USAF/USN 6th Gen Fighters - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS News & Analysis

Ozair said:
F-35 CCA Connectivity Demo – The world’s most advanced stealth fighter jet has the capability to control drones, including the U.S. Air Force’s future fleet of Collaborative Combat Aircraft. Recently, Lockheed Martin and industry partners demonstrated end-to-end connectivity including the seamless integration of AI technologies to control a drone in flight utilizing the same hardware and software architectures built for future F-35 flight testing. These AI-enabled architectures allow Lockheed Martin to not only prove out piloted-drone teaming capabilities, but also incrementally improve them, bringing the U.S. Air Force’s family of systems vision to life.
Click to expand...

This statement from Lockheed is a little misleading. The demo they are talking about was done on the ground, in a laboratory, using *some* F-35 hardware and software. It was a demonstration that the faux-F-35 test setup could send commands to a completely virtualized / simulated CCA using the Autonomy Government Reference Architecture. The A-GRA is an interface specification or contract. The virtual F-35 was talking to the virtual CCA. The method of communication - the data link - was unspecified. It did not exist in any form. In reality this would be the F-35 connecting to a support aircraft that acts as a router such as a KC-46, which in turn communicates with the CCA through ABMS or directly.
 
sferrin said:
Clean sheet engine is the opposite of "as cheap as possible". Maybe a modified engine? NGAP without the 3rd stream?
Click to expand...
Yes, NGAP is an adaptive engine sized for USAF's NGAD propulsion requirements. With clean sheet, I meant something leveraging existing,more mature, technology which may be cheaper than an adaptive engine for Navy thrust and performance requirements.
 
bring_it_on said:
Yes, NGAP is an adaptive engine sized for USAF's NGAD propulsion requirements. With clean sheet, I meant something leveraging existing,more mature, technology which may be cheaper than an adaptive engine for Navy thrust and performance requirements.
Click to expand...
Oh, I understood what you're aiming for. Just thinking an NGAD engine, without the 3rd-stream would be smaller and cheaper (than the full NGAD engine). And less of a redesign than making a smaller F135. Wouldn't want to go all the way down to an F414 EPE because you'd just be duplicating a Super Hornet/ J-31, roughly, and they need more than that.
 
bring_it_on said:
Yes, NGAP is an adaptive engine sized for USAF's NGAD propulsion requirements. With clean sheet, I meant something leveraging existing,more mature, technology which may be cheaper than an adaptive engine for Navy thrust and performance requirements.
Click to expand...
I don't think clean sheet is the best term to use though. USN has specifically said not NGAP related propulsion and used the term derivative.. Derivative to me speaks to a growth pathway from a current in service engine and not NGAP and I cannot see the USN funding a new engine design even if it was based on NGAP.

So given it has to be a US engine then options are likely:
- enhanced F135 but two of these likely might be too big. Two engines would be almost 6000kg in weight.
- increased thrust F110. Does the USN really want to go back to an engine they already operated on ship with the F-14? Two engines would be just below 4000kg in weight
- F414 EPE as suggested by sferrin above? Likely not enough thrust still. Two engine would be 2300kg or maybe a bit more with enhancements but maybe not enough thrust.

Could an F/A-XX using a large delta wing get by with a single F135 that is enhanced? P&W had previously spoken about operating the F135 on the test bench comfortably up to 50k.

Any other engine alternatives people could suggest?
 
Very interesting links and certainly looks like right around both thrust and weight areas that the USN would be seeking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bring_it_on said:
With clean sheet, I meant something leveraging existing,more mature, technology which may be cheaper than an adaptive engine for Navy thrust and performance requirements.
Click to expand...
I was thinking something like one of the newer CFM HPTs and the F136 fan section, maybe?
 
Ozair said:
I don't think clean sheet is the best term to use though. USN has specifically said not NGAP related propulsion and used the term derivative.. Derivative to me speaks to a growth pathway from a current in service engine and not NGAP and I cannot see the USN funding a new engine design even if it was based on NGAP.

So given it has to be a US engine then options are likely:
- enhanced F135 but two of these likely might be too big. Two engines would be almost 6000kg in weight.
- increased thrust F110. Does the USN really want to go back to an engine they already operated on ship with the F-14? Two engines would be just below 4000kg in weight
- F414 EPE as suggested by sferrin above? Likely not enough thrust still. Two engine would be 2300kg or maybe a bit more with enhancements but maybe not enough thrust.

Could an F/A-XX using a large delta wing get by with a single F135 that is enhanced? P&W had previously spoken about operating the F135 on the test bench comfortably up to 50k.

Any other engine alternatives people could suggest?
Click to expand...

A couple F414 would be underpowered for any potent F/A-XX. Unless you have three of them! But nobody would do that, right?

A couple F135, unless downsized, downrated and with a significant SFC reduction, would be too much of everything, unless the Navy wants an aircraft at the very limits of the catapults and arresting gear. Remember that every operationnal modern aircraft (bar maybe a couple exceptions) are heavier than originally conceived, and tends to gain weight during their service life.
A single uprated F135 and a surprising naval "F-16XL style Crusader 4"? Wild option but why not!

F110 family evolution sounds promising. Used and known on the carriers from early 90's (F-14 Bravo and Delta) to mid 2000's, with good records.

My personal feeling (for what it worth) is toward a F-14 sized aircraft, slightly heavier (internal weapons bay, large fuel tanks) with evolved F110 engines. Maybe conservative in some ways, but more practical, economical and "down to earth" (or sea) than some concepts floating around.
 
Forest Green said:
"Our XA-101 #Adaptive engine completed a 4th round of testing and we are nearing completion of the detailed design for the U. S. Air Force's NGAP program" ~ GE Aerospace https://t.co/O74E8hCVru
Click to expand...
An slight change needed which confused me for a few moments. The GE is the XA-100, not the 101 which is the P&W engine. Interesting statement though given we have been lead to believe that the XA-102 is what GE would be offering for NGAP. Unless the statement from Larry Culp is more generic, he used the term "Our XA-one hundred engine" unless the detailed design is the XA-102?
 
Manuducati said:
A couple F414 would be underpowered for any potent F/A-XX. Unless you have three of them! But nobody would do that, right?

A couple F135, unless downsized, downrated and with a significant SFC reduction, would be too much of everything, unless the Navy wants an aircraft at the very limits of the catapults and arresting gear. Remember that every operationnal modern aircraft (bar maybe a couple exceptions) are heavier than originally conceived, and tends to gain weight during their service life.

F110 family evolution sounds promising. Used and known on the carriers from early 90's (F-14 Bravo and Delta) to mid 2000's, with good records.

My personal feeling (for what it worth) is toward a F-14 sized aircraft, slightly heavier (internal weapons bay, large fuel tanks) with evolved F110 engines. Maybe conservative in some ways, but more practical, economical and "down to earth" (or sea) than some concepts floating around.
Click to expand...
I agree with your suggestions. I doubt the F/A-XX can get much bigger than the F-14 anyway given as we know weight limits for the existing carrier fleet. Question would be does that get the USN what they actually need for range? Weapons and sensors and teaming probably should be fine but range would be the concern.
 
Manuducati said:
A couple F414 would be underpowered for any potent F/A-XX. Unless you have three of them! But nobody would do that, right?

A couple F135, unless downsized, downrated and with a significant SFC reduction, would be too much of everything, unless the Navy wants an aircraft at the very limits of the catapults and arresting gear. Remember that every operationnal modern aircraft (bar maybe a couple exceptions) are heavier than originally conceived, and tends to gain weight during their service life.
A single uprated F135 and a surprising naval "F-16XL style Crusader 4"? Wild option but why not!

F110 family evolution sounds promising. Used and known on the carriers from early 90's (F-14 Bravo and Delta) to mid 2000's, with good records.

My personal feeling (for what it worth) is toward a F-14 sized aircraft, slightly heavier (internal weapons bay, large fuel tanks) with evolved F110 engines. Maybe conservative in some ways, but more practical, economical and "down to earth" (or sea) than some concepts floating around.
Click to expand...
The F-110 make sens it flly everyday and it is in a production for the F-15 EX it have plenty of power.
 
Ainen said:
Even super tomcat 30 years ago aimed at f119, though.
Click to expand...

F119 would kind of fit the definition of a derivative engine effort. I'm sure P&W hasn't forgotten how to build them.

From what we know (F/A-XX) :

- Three proposals (BA, LM, NG)
- No adaptive cycle engine
- Strike & sea control optimized over fleet defense
- Likely to be a weapons truck with greatly enhanced payload and range over F-35C
- Twin engined?
- Ready for M-B / Start of EMD by October 2025 (about 12-18 months behind when NGAD - Platform would have reached similar milestone)

I looked at what the Navy spent / projected to spend on developing the Super Hornet. It was roughly $6 Billion RDT&E bill in 2000 constant dollars which comes to roughly $10 Bn today. While the Navy freed up something like $1.5-1.7 Bn a year by stopping F/A-18E/F procurement, some of that will move to buying MQ-25 and increasing quantity for F-35C..Could the Navy even afford to spend $10-$15 Bn (peak annual spending approaching $3 Bn) to develop FA-XX over the next say 5-8 years (when bulk of that RDT&E spend would be needed)?
 

Attachments

  • FY24RDTE_F:A-XX.png
    FY24RDTE_F:A-XX.png
    721.5 KB · Views: 46
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
F119 would kind of fit the definition of a derivative engine effort. I'm sure P&W hasn't forgotten how to build them.

From what we know (F/A-XX) :

- Three proposals (BA, LM, NG)
- No adaptive cycle engine
- Strike & sea control optimized over fleet defense
- Likely to be a weapons truck with greatly enhanced payload and range over F-35C
- Twin engined?
- Ready for M-B / Start of EMD by October 2025 (about 12-18 months behind when NGAD - Platform would have reached similar milestone)

I looked at what the Navy spent / projected to spend on developing the Super Hornet. It was roughly $6 Billion RDT&E bill in 2000 constant dollars which comes to roughly $10 Bn today. While the Navy freed up something like $1.5-1.7 Bn a year by stopping F/A-18E/F procurement, some of that will move to buying MQ-25 and increasing quantity for F-35C..Could the Navy even afford to spend $10-$15 Bn (peak annual spending approaching $3 Bn) to develop FA-XX over the next say 5-8 years (when bulk of that RDT&E spend would be needed)?
Click to expand...
I thought about the F119 (and would love F/A-XX to be a supercruiser) but figured it would be too spendy and it's out of production. A pair of F119s with 2D TVC would be great.
 
The USN requirements were probably a much lower bar to begin with. Their air superiority needs are largely defensive on their terms, inside their radar coverage. Offensively, they are focused on maximum range strike to keep their defensive bubble as far out of reach as possible. But at the same time, range wise they do not have the absolute limitations USAF does with fixed bases. They do not need bleeding edge tech, just all aspect stealth and a bigger airframe for increased fuel/payload. Though hopefully this goes better than the A-12…
 
The Navy would have achieved 30% improvement in range over baseline F-35C had it pursued the XA-101/100 path on the program along with the AF. So clearly, the Navy needs something better than that in terms of payload, range and other attributes. Yet the Navy also needs this platform to be affordable in order to replace a 500+ SH fleet. I'm struggling to see how this does not come in at 1.5 - 2 x the unit fly-away cost of the F-35C...
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
I thought about the F119 (and would love F/A-XX to be a supercruiser) but figured it would be too spendy and it's out of production. A pair of F119s with 2D TVC would be great.
Click to expand...
If the USN could really commit, move at a decent pace and stay focused on F/A-XX they probably have a good chance even to manage cost. The F135 engine probably would be a good choice initially to get an aircraft produced and moving (the engine is in "production"), use the "Block XX" methodology to upgrade the aircraft over time. It's quite possible the F135 and a new adaptive propulsion engine may probably have the same installation envelope requirements for a high-thrust fighter-type engine.

