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

[Colonial-Marine]

F-22, F-35, F-15EX, F-18E/F, no F-16? NGAD by 2027?

Just F-15EX, F-16, F-22, F-35 if I'm counting correctly. Ideally, NGAD would be less of a concept and more something actually being manufactured by that point, but probably not at this rate.

I'm not sure how much longer the A-10s will be around, but they don't count as fighters anyway.

A cheap fighter version of Boeing's T-7 is possible although I don't have any idea if the USAF would actually be interested in operating any.

 

[NMaude]

So here’s the transcript, with interesting parts bold.

Where are the bolded parts?

 

[NMaude]

A cheap fighter version of Boeing's T-7 is possible although I don't have any idea if the USAF would actually be interested in operating any.

Maybe not the USAF however I'm sure that there would be plenty of export customers in the market for a budget light fighter and/or light attack aircraft.

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

Where are the bolded parts?

Fixed

 

[NMaude]

A thought just occurred to me, with the new incoming Fanta Fascist administration I wonder if they will be crazy enough to go "Screw it, let's restart production of the F-22"?

 

[Josh_TN]

The Air Force has already made those decisions. It will have a much smaller fighter force of 4 (manned) types + possibly NGAD by about 2027.

Last I heard the A-10s were still being drawn out to 2029; maybe my information is out of date.

 

[quellish]

Kelly's presentation form that AFA event (2021) is worth watching/rewatching again.

In this case of course "right sizing" the A-10 force means "zero sizing". The Air Force wants them gone by I believe 2027.

ACC has been vocal that they need 60 squadrons of aircraft (currently 57). Big Air Force has responded with "We can even better than that! How about 50?" Math has not been a core competency at the Air Force in a long time. They want to get to 50 or less by removing the 7 A-10 squadrons, which Congress has a number of valid issues with.

The Air Force wants to have a smaller fighter force (less than 50 squadrons) comprised of:
F-35
F-22
F-15EX ("replacing" F-15C, also replacing F-15E)
F-16
+ NGAD (eventually replacing F-22)

With a large portion of that being the F-16.
F-15EX production is limited to 24 a year (36 if Boeing gets a $40m handout to hire more managers), with a total buy of 104 (not the original 144, and USAF calls 104 an "increase").

 

[Rhinocrates]

A thought just occurred to me, with the new incoming Fanta Fascist administration I wonder if they will be crazy enough to go "Screw it, let's restart production of the F-22"?

It's not the same case as the F-15, which is a much simpler plane and built in much greater numbers for much longer. The tooling no longer exists and many subcontractors may have gone out of business or be unable to provide new parts. The chips and software would also be waaay out of date and out of production.

 

[Josh_TN]

A thought just occurred to me, with the new incoming Fanta Fascist administration I wonder if they will be crazy enough to go "Screw it, let's restart production of the F-22"?

Why would anyone attempt to spend billions redesigning it and establish new parts streams rather than just completing the NGAD? And new build F-22 would have to be a brand new design from the wheels up anyway; maybe you could keep the engines as is more or less. But non of the subcontractor inputs exist anymore. Plus why would you want your avionics and range to be that limited?

 

[Hydroman]

A thought just occurred to me, with the new incoming Fanta Fascist administration I wonder if they will be crazy enough to go "Screw it, let's restart production of the F-22"?

All of the F-22 tooling is gone, there are time periods the Govt establishes for how long the prime stores and maintains the tooling after production ends. The USAF and USN really need to nail down their requirements for NGAD and F/A-XX and STREAMLINE the programs. Example: My current company, we were quoting subsystem components for the V280 and the amount of SDRLs was astounding to what was flowed from the Army down to Bell plus I am amazed the Army actually selected a platform and put a prime under contract since we know the Amy does not have a very good track record. 75% of the cost was bureaucracy, duplicated requirements and general non-meat fillers.

We (the US) apparently developed, built and flown an NGAD demonstrator within a 12-month period (I think there were 3 platforms, one from each prime but I could be wrong) and it seemed to validate some new tech and performance. I am also sure our intelligence agencies are working overtime regarding the two new Chinese aircraft including their new naval ships as well. The US has to re-think our procurement system for new hardware and systems, we use to be able to build excellent aircraft but that was many decades ago.

 

[Ozair]

Where is this chart from?

Per my comment it was from the Wiki page on Military budget of the US, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

 

[Ozair]

It's not the same case as the F-15, which is a much simpler plane and built in much greater numbers for much longer. The tooling no longer exists and many subcontractors may have gone out of business or be unable to provide new parts. The chips and software would also be waaay out of date and out of production.

Taking that a step further the F-15E was still in production and the Saudi's had invested literally billions of dollars into modernization of the platform.

 

[publiusr]

Might this set-back help the cause of a B-1R missile truck controlling loyal wingmen?

The missile truck flies above the ocean and controls them from below.

 

[TomcatViP]

I still remember that 100 f-15E are going to stay, as judged by the nbr of EPAWSS kit attributed to the fleet (a number that is deemed to be slightly increased as we heard recently).

 

[Josh_TN]

Might this set-back help the cause of a B-1R missile truck controlling loyal wingmen?

The missile truck flies above the ocean and controls them from below.

Absolutely not; even if such a platform had any viability (and it does not) the fleet is falling apart.

Everyone needs to get over the fact that once you stop building an aircraft, you cannot cost effectively build it again nor can you prolong its life indefinitely no matter how much you spend. Some aircraft like B-52 have uniquely high tolerances for high hours, but that is hardly normal.

 

[Josh_TN]

I still remember that 100 f-15E are going to stay, as judged by the nbr of EPAWSS kit attributed to the fleet (a number that is deemed to be slightly increased as we heard recently).

I believe the newest/most modernized airframes remain.

 

[NMaude]

The tooling no longer exists

As far as I know the F-22 production tooling is in secure, controlled storage per congressional mandate.

many subcontractors may have gone out of business or be unable to provide new parts.

Good points.

The reason I mentioned this idea is that the president-elect is NOT known for his intelligence plus his proposed cabinet is full of grossly unqualified people who have no business being in the government so I wouldn't put it past them to come up with such a hare-brained idea.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Congress is the organization that would have to do that. And quite honestly that seems unlikely.

Only if the US is the one starting WW3.

There's a couple countries that seem to be dancing on the edge of "launch the nukes" that may attack the US first. Or attack countries that the US is obligated by treaty to go to war to defend.

Might this set-back help the cause of a B-1R missile truck controlling loyal wingmen?

No.

B-1 fleet is out of fatigue life. All that loafing around at minimum sweep over Afghanistan wrecked the wings (and wing boxes, IIRC).

Some aircraft like B-52 have uniquely high tolerances for high hours, but that is hardly normal.

Helps that the B-52 was initially designed for an 80,000 hour airframe life.

That is not a typo, I mean eighty thousand hours. That is ten times the designed lifespan of F-15 or F-16, five times the designed lifespan of a Strike Eagle. Then in the 1960s and early 1970s, the BUFFs had to fly down in the weeds for their penetration missions, and that took a LOT of life out of them. USAF estimated that the fatigue lifespan is now down to about 37,000 hours, but at ~350 hours a year that puts the B-52 retirement into the 2060s. Where the currently serving BUFF airframes will be 100 years old!

 

[aim9xray]

Helps that the B-52 was initially designed for an 80,000 hour airframe life.

Do you have a citation for that factoid? I'd like to learn more.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Do you have a citation for that factoid? I'd like to learn more.

Came out of the same report that said they have 37khours remaining, when the upper wing skins will wear out and not be economical to replace. Titled "B-52 service life extension" or something like that, should be in the B-52J thread.