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

[Josh_TN]

An F-35 doesn't have a significantly lower fly away cost than a new build F-16 or F-18 at this point. It probably does have much a higher per hour flight cost. But then you have to weigh that against the costs of new design R&D and parts/training stream, which I think would quickly swallow any operational savings.

If you need a 4+ gen aircraft, buy more F-15s. It's in production, training and parts are somewhat established (I assume the new models vary pretty violently from C's in avionics), and there is already a major buy of them for AD purposes anyway. If you just need something for ground attack, you can festoon air to ground ordnance on it like a christmas tree.

 

[TomcatViP]

We are also probably going toward more platform agnostic aircrew.

 

[Ingraman]

"Affordability" strikes back... again.

 

[rooster]

So what is so affordable about designing a great fighter and cancelling it after building 180? Then building another greater fighter and cancelling that? Good lord if they had just stuck with the F22 in the first place... Braindead Washington DC is back in full force I see. Ok so by 2030 we will be flying a less advanced fighter prototype after spending hundreds of billions to develop the worlds best fighters and cancelling them.

Then, oh my goodness the threats have advanced and we need something better.

Gotta waste my tax dollars on something, right? Business as usual is back in business with president Harris.

 

[helmutkohl]

So what is so affordable about designing a great fighter and cancelling it after building 180? Then building another greater fighter and cancelling that? Good lord if they had just stuck with the F22 in the first place... Braindead Washington DC is back in full force I see. Ok so by 2030 we will be flying a less advanced fighter prototype after spending hundreds of billions to develop the worlds best fighters and cancelling them.

Then, oh my goodness the threats have advanced and we need something better.

Gotta waste my tax dollars on something, right? Business as usual is back in business with president Harris.

wasn't Gates the one that cancelled the F-22?

 

[Bhurki]

So what is so affordable about designing a great fighter and cancelling it after building 180?

F22 isnt the so called open-architecture compliant. That means it takes a hell lot more time to push upgrades and newer block standards than they want to, both software and hardware wise.

It is a single mission jet made specifically for OCA, with other mission sets being satisfied partially as a result of intersection of capabilities required.
So, it might seem as if its a really good platform to conduct S/DEAD missions, but then you're using it for something that utilizes only a fraction of its capabilities for a high operating cost.

Lets stop beating the pentagon and the budget for curtailing the production. They wanted to enjoy their time after USSR fell.

 

[NeilChapman]

One of NG NGAD public concepts

Maybe I'm just seeing what I want to see in that image but that design looks like it might have some F-23 DNA in the mix.

Agreed makes sense.

First thing I saw as well. The chine, high canopy (although not the rear view of the YF-23), the distance back to the leading edge of the wing, and the angle of the stabilizer. I like it.

I'd love to see NG build NGAD. It's not like they don't have the experience. They are responsible for the F-5, A-10, F-18, built fuselage's for F-18's and F-35's, and designed and built the YF-23. Their production expertise w/F-35 will serve them well w/B-21 - and by extension, NGAD. Perhaps NG for one branch and LM for the other?

Frankly, with NGAD I'd like to see a complete change in how we fly. When I drive a Tesla, the first thing I do on the freeway is pull that stalk down twice (engage autopilot). Autopilot removes all the basic requirements for driving. I "pilot" for exceptions. The same is possible for flying. I should be able to point the system to a place in space and the jet will take me there, best speed, handling all avoidance issues. I should be able to "join up" with other jets and the system should manage our separation, speed, etc, so we don't have to think about it at all. Refueling at tankers should be automated. These are no-brainers. If an F-35C can automatically land so precisely that they had to code in offsets to not prematurely wear a flight deck then surely "full self flying" is attainable. But perhaps this is already happening?

 

[bobbymike]

Going Digital Will Take Courage; Fighter Study Looks to 2040s | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The transformational acquisition ideas championed by former Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper will survive his departure from the service.

www.airforcemag.com

 

[bobbymike]

BREAKING Robo-Jets Part of Mix for Air Force TacAir Study

BREAKING Robo-Jets Part of Mix for Air Force TacAir Study

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

 

[dark sidius]

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/air-force-priorities/2021/02/26/air-force-general-worried-us-wont-field-sixth-gen-fighter-in-time-to-beat-china/o_O

 

[dark sidius]

Kelly Worries F-35 Flying Costs Won’t Hit Target, and That China May Get NGAD First | Air & Space Forces Magazine

ACC boss Gen. Mark D. Kelly isn’t confident that F-35 operating costs will be tamed to $25,000 per hour by 2025, which is the service’s goal.

www.airforcemag.com

 

[bobbymike]

Air Force General: If US Doesn’t Hurry to Build New Fighter, China Will

A test version of the highly classified Next Generation Air Dominance aircraft flew last year.

www.defenseone.com

 

[jsport]

Why Invest in Hypersonic Technology?

Weapons aren’t the endgame. Hypersonic aircraft are next.

www.defenseone.com

been saying aircraft finally someone states as well

 

[Jeb]

Frankly, with NGAD I'd like to see a complete change in how we fly. When I drive a Tesla, the first thing I do on the freeway is pull that stalk down twice (engage autopilot). Autopilot removes all the basic requirements for driving. I "pilot" for exceptions. The same is possible for flying. I should be able to point the system to a place in space and the jet will take me there, best speed, handling all avoidance issues. I should be able to "join up" with other jets and the system should manage our separation, speed, etc, so we don't have to think about it at all. Refueling at tankers should be automated. These are no-brainers. If an F-35C can automatically land so precisely that they had to code in offsets to not prematurely wear a flight deck then surely "full self flying" is attainable. But perhaps this is already happening?

Eh...I don't know if I'd promote that mindset quite so much. Just like recent Tesla Autopilot "saves" I've seen on video where it's clear the driver wasn't paying attention to what was going on around the car until the car jerks away from a near-miss that an active driver would have just stayed clear of in the first place, all that automation does is make it that much easier for the pilot to get behind the jet and not be as attentive and proactive in flight operation.

 

[AN/AWW-14(V)]

The Air Force has awarded Raytheon a $74 million contract to integrate the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile with existing fighter jets "and other current inventory or next-generation platforms that may join the Air Force or Navy inventory before the end of fiscal 2029," according to a Defense Department contract notice released today.

The notice did not name a particular platform Raytheon may be integrating AMRAAM with, and an Air Force spokesman did not immediately reply to Inside Defense’s request for comment.

The service has two known efforts to consider future fighter jet options.

One is the Next-Generation Air Dominance project that is evaluating the use of digital engineering to develop new aircraft systems and technology and has already flown a proof-of-concept demonstrator. The Navy is also pursuing its own Next-Generation Air Dominance platform as a successor to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

Today's notice states Raytheon will provide aircraft lab, flight test, flight clearance and simulation support to integrate AMRAAM with the jets. The work will primarily occur in Tucson, AZ, until March 2032 when the contract ends.

Air Force AMRAAM contract hints at future fighter integration | InsideDefense.com

The Air Force has awarded Raytheon a $74 million contract to integrate the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile with existing fighter jets "and other current inventory or next-generation platforms that may join the Air Force or Navy inventory before the end of fiscal 2029," according to a...

insidedefense.com

 

[Flyaway]

View attachment 651969

The Air Force has awarded Raytheon a $74 million contract to integrate the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile with existing fighter jets "and other current inventory or next-generation platforms that may join the Air Force or Navy inventory before the end of fiscal 2029," according to a Defense Department contract notice released today.

The notice did not name a particular platform Raytheon may be integrating AMRAAM with, and an Air Force spokesman did not immediately reply to Inside Defense’s request for comment.

The service has two known efforts to consider future fighter jet options.

One is the Next-Generation Air Dominance project that is evaluating the use of digital engineering to develop new aircraft systems and technology and has already flown a proof-of-concept demonstrator. The Navy is also pursuing its own Next-Generation Air Dominance platform as a successor to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

Today's notice states Raytheon will provide aircraft lab, flight test, flight clearance and simulation support to integrate AMRAAM with the jets. The work will primarily occur in Tucson, AZ, until March 2032 when the contract ends.

Air Force AMRAAM contract hints at future fighter integration | InsideDefense.com

The Air Force has awarded Raytheon a $74 million contract to integrate the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile with existing fighter jets "and other current inventory or next-generation platforms that may join the Air Force or Navy inventory before the end of fiscal 2029," according to a...

insidedefense.com

Well that could include the B-21 & RQ-180 both of whom I have seen alleged in the past will have air to air capability for defending themselves.

 

[Zoomer]

One question:
Is this 6th gen fighter going to be a flying wing design?

First of all, dogfighting is over so having a vertical tail for manoeuvrability is not a requirement. Secondly, it's a proven design. Numerous drones and bombers already in service are flying wings. Thirdly, it's offering all aspect stealth and I suppose that's a requirement for a 6th gen plane, along with variable cycle engines etc. Fourthly, we've seen many concept photos from different companies that do not have vertical tails.

What do you think?

 

[In_A_Dream]

One question:
Is this 6th gen fighter going to be a flying wing design?

First of all, dogfighting is over so having a vertical tail for manoeuvrability is not a requirement. Secondly, it's a proven design. Numerous drones and bombers already in service are flying wings. Thirdly, it's offering all aspect stealth and I suppose that's a requirement for a 6th gen plane, along with variable cycle engines etc. Fourthly, we've seen many concept photos from different companies that do not have vertical tails.

What do you think?

Diamond/Delta Wing more than likely. There will probably be some degree of tactical capability given the fighter designation.

 

[helmutkohl]

One question:
Is this 6th gen fighter going to be a flying wing design?

First of all, dogfighting is over

Question
if both sides are using stealthy aircraft, wouldn't it mean the chances of dogfighting are likely higher since they may not detect each other until they get closer?

 

[red admiral]

Secondly, it's a proven design. Numerous drones and bombers already in service are flying wings.

Are there any supersonic flying wings? Does your 6th gen fighter need to be supersonic?

 

[Deino]

Any estimation or guess when we'll get a first glimpse of its configuration or even an image of that alleged demonstrator?

 

[Geo]

"... we've seen many concept photos from different companies that do not have vertical tails."

[/QUOTE]

And that is exactly the reason to believe the opposite.

 

[Moose]

Any estimation or guess when we'll get a first glimpse of its configuration or even an image of that alleged demonstrator?

Well. HAVE BLUE stayed out of sight for quite a while. But I think we may see something like the B-21 images USAF circulates sooner than that: a vague "concept" image which keeps the details light but gives us an idea.

 

[TomcatViP]

First of all, dogfighting is over so having a vertical tail for manoeuvrability is not a requirement.

@Zoomer : This will never be the case. Among the requirements for a fighter jet, there will still be interception. If tomorrow your 6th Gen airframe can't outdog a well flown Cessna at low speed, your relative security is over: your opponents will throw out their expensive weapons and buy bulks of Light aircrafts... Just like they do with Toyota.
Also, Stealth Vs Stealth will involve a lot of last second detection where noze pointing and rate of turn will be paramount.
Think also yourself with one of those robotic platform in your tail. The last thing you'd want is an airframe that can't turn.

 

[Josh_TN]

A sub sonic aircraft is always going to extend the no escape zone for an incoming missile and greatly limit interception geometries while also drastically limiting disengagement options. I think it might be useful to have existing subsonic platforms like bombers have some kind of air to air capability, just because it seems like a software and ejector change now adays (I personally am hoping B-21 has separate wing bays for self defense weapons like AGM-88G and possible AAMs), and it probably isn't cost effective to make UAVs super sonic in most cases. But the primary air interception platform will always have to have a supersonic capability or else it will find itself a victim of asymmetrical tactics.

 

[Zoomer]

Thank you Tomcat! I suppose it would have V-shaped vertical fins, like the F23 for example. Best of both worlds imo. Super stealthy and manoeuvrable at the same time.

I expect variable cycle engines with advanced IR signature reduction, GaN radar, advanced materials and coatings (all aspect stealth), active self defence (micromissiles, DEWs), advanced EW/ECM (integrated jammers etc) and interdiction capabilities (remember, it has to replace both F22 and F15E/F18E) and on those missions it would probably command high performance Loyal Wingmen for increased fuel and payload, hence the talk for "multiple airframes". That ofc requires extreme processing, AI and connectivity capabilities or even a second seat.

It will also have to escort bombers which means extreme range. Here is your bomber defence Josh!

It will probably follow the Super Hornet development cycle (where integration of radars, engines, sensors etc happened over time) in order to reduce costs. That's another hint of the "multiple airframes" rumors.

Honestly, I do not see the AF and the Navy developing their own plane. They have to work together. I can't see how they are gonna find the money for 2 different planes. Congress won't allow it. Same plane, two versions, like the F35A/C is the best solution imo. What do you guys think?

 

[In_A_Dream]

Honestly, I do not see the AF and the Navy developing their own plane. They have to work together. I can't see how they are gonna find the money for 2 different planes. Congress won't allow it. Same plane, two versions, like the F35A/C is the best solution imo. What do you guys think?

How many aircraft do you think the USAF is going to produce under the Digital Century Series?

 

[Josh_TN]

I suspect it will be a number of different aircraft and demonstrators, but in terms of manned platforms I would guess only one production airframe.

I also think the USN is going to have a hard time funding an independent program. I think it would have to borrow heavily from what ever the USAF produces.

 

[Zoomer]

Exactly. 1 plane, 2 versions like the F35A/C. Besides, the Navy doesn't have the money anyway.

As for the plane itself, different demonstrators will be developed. They will integrate different technologies and test what works and what doesn't, until they reach the "final product" of the century series and mass production will begin. They don't want the platform to become obsolete once it reaches mass production, especially when everyone is developing 5th/6th gen aircraft these days. The development process will be similar to the Super Hornet (people hate this plane, but the program and the implementation was great) in order to reduce costs. It will also include Loyal Wingmen for interdiction missions so it's not gonna be a "single" airframe.

That's my guess.

 

[bring_it_on]

Honestly, I do not see the AF and the Navy developing their own plane. They have to work together. I can't see how they are gonna find the money for 2 different planes. Congress won't allow it. Same plane, two versions, like the F35A/C is the best solution imo. What do you guys think?

How many aircraft do you think the USAF is going to produce under the Digital Century Series?

Depends on whether Congress wants these to remain in the digital space or appear in the physical space. If we spend a lot of time and money on building 4th gen aircraft, and cutting 5th gen aircraft then I see us fielding a pretty robust NGAD capability in the digital sphere only. If you take CSAF at his word, that the service will not look to take funding from its current 5th gen modernization portfolio and move that to NGAD then you really have 2 options to fund NGAD. One will be to retire older aircraft, free up resources and use that to finish work on NGAD and buy it. Or you hope that the AF budgets grow. If we don't see either, I feel that we'll continue to have digital designs that don't make a physical appearance until much later, perhaps a lot after things like Skyborg etc have been fielded. So you could have a situation where you have lots of digital designs with multiple teams doing some design work but you can't really shape all that into a fieldable acquisition program because your funding keeps getting trimmed moving schedules to the right. The original idea seemed to have been to have multiple digital designs being developed and fielded in smallish numbers each so I'm basing this on the AF wanting to continue down that path.

 

[TomcatViP]

I suppose it would have V-shaped vertical fins, like the F23 for example. Best of both worlds imo. Super stealthy and manoeuvrable at the same time.

We were given to see some design that had collapsible canted verticals deploying as V-tails or verticals only where horizontals were already present.

Moreover the industry is weighting heavily on effectors that will certainly take part of the roles of ailerons and elevators with distributed propulsion used for yaw and roll.

A whole new world is right in front of us while still so hard to guess!

 

[trose213]

Honestly, I do not see the AF and the Navy developing their own plane. They have to work together. I can't see how they are gonna find the money for 2 different planes. Congress won't allow it. Same plane, two versions, like the F35A/C is the best solution imo. What do you guys think?

How many aircraft do you think the USAF is going to produce under the Digital Century Series?

Depends on whether Congress wants these to remain in the digital space or appear in the physical space. If we spend a lot of time and money on building 4th gen aircraft, and cutting 5th gen aircraft then I see us fielding a pretty robust NGAD capability in the digital sphere only. If you take CSAF at his word, that the service will not look to take funding from its current 5th gen modernization portfolio and move that to NGAD then you really have 2 options to fund NGAD. One will be to retire older aircraft, free up resources and use that to finish work on NGAD and buy it. Or you hope that the AF budgets grow. If we don't see either, I feel that we'll continue to have digital designs that don't make a physical appearance until much later, perhaps a lot after things like Skyborg etc have been fielded. So you could have a situation where you have lots of digital designs with multiple teams doing some design work but you can't really shape all that into a fieldable acquisition program because your funding keeps getting trimmed moving schedules to the right. The original idea seemed to have been to have multiple digital designs being developed and fielded in smallish numbers each so I'm basing this on the AF wanting to continue down that path.

What about using the digital capabilities to field "4th gen" fighters?

 

[bring_it_on]

Honestly, I do not see the AF and the Navy developing their own plane. They have to work together. I can't see how they are gonna find the money for 2 different planes. Congress won't allow it. Same plane, two versions, like the F35A/C is the best solution imo. What do you guys think?

How many aircraft do you think the USAF is going to produce under the Digital Century Series?

Depends on whether Congress wants these to remain in the digital space or appear in the physical space. If we spend a lot of time and money on building 4th gen aircraft, and cutting 5th gen aircraft then I see us fielding a pretty robust NGAD capability in the digital sphere only. If you take CSAF at his word, that the service will not look to take funding from its current 5th gen modernization portfolio and move that to NGAD then you really have 2 options to fund NGAD. One will be to retire older aircraft, free up resources and use that to finish work on NGAD and buy it. Or you hope that the AF budgets grow. If we don't see either, I feel that we'll continue to have digital designs that don't make a physical appearance until much later, perhaps a lot after things like Skyborg etc have been fielded. So you could have a situation where you have lots of digital designs with multiple teams doing some design work but you can't really shape all that into a fieldable acquisition program because your funding keeps getting trimmed moving schedules to the right. The original idea seemed to have been to have multiple digital designs being developed and fielded in smallish numbers each so I'm basing this on the AF wanting to continue down that path.

What about using the digital capabilities to field "4th gen" fighters?

Yes that is what I said. If you use some of that capability to field clean sheet 4th gen, or 3rd gen fighters then you are not going to have money to fund the same technology to field the higher end NGAD system. As the CSAF described (if what he said is also reflected in actual budgets), older systems will have to make room to pay for the future NGAD. If you aren't divesting fleet X to pay for NGAD-X but instead are using that money to build a cheaper or better F-16 then you clearly aren't putting the NGAD into production unless more funding is made available. In the end someone (something) has to pay the bill.

 

[In_A_Dream]

It's interesting to look at it from the Chinese point of view. One of their stratagems is to fool their opponent into over-spending on military hardware to the point of bankruptcy. If their J-20s are truly paper tigers and China's disinformation campaign is strong enough to prompt the DOD to go into over-drive with next gen a/c tech to dominate China (in response), given where the US economic position is right now, it seems it may become an effective strategy. So does our legislature & loyal think-tanks factor that into their plan, as to not over-spend? To field 4.5 gen tech via the digital approach, in an attempt to efficiently over-match China, may be a cost-effective option.

 

[bring_it_on]

It may also be interesting to look at what the US plans on spending on NGAD through its FYDP. It may be large as an absolute number but in the overall scheme of things it is a mere rounding error. They aren't launching straight into a 6th gen fighter EMD program anytime soon. The small F-22 fleet pretty much guaranteed that they would have tried to get something new into that portfolio sometime in the 2030's regardless.

 

[Josh_TN]

I don't see how any new program of record would bring down costs as oppose to buying additional aircraft from existing lines. Even if you are using old tech, you're still integrated a brand new platform and going through the motions of a new aircraft, including weapons integration, training, parts streams, etc.

Buy F-35 and buy more F-15/18 for legacy aircraft if they are easier to support. When NGAD produces anything a of value, a decision about how many should be bought can be made then.

 

[bring_it_on]

I don't see how any new program of record would bring down costs as oppose to buying additional aircraft from existing lines. Even if you are using old tech, you're still integrated a brand new platform and going through the motions of a new aircraft, including weapons integration, training, parts streams, etc.

Buy F-35 and buy more F-15/18 for legacy aircraft if they are easier to support. When NGAD produces anything a of value, a decision about how many should be bought can be made then.

Yeah exactly. Eventually the AF and the DOD will come down from the digital sugar rush and realize that you aren't going to get a cheaper completely new 4+ gen F-16 replacement of equal or better performance relative to buying a new F-16V from the newly established production line in South Carolina. You want it significantly cheaper (to the F-16), you're going to have take a performance penalty (like going with a T-7 offspring). And Vice versa. The digital tools and processes are going to no doubt play a very important role in delivering Skyborg, T-7, NGAD, GBSD, and other programs vital to AF modernization. Spending half a decade to a decade to use these processes and tools to develop an 4th gen. F16 replacement is going to be a huge distraction and probably isn't going to cost any less.

I wonder if their calculation or at least public statements would have been different had Lockheed not been the prime on the F-16 and now that they can't use the Industrial Base argument.

 

[Zoomer]

A new 4.5 gen plane is a solution looking for a problem. The F35 IS a 4.5 gen plane when it carries weapons externally. For middle east, just use UCAVs or UAVs dictating targets for artillery. Much cheaper than using fighters.

Nobody is going to invade China. You cannot win that way. The objective is to defend the islands and blockade China. Use the F35 for CAS over the islands and send the NGAD and the B21 over China to do their thing.

 

[trose213]

Honestly, I do not see the AF and the Navy developing their own plane. They have to work together. I can't see how they are gonna find the money for 2 different planes. Congress won't allow it. Same plane, two versions, like the F35A/C is the best solution imo. What do you guys think?

How many aircraft do you think the USAF is going to produce under the Digital Century Series?

Depends on whether Congress wants these to remain in the digital space or appear in the physical space. If we spend a lot of time and money on building 4th gen aircraft, and cutting 5th gen aircraft then I see us fielding a pretty robust NGAD capability in the digital sphere only. If you take CSAF at his word, that the service will not look to take funding from its current 5th gen modernization portfolio and move that to NGAD then you really have 2 options to fund NGAD. One will be to retire older aircraft, free up resources and use that to finish work on NGAD and buy it. Or you hope that the AF budgets grow. If we don't see either, I feel that we'll continue to have digital designs that don't make a physical appearance until much later, perhaps a lot after things like Skyborg etc have been fielded. So you could have a situation where you have lots of digital designs with multiple teams doing some design work but you can't really shape all that into a fieldable acquisition program because your funding keeps getting trimmed moving schedules to the right. The original idea seemed to have been to have multiple digital designs being developed and fielded in smallish numbers each so I'm basing this on the AF wanting to continue down that path.

What about using the digital capabilities to field "4th gen" fighters?

Yes that is what I said. If you use some of that capability to field clean sheet 4th gen, or 3rd gen fighters then you are not going to have money to fund the same technology to field the higher end NGAD system. As the CSAF described (if what he said is also reflected in actual budgets), older systems will have to make room to pay for the future NGAD. If you aren't divesting fleet X to pay for NGAD-X but instead are using that money to build a cheaper or better F-16 then you clearly aren't putting the NGAD into production unless more funding is made available. In the end someone (something) has to pay the bill.

Unless, part of the F-35 buy is cancelled and becomes 4+++ NGAD.

 

[bring_it_on]

Honestly, I do not see the AF and the Navy developing their own plane. They have to work together. I can't see how they are gonna find the money for 2 different planes. Congress won't allow it. Same plane, two versions, like the F35A/C is the best solution imo. What do you guys think?

How many aircraft do you think the USAF is going to produce under the Digital Century Series?

Depends on whether Congress wants these to remain in the digital space or appear in the physical space. If we spend a lot of time and money on building 4th gen aircraft, and cutting 5th gen aircraft then I see us fielding a pretty robust NGAD capability in the digital sphere only. If you take CSAF at his word, that the service will not look to take funding from its current 5th gen modernization portfolio and move that to NGAD then you really have 2 options to fund NGAD. One will be to retire older aircraft, free up resources and use that to finish work on NGAD and buy it. Or you hope that the AF budgets grow. If we don't see either, I feel that we'll continue to have digital designs that don't make a physical appearance until much later, perhaps a lot after things like Skyborg etc have been fielded. So you could have a situation where you have lots of digital designs with multiple teams doing some design work but you can't really shape all that into a fieldable acquisition program because your funding keeps getting trimmed moving schedules to the right. The original idea seemed to have been to have multiple digital designs being developed and fielded in smallish numbers each so I'm basing this on the AF wanting to continue down that path.

What about using the digital capabilities to field "4th gen" fighters?

Yes that is what I said. If you use some of that capability to field clean sheet 4th gen, or 3rd gen fighters then you are not going to have money to fund the same technology to field the higher end NGAD system. As the CSAF described (if what he said is also reflected in actual budgets), older systems will have to make room to pay for the future NGAD. If you aren't divesting fleet X to pay for NGAD-X but instead are using that money to build a cheaper or better F-16 then you clearly aren't putting the NGAD into production unless more funding is made available. In the end someone (something) has to pay the bill.

Unless, part of the F-35 buy is cancelled and becomes 4+++ NGAD.

Problem with that is you'd be stopping buying aircraft, while you spend money to develop something that will take time to be R&D'd, tested, and then produced. More likely scenario would be that they pull R&D money from one program to fund another. There is no clean sheet 4+++ or 5--- program that is ready to enter production where it could begin to compete with the F-35 for acquisition in the near to mid term. The longer you prolong this the less that program makes sense. Again, as @Josh_TN has written, if you want a 4+ gen then you have three, in production aircraft to chose from in the F-15 EX, the F-16 V, and the F/A-18E. These are capable aircraft, in production and in service with extensive testing. Why in the world do you need yet another similar class of aircraft unless you go for something much much simpler and cheaper (and less capable)?

I am also highly skeptical to the claims that somehow buying newer variants of platforms designed 5 decades back makes the design and industrial base healthy. If that was the main driver, then it is wiser to take that money and go all in on Skyborg, MQ-Next, and NGAD..things that are cutting edge and likely to bring in new concepts, technologies and push maturity down the design and industrial base. F-15EX and F-16V could be looked at as a means to rapidly boost capacity in the short term in addition to buying the F-35A or to introduce competition to keep the F-35 program and its suppliers honest. But beyond this, they should be pumping R&D money into the future systems. From cheap attritable systems to the higher end NGAD. The CSAF statements ahead of and during vAWS just comes across as a total SNAFU.