Also, the current generation avionics suites for F-22, F-35 and even B-21 are very advanced and should be used for NGAD, F/A-XX and even NGAS (again to move at a decent pace) and I think this may be a stretch but I think there is a black program, LO high-speed theater strike platform in the works. We already know three NGAD-type demonstrators have flown, let's get a move on it, use what we currently know which works and do it. And to your point sferrin, it will probably be a supercruiser.
 
Advanced F110 it is. This --> https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/f110-epe-proposals.40506/

Variable cycle engine technology, as first employed on our YF120 for the Advanced Tactical Fighter program, may also be used on the F110. A variable cycle engine can provide thrust tailoring throughout the flight envelope and delivers greater flexibility than a fixed cycle turbofan of the same size.
Click to expand...
 
bring_it_on said:
Could the Navy even afford to spend $10-$15 Bn (peak annual spending approaching $3 Bn) to develop FA-XX over the next say 5-8 years (when bulk of that RDT&E spend would be needed)?
Click to expand...
At the moment the answer is no given we know they have reduced their own budget for F/A-XX in favour of modernisation, https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03...x-fighter-spending-for-near-term-investments/ and then the Senate followed the reduction, https://simpleflying.com/us-senate-defense-bill-90-percent-budget-cut-us-navy-fa-xx/

bring_it_on said:
The Navy would have achieved 30% improvement in range over baseline F-35C had it pursued the XA-101/100 path on the program along with the AF. So clearly, the Navy needs something better than that in terms of payload, range and other attributes. Yet the Navy also needs this platform to be affordable in order to replace a 500+ SH fleet. I'm struggling to see how this does not come in at 1.5 - 2 x the unit fly-away cost of the F-35C...
Click to expand...
I can't see how any 6th gen aircraft is going to come in at F-35 prices. Potentially the only way the USN gets close if if they go for a very high rate short build period. They could opt for a 100 a year build rate and replace the fleet rapidly over that short time period but would require very good coordination from Industry and far stronger signals from Congress for Industry to take them seriously.
 
As noted, no one is going to achieve F-35 prices without a huge reduction in capability. F-35 gets around this with shear numbers and twenty organizations as customers. Any inexpensive FA-XX is going to have to use a lot of F-35 sub components, and even then it will never come close to the fly away cost.
 
Ozair said:
At the moment the answer is no given we know they have reduced their own budget for F/A-XX in favour of modernisation, https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03...x-fighter-spending-for-near-term-investments/ and then the Senate followed the reduction, https://simpleflying.com/us-senate-defense-bill-90-percent-budget-cut-us-navy-fa-xx/
Click to expand...

I don't think that matters much in the larger context..The Biden administration cut almost everything as part of the FY25..the new administration will have to decide and there are indications that spending is on the rise.

What does, IMHO, matter is what the Navy is trying to do here. Something that gets >30% range over F-35C with some LO/VLO design aspects, and a payload matching or exceeding F-35 is going to be $150-$200 MM min. A $10-$15 Bn development budget also tells me they are essentially looking to field current systems on a new platform..Something like the DDG(X) approach...using proven DDG-51 Flight III systems on a new hull with loads of power..Here it will probably be a twin engined heavy fighter repurposing several HW components from Block III SH and BLock 3/4 F35.

Navy leaders have said that scaling back FYDP funding will move the program to the right in terms of milestones but not really stop them from the current plan (EMD starting FY26).

Josh_TN said:
As noted, no one is going to achieve F-35 prices without a huge reduction in capability. F-35 gets around this with shear numbers and twenty organizations as customers. Any inexpensive FA-XX is going to have to use a lot of F-35 sub components, and even then it will never come close to the fly away cost.
Click to expand...
That's right. A $90 Million CTOL and a $100-120 MM CV is very competitive in the late 2020s. Obviously that's not a reason to not do something new but one can appreciate why Greg Ulmer was really pissed off when they nuked the adaptive engine for the F-35..that would have set them up nicely in the 2030s against alternatives costing 50-100% more.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
I don't think that matters much in the larger context..The Biden administration cut almost everything as part of the FY25..the new administration will have to decide and there are indications that spending is on the rise.
Click to expand...
I'm not seeing the same signals you are seeing. At the moment I cannot see the budget rising significantly especially if the direction remains for readiness.

bring_it_on said:
What does, IMHO, matter is what the Navy is trying to do here. Something that gets >30% range over F-35C with some LO/VLO design aspects, and a payload matching or exceeding F-35 is going to be $150-$200 MM min. A $10-$15 Bn development budget also tells me they are essentially looking to field current systems on a new platform..Something like the DDG(X) approach...using proven DDG-51 Flight III systems on a new hull with loads of power..Here it will probably be a twin engined heavy fighter repurposing several HW components from Block III SH and BLock 3/4 F35.
Click to expand...
It is the lowest risk option. Hopefully that puts paid to people thinking the USAF would have any interest in the platform.

bring_it_on said:
Navy leaders have said that scaling back FYDP funding will move the program to the right in terms of milestones but not really stop them from the current plan (EMD starting FY26).
Click to expand...
The funding proposal for FY25 essentially keeps the PMO alive with no money left for a winning vendor to start the process.
bring_it_on said:
That's right. A $90 Million CTOL and a $100-120 MM CV is very competitive in the late 2020s. Obviously that's not a reason to not do something new but one can appreciate why Greg Ulmer was pissed really pissed off when they nuked the adaptive engine for the F-35..that would have set them up nicely in the 2030s against alternatives costing 50-100% more.
Click to expand...
Yes was a shame, would have been interesting to see how much additional capability they could have extracted out of the airframe with an adaptive engine. An enhanced F-35 was an early option for F/A-XX and may still be what LM have proposed but likely an opportunity wasted.
 
bring_it_on said:
We will know soon enough.
Click to expand...

Probably not; it is not a high priority and it may take an act of Congress to make money available. Congress is likely grid locked indefinitely, so any military programs that require higher budgets from there are likely on hold.
 
Josh_TN said:
Probably not; it is not a high priority and it may take an act of Congress to make money available. Congress is likely grid locked indefinitely, so any military programs that require higher budgets from there are likely on hold.
Click to expand...
The signals from the USAF have been that more money if needed is manned NGAD goes ahead. I expect the USN will have to decide between hulls and aircraft like the USAF may have to decide between manned NGAD, NGAS etc.
 
Last edited:
The Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Software Factory team has managed and delivered a classified software and digital infrastructure portfolio, including advanced open architectures, DevSecOps pipelines, and software for the $22.4 billion NGAD and Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) programs. The team has consistently delivered on-time capabilities for the DoD’s first uncrewed, semi-autonomous air-to-air combat vehicle, establishing an open architecture that enables rapid integration of software-defined capabilities. Currently, the team’s autonomy software framework is the benchmark by which the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and international partners will field next generation air combat vehicles, transforming the future of air combat.


For the David Packard Excellence in Acquisition Award, the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) team is recognized for their efforts from July 2023 to June 2024. The CCA team released three industry solicitations and awarded contracts for the CCA Increment 1 air vehicle, Autonomy Government Reference Architecture, and Mission Autonomy solutions. The team conducted a competitive seven-month design phase with five vendors, awarding two options to build and flight test production representative aircraft. The team developed a novel option award contracting strategy to prevent protests. It also led a Joint and interdepartmental team to develop the DoD solution for aircraft mission autonomy, executing an “Autonomy Challenge” source selection with a digital fly-off to prove vendor credibility and capability before awarding contracts.

Click to expand...

 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom