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

[TomcatViP]

Obviously digital design must have been an important aspect of this new fighter to be pushed forefront by Roper. But claiming that this is all about that only is like claiming the B-1 epitomizes the next fighter generation given it too will eventually go full digital...

Also, on the human/machine enhancement process (as discussed earlier):

Air Force seeks computer-brain interface

Air Force researchers want to link brains to computers.

www.militarytimes.com

 

[Flyaway]

Is Lockheed Building the Air Force’s Secret Fighter?

Executives drop some not-so-subtle clues.

www.defenseone.com

Wouldn’t that more likely be the SR-72 in that timeframe.

 

[dark sidius]

Its possible but when we look the budget its going more in the NGAD direction, but it could be possible for a SR-72 but more with black budget , because the SR-72 budget since years is flat.

 

[dark sidius]

And if not NGAD what it could be ?

 

[quellish]

Its possible but when we look the budget its going more in the NGAD direction, but it could be possible for a SR-72 but more with black budget , because the SR-72 budget since years is flat.

There is no SR-72 budget.

 

[Flyaway]

Its possible but when we look the budget its going more in the NGAD direction, but it could be possible for a SR-72 but more with black budget , because the SR-72 budget since years is flat.

There is no SR-72 budget.

Well no because as I highly doubt it is actually called that. That was more a PR move to cash in on the SR-71 name.

 

[Fluff]

I love the fact people believe the budget.

And it cant be an SR72

Have you heard of subterfuge, misdirection? Hiding in plain site?

The F-35 was logical follow on to F22, replacement for Harrier, and F16.

The next aircraft, I would suggest will be none of those things.

 

[Woody]

Any body got any real NGAD information or pictures yet? Here's Aviationweek's podcast on the flying prototype revelations (Sorry not very interested in humble opinions - ha ha)

Podcast: What’s Next for the U.S. Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance Program | Aviation Week Network

Aviation Week editors discuss the roots of the service’s Next Generation Air Dominance program, its use of digital engineering to speed development and some of the obstacles it may face in the future.

aviationweek.com

But just to be a twat, mite I suggest that all the F-35 signatories must be pissed off

 

[doggedman]

I don't think any F-35 signatories are remotely angry or pissed off. The Air Force operates two fighter types, a light weight and heavy fighter. The F-35 is the light weight fighter and eventual F-16 replacement. NGAD is a heavy fighter and more likely to replace the F-15 and potentially the F-22.

 

[Woody]

Israel and Japan only bought the F-35 because they couldn't get the F-22 (one too slow, the other too smaller range/payload and limited in missions?) but my opinion doesn't matter, i just want to see a game-changing new plane. Cheers.

 

[doggedman]

First off, could not agree more....love the idea of a game changing fighter with a new missile (AIM-260). The primary reason customers could not get the F-22 was US export restrictions. My point isn't that a preference wouldn't be for the F-22, it's that a new airplane isn't a threat to the F-35. So, I'm guessing we're in agreement.

 

[jsport]

I love the fact people believe the budget.

And it cant be an SR72

Have you heard of subterfuge, misdirection? Hiding in plain site?

The F-35 was logical follow on to F22, replacement for Harrier, and F16.

The next aircraft, I would suggest will be none of those things.

Problem is stealth isnt "all that" much anymore given IADs developments.

Add the 35s avionics sensors on to the latest 16 (add all the AFTI work that was done in the ninties to make the 16 a tank plinker and super maneuver craft) and guess which is a better plane.

 

[Fluff]

I love the fact people believe the budget.

And it cant be an SR72

Have you heard of subterfuge, misdirection? Hiding in plain site?

The F-35 was logical follow on to F22, replacement for Harrier, and F16.

The next aircraft, I would suggest will be none of those things.

Problem is stealth isnt "all that" much anymore given IADs developments.

Add the 35s avionics sensors on to the latest 16 (add all the AFTI work that was done in the ninties to make the 16 a tank plinker and super maneuver craft) and guess which is a better plane.

Possibly, but where would the unit price be? Very close to an F35 I would guess.

F35 is bought as the current 'topline' in terms of capability, interoperability, etc. it will hopefully spend its hours dropping small bombs and missiles on rebels, ISIS etc.

No point in buying F35 and a cheaper aircraft for the low skilled job.

 

[Josh_TN]

I love the fact people believe the budget.

And it cant be an SR72

Have you heard of subterfuge, misdirection? Hiding in plain site?

The F-35 was logical follow on to F22, replacement for Harrier, and F16.

The next aircraft, I would suggest will be none of those things.

Problem is stealth isnt "all that" much anymore given IADs developments.

