very complex manned aircraft.

The reality is that many of Roper's ideas became core concepts for a number of different programs. Kendall did get his hard data and has gotten behind many of the initiatives that are associated with Roper.

Again, statements made to Congress over the years have made this clear. Agile development, moving "at the pace of relevance", reducing sustainment costs and shortening service lifetimes, etc. And importantly, "constant competition". Every aspect will be competed, constantly, throughout the life of the program. It will be constantly competed, updated, changing contractors on what they hope is short cycles.

Many of the "questions" in this thread have already been addressed or answered by DoD in public statements about the program. Many of the things that have been speculated about in this thread have also been addressed by public statements made by DoD.

For example:

- The Air Force is planning around 2 CCAs for each manned 6th gen aircraft, and 2 CCAs for each of "some number of" F-35s, for a total of 1000 CCAs.

- The Navy 6th gen manned aircraft is primarily a strike fighter. It is intended to replace the Hornet. The Navy considers FA-XX a part of NGAD, and has already flown a demonstrator.

- The Air Force wants to end up with a mix of NGAD, F-35, F-15EX, and F-16. Four fighter airframes with additional CCAs. The F-16 is being retained for SEAD, the apparently are not planning for the F-35 to take that over.

- A big reason for buying F-15EX is the number of "rails" and the ability to carry oversized weapons.
 
www.twz.com

Future Of NGAD Fighter Punted To Trump Administration

While the Air Force continues its deep review into the NGAD future crewed fighter, a final decision on its fate will be taken by the Trump administration. While the Air Force continues its deep review into the NGAD future crewed fighter, a final decision on its fate will be taken by the Trump...
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
zebra159357 said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

Air Force Defers Decision on NGAD to New Trump Administration

The Air Force is deferring decisions on its future NGAD fighter to the Trump administration as it reviews the program's requirements and cost.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...
Is it possible for USAF to stop change is mind every two weeks ? how many time they need to stop it and give a contract ? If they continue like that they will have a new fighter in 2050. They postponed NGAD decision every month. Surely it is time to change administration and having a real decision, China si running faster the first 6th gen will be Chinese for sure.
 
Last edited:
dark sidius said:
Is it possible for USAF to stop change is mind every two weeks ? how many time they need to stop it and give a contract ? If they continue like that they will have a new fighter in 2050. They postponed NGAD decision every month. Surely it is time to change administration and having a real decision, China si running faster the first 6th gen will be Chinese for sure.
Click to expand...
The administration is changing, and the one coming in wants to kill the manned fighter so the one going out has punted the decision to them.
 
Moose said:
The administration is changing, and the one coming in wants to kill the manned fighter so the one going out has punted the decision to them.
Click to expand...
Aside from Musk thinking he's going to be another McNamara and push some wunderwaffe is there anything to suggest a supposedly strong-on-defense administration would force such a thing?
 
Moose said:
The administration is changing, and the one coming in wants to kill the manned fighter so the one going out has punted the decision to them.
Click to expand...
CCA bullshit can't replace a plane like the F-22, it is like fighting a jet with piston engine. Musk is saying bullshit, he want to sell is starlink service for the drone fleet , but soon the conflict will be in space, to shot down the CCA fleet shoot the Starlink satellite detonate a nuclear weapon in orbit an bye bye the marvelous drone fleet. There is nothing better than a human in a real fighter , they must look at the Ukraine war carefully with no dominance in the air no win. Musk is a genious for Space but know nothing about military aviation.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom