www.twz.com
Probably not completely paid for. Per the article
It looks like there is no flight test involved so there will still be some effort required once a platform has been selected.
You are paying $150 million for a refueling drone. What I quibble with is not being able to find a few billion according to Frank Kendall to finish development of the XA100. I say XA100 because it was thought to be the more advanced in terms of development and it would have enabled the JPO to compete engine buys which resulted in benefits in terms of performance, reliability, and cost during the 80 and 90s. It makes little sense to compete an engine buy on a small production run like the F-22 and likely NGAD, but it is a no brainer with a production run of over 1,000. I guess DEI and climate change were higher priorities in the DoD.
They increase the effective bypass ratio, increasing efficiency when the "third stream" is in use.
I think the USN has not settled it because they don't yet understand the implications of operating the MQ-25 on the boat. The projected 2030 Carrier Air Wing was here,
The US Navy intended to buy 369 F-35C's for itself and the Marines. It is on a path to field about 2/3 of that by 2030. Given the service is no longer buying the F-18 E/F, it is quite likely that it ends up buying anywhere from 80-90% of that planned 369 a/c inventory even if the Navy knocks it out of the park with F/A-XX development.
wow, thank you for sharing. Unmanned ASW didnt see that till now..Seems in the end a FA-XX would be a " low density" asset ie not many. It is worth the development a new plane rather something F-35 based?I think the USN has not settled it because they don't yet understand the implications of operating the MQ-25 on the boat. The projected 2030 Carrier Air Wing was here,
which includes 5-8 MQ-25 from 2021 and here
Interesting that in 2021 the USN, per the above TWZ article, was still considering whether the F/A-XX would be manned or not but was leaning towards manned.
This link lists the now outdated study on what the airwing of 2040 was supposed to look like including full F/A-XX, life extended F/A-18E/F and a mix wit increased unmanned aircraft.
Note MQ-25 features with double the expected number and F/A-XX is only a single squadron that is complemented by strike focused UCAV. In tat context perhaps an adaptive engined F-35C isn't necessary if additional refuelling assets will be available.
www.defensenews.com
Not sure how advanced it is or even if it is being worked on...?
Agree, unless they broach 250 jets it may not be worth the investment.
I don't see why invest in new engine if they don't know for the futur of the NGAD fighter?Air Force triples funding for prototype sixth-gen fighter engine
The future of the NGAD sixth-generation fighter remains unclear, but billions in extra funding would keep work progressing on its prototype engine.
Not to add insult to injury. but no supercruise then of no use inthe Pacific, imho.
B-21 is a bomber , the fighter missions are different and need more speed.
If you have the endurance to get there and stay there, you don't need to speed anywhere. You just put pairs on station and draw circles of doom around them. Especially if we field T3 missiles quickly (and I think we are).
Therefore, have never stopped believing the Digital Twin of Bone was worthy idea, but any new build B-1 should to the B-1A speed standard ie high supersonic.
It's not quite as certain as that, but this announcement keeps the propulsion program alive and moving forward. Both NGAP bidders had warned their programs were at risk without this move, so it's good to see. They could still ice PCA, or punt it down the line to a time when decision-making is in a less.....uncertain situation. But keeping NGAP alive is a good thing.
Because the engine is the most difficult component to develop. That's why they start doing research on engine tech as soon as a new engine goes into service. There will be a new fighter. They can design the engine for the size they think the USAF will want. If they have to resize it due to changing requirements, that's not as big a deal as just developing the technology in the first place.
Variable targeting capability for the same missile. AAM/ARM/ASM. I'm speaking broadly of the capability, not the specific T3 that was a DARPA program.
Sounds like agit propagandist..there is never only one card, that is how wars are lost betting on one card.
In countering TCTs/TELs, sprints are enough and once again fuel for speed & endurance is why one needs penetrating tankers.
The CSBA study I linked above, while a few years out of date now. doesn't paint a rosy picture of all SH being replaced by F/A-XX. The 2040 airwing suggestions point to F/A-XX generally being a single squadron on the boat and the delta covered by unmanned assets. They even suggested upgraded SH may be a consideration.
It is a hard decision point for the USN as at the moment the money isn't really available, given other priorities. I agree, and said as much in the other thread, that this platform is really a 5.5 gen aircraft.
As other have said, there is more to life than supercruise, especially if the CONOPS includes using CCA to bulk numbers.
it is bizarre to say I will be disappointed, as if national security is my purview, I have no influence over congressional / contractor complex in the first place. Downsizing under the new administration seems less likely and the future is unwritten and full of continuous tumult.
"I actually like the approach of a 3000 nautical mile ranged subsonic strike UAS (son of X-47) fielded first followed by a next-gen counter air and fleet defense optimized F-X with higher end capability (and smaller fleet) as a better option. "
Great addition but now the question is can they keep the cost down enough to make it viable for an attritable airframe?
We hope!
Since the same with the poor kinematics performance , it will become expensive for not a big value of performance. Subsonic speed in time of high speed and hypersonic weapon and futur drone is not the better response and Fury have a lack of stealth too, this is a waste of money making the mass with poor performance aircrafts. Instead buying a mass of long range missile will be cheaper and will have the same result. Fury will face supercruise ennemy fighters I don't see how it can win in a confrontation. At a time of China are building high performance fighter the USAF response is a reusable cruise missile with a radar.....Taking hours and hours going in the battlefield.
Yes agree that there will definitely be a sensor mix as you and others have said. Correspondingly though there is value in volume production. RTX making 1000 radars at a rapid rate, instead of 400 slow, could reduce the average unit price by as much as 40% (based on typical 10-15% reduction in cost for doubling production). That would also allow the US to stockpile these for future buys and for situations where the CCA fleet has to grow quickly. Bending the metal to make the airframe is cheap and relatively quick but the higher tech parts have longer lead times.
I agree with you , but we have a lack of time with China they running very fast , CCA-1 will flight in what ? 5 years in squadron ? CC-2 will be in 10 years ? at this time China will surely have plenty of 5th gen and 6th gen squadron in PLAAF , I understand the concept but for me me the timing is not good, we are losing a lot of time with NGAD , losing a lot of time with F-35 and in the same time China are building more and more advanced capacity , and I m afraid that China could built a hypersonic striker soon in a ultimate capacity. I don't understand why we are losing so long time to develop advanced programs.We can't win a power like China with a discount Air Force. We are February and still no decision on how to build the NGAD we have lost 6 months since July in the same time we saw 2 Chinese demonstrator flying in public and one over a higway , who say it is more advanced than we think.