Add the 35s avionics sensors on to the latest 16 (add all the AFTI work that was done in the ninties to make the 16 a tank plinker and super maneuver craft) and guess which is a better plane.

How exactly would you magically add all the F-35's avionics to an F-16? The F-35 is a antenna farm, on top of the EO/IR systems.

 

[red admiral]

I just want to see a game-changing new plane.

The point doesn't really seem to be to get a "game changing" new plane, but rather to deliver quicker and cheaper it in a "game changing" way.

Then you can build a mixed force of "different" fighters that all have different niches

 

[TomcatViP]

A plane that can bring peace just by billing it is not a game changer?!!!!

Try that with a Typhoon.

 

[sferrin]

I love the fact people believe the budget.

And it cant be an SR72

Have you heard of subterfuge, misdirection? Hiding in plain site?

The F-35 was logical follow on to F22, replacement for Harrier, and F16.

The next aircraft, I would suggest will be none of those things.

Problem is stealth isnt "all that" much anymore given IADs developments.

Add the 35s avionics sensors on to the latest 16 (add all the AFTI work that was done in the ninties to make the 16 a tank plinker and super maneuver craft) and guess which is a better plane.

How exactly would you magically add all the F-35's avionics to an F-16? The F-35 is a antenna farm, on top of the EO/IR systems.

And it would still have a giant RCS.

 

[jsport]

Avionics, data links, sensors of the latest 16 and the 35.. imagine are not that far apart in capability by now and are small enough to integrate into the 16. There is no need for large AESA on one engine fighter and as for RCS.. not perceiving giant and the real emphasis needs to be on tankers so well fueled low altitude infiltration (appears to have been abandoned) and families of attritable and not so attritable armed drones for SEAD/TCT .

 

[Fluff]

The sensors and systems have been designed into the F35. Sure with enough speedtape and glue you could get most of them onto an F16, but you would be hit with all the design costs that entails.

In any top tier 'game', RCS is going to keep you hidden for longer, sure not enough to allow you to cruise over a capital city, but enough to allow you to launch stand-off weapons and get home again.

Tankers are coming, along with loyal wingmen.

I'd also suggest there is an element of 'keeping up with the Jones' China keeps fielding shiny new toys, so US needs a shiny new toy, hopefully with some new toys built in.

 

[jsport]

No agreement nothing to address.

 

[aim9xray]

Avionics, data links, sensors of the latest 16 and the 35.. imagine are not that far apart in capability by now and are small enough to integrate into the 16. There is no need for large AESA on one engine fighter and as for RCS.. not perceiving giant and the real emphasis needs to be on tankers so well fueled low altitude infiltration (appears to have been abandoned) and families of attritable and not so attritable armed drones for SEAD/TCT .

So what you are saying is that an upgraded F-16 is sufficiently capable to substitute for the F-35.

Out of curiosity, could you direct me to the short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) and catapult assist, but arrested landing (CATOBAR) versions of the F-16 that could be upgraded in lieu of the maritime F-35B and F-35C versions? Thank you.

 

[Fluff]

Avionics, data links, sensors of the latest 16 and the 35.. imagine are not that far apart in capability by now and are small enough to integrate into the 16. There is no need for large AESA on one engine fighter and as for RCS.. not perceiving giant and the real emphasis needs to be on tankers so well fueled low altitude infiltration (appears to have been abandoned) and families of attritable and not so attritable armed drones for SEAD/TCT .

So what you are saying is that an upgraded F-16 is sufficiently capable to substitute for the F-35.

Out of curiosity, could you direct me to the short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) and catapult assist, but arrested landing (CATOBAR) versions of the F-16 that could be upgraded in lieu of the maritime F-35B and F-35C versions? Thank you.

Bring back f100 I say, give it a quick avionics update, job done....

 

[Josh_TN]

Avionics, data links, sensors of the latest 16 and the 35.. imagine are not that far apart in capability by now and are small enough to integrate into the 16. There is no need for large AESA on one engine fighter and as for RCS.. not perceiving giant and the real emphasis needs to be on tankers so well fueled low altitude infiltration (appears to have been abandoned) and families of attritable and not so attritable armed drones for SEAD/TCT .

So what you are saying is that an upgraded F-16 is sufficiently capable to substitute for the F-35.

Out of curiosity, could you direct me to the short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) and catapult assist, but arrested landing (CATOBAR) versions of the F-16 that could be upgraded in lieu of the maritime F-35B and F-35C versions? Thank you.

Bring back f100 I say, give it a quick avionics update, job done....

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CPss95p3Ck&t=22

 

[mkellytx]

Avionics, data links, sensors of the latest 16 and the 35.. imagine are not that far apart in capability by now and are small enough to integrate into the 16.

Hardly, while a few individual systems may be close, i.e. SABR being a derivative of the AN/APG-81 and AAQ-40 being a derivative of Sniper, the systems on a Viper are federated while they are integrated on the Lighting. Also, Link 16 can't hold a candle to the data link on Lighting and the RWR is no where close to the EW suite. Some of the above systems I've played with in the past, so won't go into specifics...

 

[sferrin]

Avionics, data links, sensors of the latest 16 and the 35.. imagine are not that far apart in capability by now and are small enough to integrate into the 16. There is no need for large AESA on one engine fighter and as for RCS.. not perceiving giant and the real emphasis needs to be on tankers so well fueled low altitude infiltration (appears to have been abandoned) and families of attritable and not so attritable armed drones for SEAD/TCT .

So what you are saying is that an upgraded F-16 is sufficiently capable to substitute for the F-35.

Out of curiosity, could you direct me to the short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) and catapult assist, but arrested landing (CATOBAR) versions of the F-16 that could be upgraded in lieu of the maritime F-35B and F-35C versions? Thank you.

My god, I can't believe there are still people who think an F-16 could equal an F-35.

 

[TomcatViP]

From the horse's mouth*, as of today:

The U.S. Air Force Academy alumnus piloted the F-15C and F/A-18 before starting his tenure with the Joint Strike Fighter at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., a time when Santos admitted the fifth-generation fighter still had a number of limitations.

“Back then we had block 1B software,” he recalled in the release. “We were constrained to .9 mach, 18 degree angle of attack, 5 Gs. We had no data link, either multi-function or Link 16.”

Witnessing the F-35 program’s evolution to its current state has “been exciting,” Santos added, noting that its stealth and sensors lend it “an edge.”

“The analogy I use is: I’m not a great boxer, but if you blindfolded my opponent and gave me a gun, I’d win every time,” he said in the release. “The stealth is the blindfold, the sensors and weapons are the gun, and combined they make the F-35 an outstanding weapons system.”

Hill Airman Makes USAF History in the F-35A | Air & Space Forces Magazine

388th Fighter Wing Special Projects Manager Lt. Col. Jared “Vic” Santos on Oct. 22 became the first USAF Airman to accrue 1,000 flying hours in the F-35A.

www.airforcemag.com

*Lt. Col. Jared "Vic" Santos, first Air Force pilot to reach 1,000 flying hours in the F-35A Lightning II

 

[sferrin]

No doubt some will interpret, "I'm not a great boxer" to, "the F-35 can't dogfight" when he was merely making an analogy. He doesn't need to be a great boxer because he's got a gun and the other guy is blindfolded. Personally, I like the analogy of, "I'm in a dark stadium. I've got night-vision and a sniper rifle and the other guy has a flashlight and a knife."

 

[yasotay]

"One eyed man is king in the land of the blind" - that's my analogue for today.

 

[Rhinocrates]

It probably makes terrible coffee.

 

[Sundog]

My god, I can't believe there are still people who think an F-16 could equal an F-35.View attachment 643115

They're just talking about ACM. The reason the F-35 is stealthy is so it doesn't have to engage in ACM. The F-16 would easily outmaneuver the F-35, it's just basic physics. Not to mention, the F-16 can drop the bombs and drop tanks to be even more maneuverable and have faster acceleration. The F-35 could drop the bombs, but since it was designed to have all of the equivalent fuel internally, it can't just drop it's larger girth. But it misses the point. Yes the F-16 has better maneuverability, but the USAF never wanted the F-16 to be an air combat fighter, that's what they had the F-15 for and is why the F-16s primary mission is attack. The F-35 performs that mission much better. It just costs much more to do it, but stealth has never been cheap and never will be.

 

[fredymac]

F-16V block 70 price isn't much lower than F-35A. Stealth is not a cost option if you want to win and survive against peer adversaries. In the long run, nobody is going to outmaneuver an AA missile with AI dogfighting software loaded into it.

 

[jsport]

F-16V block 70 price isn't much lower than F-35A. Stealth is not a cost option if you want to win and survive against peer adversaries. In the long run, nobody is going to outmaneuver an AA missile with AI dogfighting software loaded into it.

Finally a reasonable response. The idea block 70/72 and most likely 21 are near the cost of an 35 speaks for itself. They are of nearly equal value in their offering. The 16 has a deflected intake option similar to the 35. Stealth coatings continue to evolve, but yes edges will remain. Simply use the best stealth composites in building the unbuilt 70/72-21s. The USG has 10 yr contract for FMS builds, just add some USAF builds.

