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

_Del_ said:
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
Click to expand...

Some call it an austerity budget. Some will call it right-sizing government. My expectation is a laser focus on what is absolutely essential. Defense will be considered absolutely essential. As will reducing regulation and increasing energy production with the objective of sustained gdp growth above three percent.

If the threat horizon is 2030 NGAD doesn't factor. The 262 was an amazing airplane, but Germany had no pilots, fuel issues, and problems with new engines. Augmenting existing airframes with lots of CCAs seems to be the expeditious way to multiply lethality. But more airframes, don't do you any good without munitions. If you exhaust your munitions in three weeks, none of it does you hell of a lot of good.

If I remember correctly, NGAD was to clear a path for the B-21. Is that airframe still required for the mission?

We'll see.
 
NeilChapman said:
Getting its fiscal house in order and modifying how DOD does business seems to be part of the plan of the incoming administration.
Click to expand...

The incoming administration already had a go once before and did nothing of the sort. It has already tried to negate the debt ceiling before even taking office, which is a pretty clear indication of intent.

On the brite side the CCAs seem to be on track to be produced quickly, cheaply, in new generations every couple years. The manned component is however a question mark.
 
_Del_ said:
It will probably become the TSR2, Arrow of the new age, but reality is coming to the forefront
Click to expand...
I think that all depends on whether the new Chinese aircraft are to be taken seriously, and whether the USAF is iwlling to compromise on certain elements of the design to actually get a finished product or not. I haven't been following the program much, but up to a few months ago, the latter was certainly up for consideration
 
Ainen said:
Everything else was American own overthinking, which USSR simply let go - for fun purposes.
Click to expand...
So fun they ended up crapping their pants an developing the Flankers.

This is a game of cat and mouse. and neither side is going to want to cease development. Let's remember how the Anglo-German Dreadnaught race ended, it evened out the playing field and let to new developments. The same can be said now.

Let us also remember that the US has been testing hardware for NGAD for a while now, so it's not like both sides are starting from scratch either.
 
Jason Dykstra (Wyvern) said:
whether the USAF is iwlling to compromise on certain elements of the design to actually get a finished product or not.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you are referring to the last 3-4 months of debate based on Secretary Kendall's pause on NGAD leading to a blue-ribbon committee reviewing program and proposing next steps etc. If so, it appears to be significantly influenced by budget outlook and reading between the lines seems to be a pause to assess whether they should substantially ('not minor compromises to get a finished product') diverge from the plans they've been developing and try to field something else instead of pursuing something that will get stuck somewhere in development and not field in quantities that are needed due to budgets. You are talking about $5-$10 Billion in RDT&E dollars a year (peak years) to develop PCA, CCA, NGAP etc which is like 10-12% of the entire AF RDTE budget (and likely 15-20% if you strip out pass through and space force funding). Procurement likewise can be expected to be 2x of what the AF is presently spending on F-35As each year - and for likely half the quantity. I believe the group assembled by Frank Kendall recommended that the manned PCA be pursued as the path forward.


While its one thing to suggest that they should set that aside and pursue capabilities and CONOPS that fit better with budget, it assumes that there are 'cheap' or at least significantly more affordable asymmetric capabilities that the service can rapidly invest to regain the sort of edge it hoped to gain via NGAD (even if its in the collective through multiple capabilities). Its not going to be long before China fields a regional force comprising of more than 1,000 stealthy fifth and fifth gen plus fighters, bombers and UAV's. The clock is ticking. Of those 'candidate alternatives', if they cannot be put into production later this decade, they really aren't very viable as options IMHO.
 
quellish said:
No, they have been very clear that they are following the model of consumer cell phones.

They want to have a hardware platform that allows them to rapidly solve problems through software, and iterate the hardware as rapidly as feasible.
Click to expand...
They really need to figure out how to automate production of airframes if they want to get the cost down and rate up.
 
bring_it_on said:
Not sure if you are referring to the last 3-4 months of debate based on Secretary Kendall's pause on NGAD leading to a blue-ribbon committee reviewing program and proposing next steps etc. If so, it appears to be significantly influenced by budget outlook and reading between the lines seems to be a pause to assess whether they should substantially ('not minor compromises to get a finished product') diverge from the plans they've been developing and try to field something else instead of pursuing something that will get stuck somewhere in development and not field in quantities that are needed due to budgets. You are talking about $5-$10 Billion in RDT&E dollars a year (peak years) to develop PCA, CCA, NGAP etc which is like 10-12% of the entire AF RDTE budget (and likely 15-20% if you strip out pass through and space force funding). Procurement likewise can be expected to be 2x of what the AF is presently spending on F-35As each year - and for likely half the quantity. I believe the group assembled by Frank Kendall recommended that the manned PCA be pursued as the path forward.


While its one thing to suggest that they should set that aside and pursue capabilities and CONOPS that fit better with budget, it assumes that there are 'cheap' or at least significantly more affordable asymmetric capabilities that the service can rapidly invest to regain the sort of edge it hoped to gain via NGAD (even if its in the collective through multiple capabilities). Its not going to be long before China fields a regional force comprising of more than 1,000 stealthy fifth and fifth gen plus fighters, bombers and UAV's. The clock is ticking. Of those 'candidate alternatives', if they cannot be put into production later this decade, they really aren't very viable as options IMHO.
Click to expand...
Too much time with talking , asking themselves too much bla-bla , instead of this wasting time China running very fast , stopping F-35 and going in another program realy fast will be vital, F-35 program is not a success it is time to go on another thing, buying number of obsolete plane is not the solution in face of China.
 
That's an acrobatics conclusion. Rationally, never had a fighter jet program resulted in such outstanding unbalance in favor of allies on the recent history of combat jets.
 
Arjen said:
That is not going to happen for a long while.
Click to expand...
Saddly , this time I m all right with Elon Musk , but not with his UAV conclusion , too much money have been spent on the F-35 for the result we have , the F-22 is jewelry but the F-35 design is a nightmare and we can speak about this IA on it, who is a nightmare for the pilots. Divest the F-35 budget to buy a lot of B-21 and full speed on the NGAD and space capacity like the X-37 B. Is it possible that Mr Will Roper could come back in the new administration ?
 
@dark sidius Hypothetically, assume F-35 production stops today. Eventually you start churning out armed artificially intelligent UAVs, specifications yet to be confirmed, pray to your deity of choice that they will work and not run around in circles on the parking lot or make Terminator's Skynet look like a philanthropical society. What are you going to use until you finally have a sufficient number of properly functioning UAVs? Remember you have thousands of legacy combat aircraft to replace which are steadily running out of flying hours.
 
As Kathleen Hicks has stated 'an unsafe system is an ineffective system' utility & safety are synonymous at the highest levels of the US DoD.

Recent commentary from a European commentator, expressed how anxious the EU is to regulate AI when they barely have an AI industry, or for that matter an innovative IT industry. EU bureaucracy continues to stultify European innovation. Europe should be way ahead of the US in tech, a European needs to ask why it most areas it is not.

A regulatory culture obsessed w/ telling people what they can and cannot do (whatta boutism) is not one which seeks to evolve, innovate and explore what they can do. Vacationing & pontificating while Rome burns is not a plan IMHO.
 
Last edited:
I’ve got a crazy idea. What if USAF decided to go EFF it and go for all drone fleet? By that I mean even the NGAD type will be unmanned and rely entirely on AI for decision making and controlling CCA?
 
It's unlikely because they'll figure out that it will be more expensive to do so for lesser returns; AI is not capable of undertaking missions a human can. And even if it could, you would still need to feed it large amounts of intelligence, and it would be completely at the mercy of the security of the comms.
 
siegecrossbow said:
I’ve got a crazy idea. What if USAF decided to go EFF it and go for all drone fleet? By that I mean even the NGAD type will be unmanned and rely entirely on AI for decision making and controlling CCA?
Click to expand...
If enemy disable your system , all of your fleet is on the ground and you lose the war.
 
Jason Dykstra (Wyvern) said:
So fun they ended up crapping their pants an developing the Flankers.
Click to expand...
Soviet Union fucked up absorbing Vietnam lessons(from VVS view Vietnam went well, so they just doubled down on GCI vectoring).
F-15 was painful not because it was something unique, it was painful because mig-23 was so off mark, and mig-25 was simply another thing.

To be fair, I have a feeling that new, miningad can repeat this feat(not the original big one).

But it's hard to say right now, and for now, China is in a favourable position for "normal" fighters.
 
Josh_TN said:
Only congress can increase the NGAD/USAF budget. Alternatively, only Congress can allow the USAF to retire legacy platforms to fund NGAD.
Click to expand...

Before it gets to Congress, the incoming administration has to get behind "a plan" and present it in its budgets. Over the next 4-8 weeks they have to determine whether they will honor the recommended approach, start a fresh review (likely with a provisional budget proposal), or pursue another option. Congress will weigh in after that.
 
dark sidius said:
Saddly , this time I m all right with Elon Musk , but not with his UAV conclusion , too much money have been spent on the F-35 for the result we have , the F-22 is jewelry but the F-35 design is a nightmare and we can speak about this IA on it, who is a nightmare for the pilots. Divest the F-35 budget to buy a lot of B-21 and full speed on the NGAD and space capacity like the X-37 B. Is it possible that Mr Will Roper could come back in the new administration ?
Click to expand...

No one is dumping F-35s. Procurement might ultimately be trimmed, but that’s all. Elon seems to favor dumping all manned aircraft, so it seems to me you have nothing in common with his opinion. If you want to divest in aircraft to save budget for the NGAD, start with legacy aircraft - that is something USAF wants to do, but Congress will not allow.
 
siegecrossbow said:
I’ve got a crazy idea. What if USAF decided to go EFF it and go for all drone fleet? By that I mean even the NGAD type will be unmanned and rely entirely on AI for decision making and controlling CCA?
Click to expand...
Given how the typical intrepid software codder of the infamous Silly-Con valley aren't even unable to stop the weekly attempts of mostly uneducated Chinese and Russian teenage hackers, I am not sure that the USAF will still bear that name after such move.

Better be ready for them to rename themselves Madame AF...
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
No one is dumping F-35s. Procurement might ultimately be trimmed, but that’s all. Elon seems to favor dumping all manned aircraft, so it seems to me you have nothing in common with his opinion. If you want to divest in aircraft to save budget for the NGAD, start with legacy aircraft - that is something USAF wants to do, but Congress will not allow.
Click to expand...
I thought about this for quite some time myself, dumping manned birds could turn out to be a costly mistake IMO. Sounds like the same touted story from TG2, but to your point on legacy systems, the hog and early gen 4's we still run could definitely be parted with so we can keep our edge (if it even exists).
 
dark sidius said:
Saddly , this time I m all right with Elon Musk , but not with his UAV conclusion , too much money have been spent on the F-35 for the result we have , the F-22 is jewelry but the F-35 design is a nightmare and we can speak about this IA on it, who is a nightmare for the pilots. Divest the F-35 budget to buy a lot of B-21 and full speed on the NGAD and space capacity like the X-37 B. Is it possible that Mr Will Roper could come back in the new administration ?
Click to expand...
Okay now you have no new 5 Gen Fighter going in while there is a rather large time frame until you get NGAD or even B-21 for the job those F-35 were meant to be (this means any existing B-21 order doesn't count as they are needed for other jobs). This leaves you with only 1 option and that is buying legacy planes... For more than 3 years atleast if Not more. In case you want to get them completly out of the USAF and USN it cost even more ignoring all other possible problems.
 
siegecrossbow said:
I’ve got a crazy idea. What if USAF decided to go EFF it and go for all drone fleet? By that I mean even the NGAD type will be unmanned and rely entirely on AI for decision making and controlling CCA?
Click to expand...
That would be silly. NGAD will be manned and CCA will be remotely piloted with "A.I." being nothing more than a deluxe autopilot.
 
dark sidius said:
Saddly , this time I m all right with Elon Musk , but not with his UAV conclusion , too much money have been spent on the F-35 for the result we have , the F-22 is jewelry but the F-35 design is a nightmare and we can speak about this IA on it, who is a nightmare for the pilots. Divest the F-35 budget to buy a lot of B-21 and full speed on the NGAD and space capacity like the X-37 B. Is it possible that Mr Will Roper could come back in the new administration ?
Click to expand...
Canceling the F-35 would be stupid. What's going to replace your thousands of 4th gen? "A.I. piloted" UCAVs? LOL!
 
Josh_TN said:
The incoming administration already had a go once before and did nothing of the sort. It has already tried to negate the debt ceiling before even taking office, which is a pretty clear indication of intent.

On the brite side the CCAs seem to be on track to be produced quickly, cheaply, in new generations every couple years. The manned component is however a question mark.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that the composition of this incoming administration is radically different than 2017. There is a cost to making changes, in dollars and pain. On the bright side, as with airframes, the sustainment of government is much more expensive than acquisition (change). We will have to see how it proceeds.

Either way I think it bodes well for faster, more efficient defense procurement focused on lethality. Some of us may disagree on what that looks like. This President, as did Obama, has left the incoming President with empty magazines.

While there has been excellent work on increasing 155 production more needs to be done. Regulation changes may assist in that regard.

I'm a very interested in seeing what munitions may be on the drawing board for CCA's. As has been discussed on this forum, smaller munitions allow transformative airframes. Perhaps the selections may include multiple vendors, designed for extremely robotic plants, with constant iterations allowed in the contract for reducing time and cost from the production cycle. The United States can do better.
 
sferrin said:
Canceling the F-35 would be stupid. What's going to replace your thousands of 4th gen? "A.I. piloted" UCAVs? LOL!
Click to expand...

One of the beefs (rightly or wrongly) Congress has had with the AF leadership has been the case that hardware divestments do not fund hardware investments but rather RDT&E i.e. RDT&E spending is growing faster than procurement even as the AF is asking to shrink (which it argues is the size it can afford given what the Congress is willing to fund for O&S).. In other words, Congress wants to see actual stuff being fielded before it agrees to retire aircraft. One would assume the same would be true if the AF decided to simply stop buying what it has in procurement, and what the majority of its SC is geared to deliver right now (not jsut F-35 but other existing
programs as well).

In other words, taking a procurement holiday while you spend a decade developing stuff, or ramping production of stuff still in testing is a fundamentally unserious proposition.
 
Last edited:
NeilChapman said:
I'm a very interested in seeing what munitions may be on the drawing board for CCA's. As has been discussed on this forum, smaller munitions allow transformative airframes. Perhaps the selections may include multiple vendors, designed for extremely robotic plants, with constant iterations allowed in the contract for reducing time and cost from the production cycle. The United States can do better.
Click to expand...

IMO, only AIM-120 is viable strictly from an inventory point of view. I think it unlikely any new AAMs will be produced fast enough to be significant, outside AIM-260.
 
There are a number of air to air weapon programs that the AF has explored over the last decade. Any one of which could be a candidate solution for CCA's. Ultimately though, if their role is to shoot down high end aircraft then it makes sense to arm with what you would arm other aircraft with a similar intent so AIM-120's and JATM and whatever else the AF has in the works.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
IMO, only AIM-120 is viable strictly from an inventory point of view. I think it unlikely any new AAMs will be produced fast enough to be significant, outside AIM-260.
Click to expand...
I'd be really surprised if we don't get a CUDA/Peregine "halfRAAM", a BVRAAM that you can stick 2 per AMRAAM slot in a bay.
 
"HalfRAAM' would make sense if you're killing other CCA's or targets that won't shoot back. If you are going after things that can shoot back and/or have CCA's of their own, then you need weapons that match or exceed what the other guy can put out against you since the red force here will have numerical superiority. Its either that, or you field very high end CCA's that can sneak closer which we don't see in either candidate solutions selected by the AF. So they will sort of have to carry JATM etc to be useful in that role (which is one of many roles the AF intends to use them for). For CCA's to be useful as 'shooters' and not merely adjunct sensors or EW etc, they have to be capable of killing and not merely getting killed in hopes of expending adversary missiles.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
"HalfRAAM' would make sense if you're killing other CCA's or targets that won't shoot back. If you are going after things that can shoot back and/or have CCA's of their own, then you need weapons that match or exceed what the other guy can put out against you since the red force here will have numerical superiority. Its either that, or you field very high end CCA's that can sneak closer which we don't see in either candidate solutions selected by the AF. So they will sort of have to carry JATM etc to be useful in that role (which is one of many roles the AF intends to use them for). For CCA's to be useful as 'shooters' and not merely adjunct sensors or EW etc, they have to be capable of killing and not merely getting killed in hopes of expending adversary missiles.
Click to expand...
US haven't participated in a single air conflict where it didn't have numerical superiority in the air, ever.
Probably this isn't much of a concern.

Otherwise, it's always a bit interesting why US never repeated something like a falcon - stubbier, glider-like missile roughly 2m long.
 
bring_it_on said:
"HalfRAAM' would make sense if you're killing other CCA's or targets that won't shoot back. If you are going after things that can shoot back and/or have CCA's of their own, then you need weapons that match or exceed what the other guy can put out against you since the red force here will have numerical superiority. Its either that, or you field very high end CCA's that can sneak closer which we don't see in either candidate solutions selected by the AF. So they will sort of have to carry JATM etc to be useful in that role (which is one of many roles the AF intends to use them for). For CCA's to be useful as 'shooters' and not merely adjunct sensors or EW etc, they have to be capable of killing and not merely getting killed in hopes of expending adversary missiles.
Click to expand...
Remember that the HalfRAAMs supposedly have the same range as an AMRAAM but take up half the length.

So if your HalfRAAM carrier is sufficiently stealthy, you absolutely can shoot HalfRAAMs at a target that can shoot back.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Remember that the HalfRAAMs supposedly have the same range as an AMRAAM but take up half the length.

So if your HalfRAAM carrier is sufficiently stealthy, you absolutely can shoot HalfRAAMs at a target that can shoot back.
Click to expand...

On the part in bold, what's so unique about 'halfRAAM' that allows it to match AIM-120 range in half the form factor and that prevents the AF to use a similar technology to get a AMRAAM sized profile that has double the range of HalfRAAM?

A highly stealthy CCA that can preserve 'first shot' or survive enough to get a kill and be a credible threat vs other red-platforms that may potentially be carrying weapons that can outstick it would be a good capability to have. I don't see that anywhere in terms of what's being proposed right now. Perhaps that will change down the road.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
On the part in bold, what's so unique about 'halfRAAM' that allows it to match AIM-120 range in half the form factor and that prevents the AF to use a similar technology to get a AMRAAM sized profile that has double the range of HalfRAAM?

A highly stealthy CCA that can preserve 'first shot' or survive enough to get a kill and be a credible threat vs other red-platforms that may potentially be carrying weapons that can outstick it would be a good capability to have. I don't see that anywhere in terms of what's being proposed right now. Perhaps that will change down the road.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't Cuda be the "halfRAAM"?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom