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

[TomcatViP]

That would only exacerbate the crying lack of airframe.

 

[bring_it_on]

It is juste the price of 2 F-35 so it is better to stop F-35 at 900 unit and instead buy 300 NGAD and CCA , instead of buying 1700 F-35 who where obsolete in 2 decades.

According to Kendall, the NGAD PCA was coming in at about three times the cost of the F-35A. This is before the program enters EMD so is likely to change once the aircraft is developed and put into rate production. The cost of the F-35 and the risk associated with its unit cost estimate is significantly less. That said, if the AF were to zero out F-35A procurement after buying say 900 aircraft then it would be in a position to move procurement dollars to NGAD sometime in the 2031-2033 timeframe and afford about 15 PCA's for the amount of money it was hoping to spend on about 45 F-35As each year. The AF would have to commit to being a lot smaller because a $300 MM fighter would be the only fighter it would be buying at that point at sub squadron a year rates.

TBH, I don't see the AF being very comfortable moving to NGAD in a world it has to basically stop buying the F-35 / F-15EX etc just in order to be able to buy a dozen a change a year. If CCA's were 5-10 years ahead of where the program is now then that might be a different conversation. I expect the decision to hinge on the incoming administration being comfortable carrying the NGAD bill on top of the F-35 and B-21 procurement plans. At least through the mid to late 2030s.

 

[In_A_Dream]

For some context on the cost, the incremental unit cost of an F-22 in 2009 was $138 million, which would be about $191 million in 2023. Granted, the F-22 never truly entered full-rate production since the rate only ever topped out at 24 annually even after Milestone C, which was half of the planned rate after the 1990 MAR. That said, it’s understandable that the NGAD Penetrating Counter-Air with a unit cost of $250-300 million is giving the Air Force second thoughts, as that exceeds the F-22 unit cost even accounting for inflation.

Even so, barring any severe disruption from someone like Elon Musk, I think the crewed PCA fighter still stands a good chance of happening but there is clearly pressure to rein in costs to make it more affordable, potentially by offloading certain capabilities, sensors and part of the weapons payload perhaps, to CCAs.

What do you believe the total cost situation will look like when both the manned & unmanned components are factored in together? I wonder how it would compare to the cost per capability we have now.

I'm sure the added pressure of requiring hardware to be domestically sourced is not helping the cost situation.

 

[_Del_]

What do you believe the total cost situation will look like when both the manned & unmanned components are factored in together? I wonder how it would compare to the cost per capability we have now.

I'm sure the added pressure of requiring hardware to be domestically sourced is not helping the cost situation.

Probably better. If I can get 50 CCA even in a limited class like Valkyrie and 2 F-35's for two uberNGAD, then it's a pretty easy choice. And a Valkyrie is much cheaper than that (~$5, less with an extended run). Especially when you look at development costs and setting up supply chains for a boutique run of sixth generation fighter.
$250m buys a lot of hardware. Or one current NGAD (assuming it comes in on budget).

The goal has to be mission oriented. We want to be able to accomplish policy goals, not have the shiniest toys. If we can't achieve our goals with a limited number of shiniest toys, then it makes no sense to commit to it instead of attempting to accomplish our goals elsewise.

Rock hard reality is that we may even ultimately need to readjust our policy goals, like so many counties before us (UK, France, Germany, etc).

I think NGAD is awesome. I'd love to buy several thousand, but we are headed towards austerity budgets and facing recap problems. It will probably become the TSR2, Arrow of the new age, but reality is coming to the forefront

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Look at carrier tactics through history. Carriers have always, except in a few periods used the same tactics. EMCON, dart in, launch a strike and get out of range before the enemy can respond. Carriers cannot take a punch from a land base. The only exception is the USN in mid '-43 through the end of the war and later with Aegis. A fighter can't do anything to protect a carrier from a large strike from a peer competitor. Against failed states, the fighters are not needed. No reason to equip carriers with air dominance aircraft. Especially if the carrier killers of choice are torpedoes and ballistic missiles.

I had meant to respond to your point earlier but only recently got around to it. I fully understand that desire of carrier strategy, but in the missile age there is still a huge risk you'll get caught in a spot where the enemy can try to hit you with some of their AShMs arsenal. It's true some ballistic missile type threats (DF-21) have range and trajectories that makes fighter of little use. But those are limited in number and in-theory you could disrupt the targeting chain enough to limit their utility. A great deal of the threat is still in the form of aircraft-launched subsonic and supersonic AShMs. It's always best to shoot down the aircraft carrying them before they launch. The PLAAF and PLAN will be very much seeking to blind the USN as much as possible by shooting down the E-2Ds, likely trying to use fighters like the J-20 and J-35 to get close enough for a probable kill.

Against both threats you'd really want a fighter with an excellent air-to-air capability, going beyond just its avionics. And there is no reason such a fighter couldn't have an excellent strike capability in its own regard. Consider some of the proposed advanced F-14 Tomcat variants. Grumman very much seemed to believe they could turn that fighter into something that could replace the "medium attack" component of the carrier airwing then represented by the A-6 Intruder.

 

[dark sidius]

Probably better. If I can get 50 CCA even in a limited class like Valkyrie and 2 F-35's for two uberNGAD, then it's a pretty easy choice. And a Valkyrie is much cheaper than that (~$5, less with an extended run). Especially when you look at development costs and setting up supply chains for a boutique run of sixth generation fighter.
$250m buys a lot of hardware. Or one current NGAD (assuming it comes in on budget).

The goal has to be mission oriented. We want to be able to accomplish policy goals, not have the shiniest toys. If we can't achieve our goals with a limited number of shiniest toys, then it makes no sense to commit to it instead of attempting to accomplish our goals elsewise.

Rock hard reality is that we may even ultimately need to readjust our policy goals, like so many counties before us (UK, France, Germany, etc).

I think NGAD is awesome. I'd love to buy several thousand, but we are headed towards austerity budgets and facing recap problems. It will probably become the TSR2, Arrow of the new age, but reality is coming to the forefront

50 CCA shot down in one wave, by the fleet of J-20 and J-35 and surely in a decade by a Chinese NGAD, or long range SAM missile because CCA miss of speed , maneuvrability and stealth for sure a good invest. Or we must invest on a high power laser able to fry everything flying and we install it in the B-21 payload bay , it could be the response.

 

[Jackonicko]

The F-35 is cheap but will lose. NGAD might be three times the price, but promises to win.

 

[B2Blain]

Probably better. If I can get 50 CCA even in a limited class like Valkyrie and 2 F-35's for two uberNGAD, then it's a pretty easy choice. And a Valkyrie is much cheaper than that (~$5, less with an extended run). Especially when you look at development costs and setting up supply chains for a boutique run of sixth generation fighter.
$250m buys a lot of hardware. Or one current NGAD (assuming it comes in on budget).

We know the value of manned fighters, whether 4th Gen or 5th Gen. We do not know the value or effectiveness of CCAs. All we have to go on is a vision and marketing. There is very little hard information regarding performance, payload, cost, or a CONOPS other than vague ideas regarding manned-unmanned teaming.

Kratos says the they could have produced the XQ-58 for $4 mil, which the company says could have been lowered to $2 million with volume production. Why didn't a service take them up on their offer?

Getting smaller companies involved in producing CCAs a good thing. They may be able to iterate faster and manufacture at a lower cost than the major primes. But we don't know that yet. Isn't there a price point where it doesn't make sense to proceed with CCAs as they are currently envisioned?

Frank Kendall has thrown out a $20-30 million price tag for Increment 1. JJ Gertler recently mentioned CCAs as being half the price of an F-35 - $40 million. It might be worth it if it is a LO platform that could carry 4 MRMs (Medium Range Missile) internally with passive sensors, and performance similar to a fighter. But if its payload is only 2 MRMs? You can buy 2 CCAs with passive sensors that carry 4 MRMs or you can buy 1 F-35 that can carry 6 MRMs as well as other payload mixes and have a fighter with long range active and passive sensors? Is that additional CCA really going to be able to cover more airspace?

A few months ago the Mitchell Institute ran a wargame to help determine a notional mix for CCAs. For penetrating counter air they arrived at the following requirements: LO, range greater than 650 nm, passive sensors, 2 AAMs, cost - $2-15 million. This notional aircraft has a greater resemblance to LongShot or the XQ-58 than the Increment 1 CCAs.

https://mitchellaerospacepower.org/...vecombat-aircraft-for-disruptive-air-warfare/