After AESA, the DAS is the most important and it is proposed to be added to helicopters, therefore no great shakes for fitting on 70/72-21s or even 16 retrofits. Datalink upgrades are/should be standards anticipated. Likewise, counter-ballistic/hypersonic is a thing, so dual IRST (not stealthy) might be good option for 16s.

The F-35 cant even fly low enough w/ sufficient stores to accomplish CAS. A AFTI 16 would sure have more RCS but again (umpteenth time) low altitude BAI/CAS is the primary High Intensity Conflict mission. Lots of craft are needed to accomplish these missions.. (w max # wing hardpoint) If an A-10 is not to be replaced, the plentiful 16s upgraded seems to be the only option

35 is great for STOVL for what is left of the new mini-Marine Corp but they aint contributing much .

F-35s have their place for SEAD/ stealth drone (where is the stealth loyal wingman? tube and wing ..not) mothership..but maybe so few (in the end) as too be somewhat boutique.

 

[Zoomer]

1 F35 + numerous LW will do the job BETTER and CHEAPER than multiple F16s.

 

[MihoshiK]

F-16V block 70 price isn't much lower than F-35A. Stealth is not a cost option if you want to win and survive against peer adversaries. In the long run, nobody is going to outmaneuver an AA missile with AI dogfighting software loaded into it.

Finally a reasonable response. The idea block 70/72 and most likely 21 are near the cost of an 35 speaks for itself. They are of nearly equal value in their offering. The 16 has a deflected intake option similar to the 35. Stealth coatings continue to evolve, but yes edges will remain. Simply use the best stealth composites in building the unbuilt 70/72-21s. The USG has 10 yr contract for FMS builds, just add some USAF builds.

After AESA, the DAS is the most important and it is proposed to be added to helicopters, therefore no great shakes for fitting on 70/72-21s or even 16 retrofits. Datalink upgrades are/should be standards anticipated. Likewise, counter-ballistic/hypersonic is a thing, so dual IRST (not stealthy) might be good option for 16s.

The F-35 cant even fly low enough w/ sufficient stores to accomplish CAS. A AFTI 16 would sure have more RCS but again (umpteenth time) low altitude BAI/CAS is the primary High Intensity Conflict mission. Lots of craft are needed to accomplish these missions.. (w max # wing hardpoint) If an A-10 is not to be replaced, the plentiful 16s upgraded seems to be the only option

35 is great for STOVL for what is left of the new mini-Marine Corp but they aint contributing much .

F-35s have their place for SEAD/ stealth drone (where is the stealth loyal wingman? tube and wing ..not) mothership..but maybe so few (in the end) as too be somewhat boutique.

Fredymac was saying that ultimately, maneuvrability is of questionable utility, and that Stealth is NOT optional.

And you're NEVER going to make an F-16 as stealthy as an F-35.

 

[Josh_TN]

F-16V block 70 price isn't much lower than F-35A. Stealth is not a cost option if you want to win and survive against peer adversaries. In the long run, nobody is going to outmaneuver an AA missile with AI dogfighting software loaded into it.

Finally a reasonable response. The idea block 70/72 and most likely 21 are near the cost of an 35 speaks for itself. They are of nearly equal value in their offering. The 16 has a deflected intake option similar to the 35. Stealth coatings continue to evolve, but yes edges will remain. Simply use the best stealth composites in building the unbuilt 70/72-21s. The USG has 10 yr contract for FMS builds, just add some USAF builds.

After AESA, the DAS is the most important and it is proposed to be added to helicopters, therefore no great shakes for fitting on 70/72-21s or even 16 retrofits. Datalink upgrades are/should be standards anticipated. Likewise, counter-ballistic/hypersonic is a thing, so dual IRST (not stealthy) might be good option for 16s.

The F-35 cant even fly low enough w/ sufficient stores to accomplish CAS. A AFTI 16 would sure have more RCS but again (umpteenth time) low altitude BAI/CAS is the primary High Intensity Conflict mission. Lots of craft are needed to accomplish these missions.. (w max # wing hardpoint) If an A-10 is not to be replaced, the plentiful 16s upgraded seems to be the only option

35 is great for STOVL for what is left of the new mini-Marine Corp but they aint contributing much .

F-35s have their place for SEAD/ stealth drone (where is the stealth loyal wingman? tube and wing ..not) mothership..but maybe so few (in the end) as too be somewhat boutique.

Again, you are asking to completely rework an F-16 with new avionics and assuming it can hit the same price point it is now. That is a laundry list of avionics to add to that platform - things like 360 ESM, EO/IR, directional datalink antennas all add up in terms of cost and complexity. You also seem to think a couple of minor changes will have a significant effect on RCS compared to a purpose built design. In a clean configuration the F-16 will have better acceleration, but other than that I fail to see what it brings to the table. If you want to put more stuff on the F-35, it has the same number of pylons - plus the internal bays, and a similar range without using EFTs.

As far as 'Lots of craft are needed', you realize that the USAF alone now operates over 250 F-35s, right?

 

[bring_it_on]

The NGAD/FA/XX-PCA thread is probably not a great place to discuss the pivot from 5th generation fighters to developing yet another version of the Viper and buying it for the 2030-2060 time-frame. Just my 2 cents. I'm sure there is an F-16 thread somewhere.

 

[jsport]

F-16V block 70 price isn't much lower than F-35A. Stealth is not a cost option if you want to win and survive against peer adversaries. In the long run, nobody is going to outmaneuver an AA missile with AI dogfighting software loaded into it.

Finally a reasonable response. The idea block 70/72 and most likely 21 are near the cost of an 35 speaks for itself. They are of nearly equal value in their offering. The 16 has a deflected intake option similar to the 35. Stealth coatings continue to evolve, but yes edges will remain. Simply use the best stealth composites in building the unbuilt 70/72-21s. The USG has 10 yr contract for FMS builds, just add some USAF builds.

After AESA, the DAS is the most important and it is proposed to be added to helicopters, therefore no great shakes for fitting on 70/72-21s or even 16 retrofits. Datalink upgrades are/should be standards anticipated. Likewise, counter-ballistic/hypersonic is a thing, so dual IRST (not stealthy) might be good option for 16s.

The F-35 cant even fly low enough w/ sufficient stores to accomplish CAS. A AFTI 16 would sure have more RCS but again (umpteenth time) low altitude BAI/CAS is the primary High Intensity Conflict mission. Lots of craft are needed to accomplish these missions.. (w max # wing hardpoint) If an A-10 is not to be replaced, the plentiful 16s upgraded seems to be the only option

35 is great for STOVL for what is left of the new mini-Marine Corp but they aint contributing much .

F-35s have their place for SEAD/ stealth drone (where is the stealth loyal wingman? tube and wing ..not) mothership..but maybe so few (in the end) as too be somewhat boutique.

Again, you are asking to completely rework an F-16 with new avionics and assuming it can hit the same price point it is now. That is a laundry list of avionics to add to that platform - things like 360 ESM, EO/IR, directional datalink antennas all add up in terms of cost and complexity. You also seem to think a couple of minor changes will have a significant effect on RCS compared to a purpose built design. In a clean configuration the F-16 will have better acceleration, but other than that I fail to see what it brings to the table. If you want to put more stuff on the F-35, it has the same number of pylons - plus the internal bays, and a similar range without using EFTs.

As far as 'Lots of craft are needed', you realize that the USAF alone now operates over 250 F-35s, right?

1200 1300 is start for two MRCs which is very likely since they PRC Rus are allied. Again where is the CAS..since 35 falls out of sky if it flies slow enough to tank plink.

 

[jsport]

Again, you are asking to completely rework an F-16 with new avionics and assuming it can hit the same price point it is now. That is a laundry list of avionics to add to that platform - things like 360 ESM, EO/IR, directional datalink antennas all add up in terms of cost and complexity. You also seem to think a couple of minor changes will have a significant effect on RCS compared to a purpose built design. In a clean configuration the F-16 will have better acceleration, but other than that I fail to see what it brings to the table. If you want to put more stuff on the F-35, it has the same number of pylons - plus the internal bays, and a similar range without using EFTs.

As far as 'Lots of craft are needed', you realize that the USAF alone now operates over 250 F-35s, right?

You seem to be ignoring Block 70/72 and 21 are to be built over the next 10 yrs, plenty of time for upgrades for more than FMS. again again and again ESM systems are increasing rendering stealth barely worth the cost.
PS Turkish non stealth UAVs flying for the Azeris seemed to have little problem against working multiple Sa-8s.

 

[jsport]

The NGAD/FA/XX-PCA thread is probably not a great place to discuss the pivot from 5th generation fighters to developing yet another version of the Viper and buying it for the 2030-2060 time-frame. Just my 2 cents. I'm sure there is an F-16 thread somewhere.

Thank you and you are correct. Thank you mostly for piling on though as usual.

 

[jsport]

1 F35 + numerous LW will do the job BETTER and CHEAPER than multiple F16s.

Blk 70/72 and F-21 ..what possibly could be the evidence that is true?