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

[Josh_TN]

I am hoping for two well executed NGADs, one US Navy, one USAF and no joint-service aircraft, two different missions. In regards to US, EU and UK cooperation as an example, the UK was involved in the F-117 program from the beginning and with test pilots but in the end when offered the aircraft, the UK backed out, this would have given the UK their first LO strike aircraft along with the US but they to wait many years for the F-35.

As long as they don't want a VSTOL version as well, a joint service aircraft could work.

The USMC should have had the Navy version shoved down their throat, IMO. Making a STOVL version helped a lot of US allies I guess but making bespoke aircraft for the USMC which operates continually under a USAF/USN umbrella was an expensive and futile exercise. During the cold war, the USMC made due with less and accepted they would operate on the periphery of peer combat. Now they destroy the budget with bespoke systems like skimming bricks and MV-22 along with drastically altering the F-35 specks, to no good end. They are a service that needs to have its budgetary wings clipped.

 

[Bhurki]

The USMC should have had the Navy version shoved down their throat, IMO. Making a STOVL version helped a lot of US allies I guess but making bespoke aircraft for the USMC which operates continually under a USAF/USN umbrella was an expensive and futile exercise.

That exercise helped convert 9 or so amphib ships into potential half-aircraft carriers, atleast capable enough to match the ski jump carriers( in terms of payload and range), and opened up a lot of basing options with requirement of less than a 1000 ft of runway.

 

[Josh_TN]

There's no shortage of room on USN CVs. I'd argue more decks isn't what was needed.

 

[Bhurki]

I think you're missing out on the recent trends which are very much incljned to 'spread out' the strike structure rather than concentrate it in one area. Sure, its not enough to replace the punch that a nuclear CV and its airwing provides, but it does complicate things for the adversary, which is a very good thing.

 

[F-2]

20 carriers is better then 10

 

[Forest Green]

I am hoping for two well executed NGADs, one US Navy, one USAF and no joint-service aircraft, two different missions. In regards to US, EU and UK cooperation as an example, the UK was involved in the F-117 program from the beginning and with test pilots but in the end when offered the aircraft, the UK backed out, this would have given the UK their first LO strike aircraft along with the US but they to wait many years for the F-35.

As long as they don't want a VSTOL version as well, a joint service aircraft could work.

The USMC should have had the Navy version shoved down their throat, IMO. Making a STOVL version helped a lot of US allies I guess but making bespoke aircraft for the USMC which operates continually under a USAF/USN umbrella was an expensive and futile exercise. During the cold war, the USMC made due with less and accepted they would operate on the periphery of peer combat. Now they destroy the budget with bespoke systems like skimming bricks and MV-22 along with drastically altering the F-35 specks, to no good end. They are a service that needs to have its budgetary wings clipped.

Not all USMC carriers have cats and traps though.

 

[Manuducati]

I am hoping for two well executed NGADs, one US Navy, one USAF and no joint-service aircraft, two different missions. In regards to US, EU and UK cooperation as an example, the UK was involved in the F-117 program from the beginning and with test pilots but in the end when offered the aircraft, the UK backed out, this would have given the UK their first LO strike aircraft along with the US but they to wait many years for the F-35.

As long as they don't want a VSTOL version as well, a joint service aircraft could work.

The USMC should have had the Navy version shoved down their throat, IMO. Making a STOVL version helped a lot of US allies I guess but making bespoke aircraft for the USMC which operates continually under a USAF/USN umbrella was an expensive and futile exercise. During the cold war, the USMC made due with less and accepted they would operate on the periphery of peer combat. Now they destroy the budget with bespoke systems like skimming bricks and MV-22 along with drastically altering the F-35 specks, to no good end. They are a service that needs to have its budgetary wings clipped.

Not all USMC carriers have cats and traps though.

None has.

 

[bring_it_on]

I would stay as far away from either FCAS or Tempest as possible (nothing against those programs). We don't really need a multi-national effort with NGAD. It takes a long time to get all parties to agree. It Is slow to execute, and we still end up picking up most of the tab. Plus NGAD demonstrator has already flown and the adaptive engine demonstrators built, so we are doing quite well without requiring partner help. I would much rather design NGAD to be exportable so that allies who may need that capability can be brought into the program without billions of development work to create export variants. If we are serious about long term competition with China then there is enough organic US need to make the project viable. You are probably looking at 500 aircraft at a minimum for the US Air Force.

 

[Dreamfighter]

About half an hour ago, I wrote a post here with the question what "FASS" stands for (an acronym which today I noticed for the first time at the end of the thread´s title). I see my post has already been deleted by a moderator or by the administrator, and "FASS" has now been replaced in the title with "ASFS". So, what did "FASS" mean (was it a typo?) and what does now the new acronym "ASFS" stand for??
( It won´t be 'Advanced Strike-Fighter System' ?! )
A polite answer to my ignorance would be much appreciated over (additional) mysteriousness.

 

[flateric]

About half an hour ago, I wrote a post here with the question what "FASS" stands for (an acronym which today I noticed for the first time at the end of the thread´s title). I see my post has already been deleted by a moderator or by the administrator, and "FASS" has now been replaced in the title with "ASFS". So, what did "FASS" mean (was it a typo?) and what does now the new acronym "ASFS" stand for??
( It won´t be 'Advanced Strike-Fighter System' ?! )
A polite answer to my ignorance would be much appreciated over (additional) mysteriousness.

It was a typo. ASFS = Air Superiority Family of Systems

 

[Dreamfighter]

About half an hour ago, I wrote a post here with the question what "FASS" stands for (an acronym which today I noticed for the first time at the end of the thread´s title). I see my post has already been deleted by a moderator or by the administrator, and "FASS" has now been replaced in the title with "ASFS". So, what did "FASS" mean (was it a typo?) and what does now the new acronym "ASFS" stand for??
( It won´t be 'Advanced Strike-Fighter System' ?! )
A polite answer to my ignorance would be much appreciated over (additional) mysteriousness.

It was a typo. ASFS = Air Superiority Family of Systems

Ah, a reference to the 'family of systems' approach, sounds logical. Thanks for the info.
I did not know of the existence of that acronym. So, is 'ASFS' now also a (semi-)official term for (part of) the program?

 

[Bhurki]

You are probably looking at 500 aircraft at a minimum for the US Air Force.

USAF requirements are based on AEF demands. As of now, there are a minimum of 10 squadrons(1 within each wing of counter air units). Each require atleast 38.1 aircraft as per their structure of 24 combat coded aircrafts. So yeah, the F22 requirement number of 381 units atill holds at a minimum.

 

[Sundog]

It isn't going to replace the F-16 and the F-22. Whoever wrote that is an idiot. The design space between those two systems is too large. I expect there will be one around the F-22s size and one possibly 25% bigger. Maybe a different center fuselage structure for more volume, but everything else will be the same to keep operational and construction cost down. As I noted in the comments in that article, think of it as the difference between the F-22 and the iteration of the FB-22 that had a wider center fuselage and two seats, but everything else was basically the same. Commonality would be very high and probably 95% to 100% of the systems would be the same.

 

[bring_it_on]

It isn't going to replace the F-16 and the F-22. Whoever wrote that is an idiot. The design space between those two systems is too large.

Not necessarily. It could replace those units and that force structure while offering a totally different capability set in sync with future expected needs (and not necessarily a generational (or two) improvement over the same class of aircraft). If not all F-16's are being replaced by the F-35A, and the only other tactical fighter the USAF plans to buy in the next 15 years is the NGAD (assuming that F-15EX buy is predominantly for the ANG) then they have no other option.

 

[Dragon029]

They could just go for something akin to the conformal fuel tanks of an F-15, except perhaps permanently grafted on the long-range model and obviously designed from the start for minimising radar signature; even then though, what's the point?

Designing a cheaper airframe where the shorter ranged version is rated for 9G and the longer ranged version only does 7G due to the skin loads of the expanded wet compartments? Or having the lighter version downrate its engines via software to increase their lifespan while maintaining engine commonality?

 

[TomcatViP]

Wouldn't that Eu NGAD be a super T-7 program with a work share repartition among allies?! Something essentially segregated design wise from the US NGAD?

 

[Firefinder]

I am hoping for two well executed NGADs, one US Navy, one USAF and no joint-service aircraft, two different missions. In regards to US, EU and UK cooperation as an example, the UK was involved in the F-117 program from the beginning and with test pilots but in the end when offered the aircraft, the UK backed out, this would have given the UK their first LO strike aircraft along with the US but they to wait many years for the F-35.

As long as they don't want a VSTOL version as well, a joint service aircraft could work.

The USMC should have had the Navy version shoved down their throat, IMO. Making a STOVL version helped a lot of US allies I guess but making bespoke aircraft for the USMC which operates continually under a USAF/USN umbrella was an expensive and futile exercise. During the cold war, the USMC made due with less and accepted they would operate on the periphery of peer combat. Now they destroy the budget with bespoke systems like skimming bricks and MV-22 along with drastically altering the F-35 specks, to no good end. They are a service that needs to have its budgetary wings clipped.

Not all USMC carriers have cats and traps though.

None has.

Going to need to Point out that the F35 was original design to replace one plane.

The Harrier.

Then the bright saps in Lockmart and Congress had the bright idea to combine it with the then current Air Force and Navy programs to replace the 16s and 18s and end up inviting everyone else into the program.

After much screamming, teeth pulling, crying, and mission creep over the period of almost 2 decades we got what the F35 is.

Which is an VAST upgrade over the F16, F18, and Harriers no matter how you try to cut it. Stealth, Payload, Range, and Sensors are all a mark improvement over those three planes. With the expected pricetag.

Then life throw a curve ball and change where every expected to fight to the Pacific and now we need more range.

 

[Dragon029]

To be fair, even range isn't that big of a deal for the F-35; the A and C variants already have close to 50% more range than a Super Hornet (without conformal tanks) and even with the new talk of the services looking for fighters with an approx 1000nmi combat radius, GE's claiming that their adaptive cycle engines could deliver a 35% increase in range, which would boost the A and C variants to have a 900nmi A2G combat radius, or 1020nmi A2A combat radius. Throw in some light KC-46 or MQ-25 support and you'd be on par with what the services are looking for in NGAD (albeit with NGAD achieving that natively / independently).

 

[TomcatViP]

NGAD is not there to replace the F-35.

 

[Bhurki]

what the services are looking for in NGAD

They aren't looking for just range, but a 2x 45k lbs(advent) powered beast that can take care of itself in an extremely 'hot' environment, the likes of which F35 may have to back off from and depend more on stand off strikes. It will enter service in the latter half of 2020s and china isn't exactly going to sit idle on the J20 by then, so there's a lot of future proofing that it'll require.

Not to underplay F35, it is nice, but only 21st century F16 nice, you still need those 21st century F14/15 equivalents to do the cooler stuff.

 

[Flyaway]

I would stay as far away from either FCAS or Tempest as possible (nothing against those programs). We don't really need a multi-national effort with NGAD. It takes a long time to get all parties to agree. It Is slow to execute, and we still end up picking up most of the tab. Plus NGAD demonstrator has already flown and the adaptive engine demonstrators built, so we are doing quite well without requiring partner help. I would much rather design NGAD to be exportable so that allies who may need that capability can be brought into the program without billions of development work to create export variants. If we are serious about long term competition with China then there is enough organic US need to make the project viable. You are probably looking at 500 aircraft at a minimum for the US Air Force.

I am sure there are probably many in Europe who feel the same about the possibility of US input into either Tempest or FCAS. But I am not clear why you are so against co-operation?

 

[TomcatViP]

Fact is that now we have officially 3 different designs that will compete for the future European market (NGAD Eu, Tempest and FCAS).
Plus a late block of the f-35 that will certainly see some drastic improvement to then remain in service.

 

[bring_it_on]

I would stay as far away from either FCAS or Tempest as possible (nothing against those programs). We don't really need a multi-national effort with NGAD. It takes a long time to get all parties to agree. It Is slow to execute, and we still end up picking up most of the tab. Plus NGAD demonstrator has already flown and the adaptive engine demonstrators built, so we are doing quite well without requiring partner help. I would much rather design NGAD to be exportable so that allies who may need that capability can be brought into the program without billions of development work to create export variants. If we are serious about long term competition with China then there is enough organic US need to make the project viable. You are probably looking at 500 aircraft at a minimum for the US Air Force.

I am sure there are probably many in Europe who feel the same about the possibility of US input into either Tempest or FCAS. But I am not clear why you are so against co-operation?

I am certain that many Europeans would feel the same and that's understandable (these programs are important to their sovereign needs, and defense industrial base as well). I just don't want the NGAD to be burdened by multi-party international cooperative agreements, technology transfers, workshare, foreign weapon integration, and most importantly the requirement dilution that would occur to keep everyone happy. All of these things run contrary to one of the originally stated goals of the program - accelerate development and fielding timelines down from the 15 years or more it currently takes. This requires some level of transformative design and development processes at US OEM's and suppliers, discipline in keeping requirements unchanged and timely approval of funding as the effort jumps through the various technology maturity hoops. All these things are going to be difficult to balance when you are trying to convince additional stakeholders who need to be onboard for the JV to work. Not to mention that the entire process is politically driven thus exposing it to another element of risk.

Difficult to see requirements not being impacted when the USAF wants a larger than F-22 payload, a greater than F-22 range, and an overall counter air platform optimized for the vast distances of the Pacific, while the European partners want something that is optimized for their neighborhood that replaces Typhoons, Rafales and Gripens. And export is likely to be a major factor for France and the UK as their domestic demand is rather small. USAF NGAD/PCA is likely going to be an expensive and large aircraft and not in the exportability sweet spot which is usually medium sized multi-role fighter. Despite the claims by the AF that there could be NGAD-Pacific and NGAD-Atlantic, I seriously doubt that the service can afford to develop and buy more than one type at a time (if that) given projected budgets and other priorities. Moreover, they've flown a demonstrator already, and are spending nearly an order of magnitude more on RDT&E (currently) than the European programs so it isn't like there is technology that the USAF-NGAD doesn't currently have access to that foreign partners have matured and could be provided to cut development or testing time. USAF/DARPA launched AII in 2015/16 timeframe and the adaptive engine development and demonstrator efforts are even older than that.

The JSF is already an international program with five European partner nations so why do we need yet another such program? And they are only getting started with Block 4 so its not like there isn't trans-Atlantic cooperation on fighter technology development and procurement already. JSF production over the next 10 years will exceed 100 aircraft / year - that's well over 1,000 aircraft with European partners contributing to technology and workshare. So I don't see much upside to a joint program (NGAD) either at the development phase or at the production phase.

That said, there are probably areas where there could be some cooperation where both parties benefit. Around next generation weapons, attritable payloads, radios etc. There is a lot that one can do in collaboration without trying to find a one size fits all program which is what I'm against.

 

[bring_it_on]

To be fair, even range isn't that big of a deal for the F-35; the A and C variants already have close to 50% more range than a Super Hornet (without conformal tanks) and even with the new talk of the services looking for fighters with an approx 1000nmi combat radius, GE's claiming that their adaptive cycle engines could deliver a 35% increase in range, which would boost the A and C variants to have a 900nmi A2G combat radius, or 1020nmi A2A combat radius. Throw in some light KC-46 or MQ-25 support and you'd be on par with what the services are looking for in NGAD (albeit with NGAD achieving that natively / independently).

That's a good point. Though I doubt that 30% more radius than the F-35A (which is what the USAF expects to achieve with adaptive engines on JSF- if they deliver on the promise) is the only attribute the USAF would value in NGAD. Likely a much larger magazine, some sort of supercruise and improvements in survivability and sensors. Not to mentions an architecture that can support future directed energy and other high SWaP enhancements. At a minimum they seem to want the F-22 replacement to go further with a larger magazine than the F-22A (the F-35A at its best (sidekick) has 75% of the F-22A's A2A magazine). The AF likely wants a more counter air optimized platform that most probably builds on the F-22A in other relevant performance criteria (speed, and stealth etc). Technology and internal USAF S&T investments have been made in this field over the last two decades the F-35A spent getting ready and NGAD gives them a great opportunity to roll those into a clean sheet program that builds on what the ATF/JSF achieved. Sort of like what the ATF did when the F-16 was at peak production.

 

[Dreamfighter]

Fact is that now we have officially 3 European design that will compete for the future European market (NGAD Eu, Tempest and FCAS).

'officially 3 European designs' ?
I wouldn´t regard a somewhat different version of the fighter-part of NGAD/ASFS for use in the European theater (by the USAF) as a 'European design'... Or is there some important info I missed?

 

[bring_it_on]

NGAD-Europe is a stupid idea and I don't think it will get a lot of funding. The F-35 is in production and the AF hasn't even yet started buying it at its peak buy rate. The AF is upgrading F-22A's, and has just started buying the F-15EX. Meanwhile, the cornerstone Russian fighters will be the S-30 and Su-35 and they are unlikely to field their 100th Su-57 till perhaps 2030 if not later. Meanwhile, NATO allies will have a few hundred F-35A's and B's, already field the Eurocanard and will have their own Next Gen fighters. That is a heck of a lot of conventional capability to hold over the next 15-20 years while the AF focuses on the right type and right quantity of systems needed for the Pacific. Better off pumping that money in fielding a larger B-21 and the Pacific focused NGAD fleet.

 

[BDF]

That's a good point. Though I doubt that 30% more radius than the F-35A (which is what the USAF expects to achieve with adaptive engines on JSF- if they deliver on the promise) is the only attribute the USAF would value in NGAD. Likely a much larger magazine, some sort of supercruise and improvements in survivability and sensors. Not to mentions an architecture that can support future directed energy and other high SWaP enhancements. At a minimum they seem to want the F-22 replacement to go further with a larger magazine than the F-22A (the F-35A at its best (sidekick) has 75% of the F-22A's A2A magazine). The AF likely wants a more counter air optimized platform that most probably builds on the F-22A in other relevant performance criteria (speed, and stealth etc). Technology and internal USAF S&T investments have been made in this field over the last two decades the F-35A spent getting ready and NGAD gives them a great opportunity to roll those into a clean sheet program that builds on what the ATF/JSF achieved. Sort of like what the ATF did when the F-16 was at peak production.

I can't remember if it was explicitly stated but I believe the AF whats broadband LO as a goal for the program as well.

 

[TomcatViP]

Fact is that now we have officially 3 European design that will compete for the future European market (NGAD Eu, Tempest and FCAS).

'officially 3 European designs' ?
I wouldn´t regard a somewhat different version of the fighter-part of NGAD/ASFS for use in the European theater (by the USAF) as a 'European design'... Or is there some important info I missed?

Corrected

 

[bobbymike]

The Air Force Might Make Two Distinct Versions Of Its Next Multirole Stealth Fighter

The NGAD fighter will be able to tackle ground targets and could be produced in long-range and short-range versions.

www.thedrive.com

 

[TomcatViP]

Notice that the quote extensively debated was wrongly attributed by. AF magazine to Gen. Kelly and is now corrected according to their modifications (Retired Gen. James M. Holmes, former of Air Combat Command).

 

[Forest Green]

Not all USMC carriers have cats and traps though.

None has.

Don't some operate F-18C/Ds though? STOBAR?

 

[totoro]

USMC doesn't have a single carrier. US navy has catobsr carriers and ships capable of servicing stovl planes.
USMC planes can and do operate from US navy ships.

 

[bring_it_on]

Looks like an engine down-select, at least for the prototyping effort, could happen by the next fiscal year.

 

[sferrin]

The Air Force Might Make Two Distinct Versions Of Its Next Multirole Stealth Fighter

The NGAD fighter will be able to tackle ground targets and could be produced in long-range and short-range versions.

www.thedrive.com

See F-15C/E

 

[TomS]

USMC doesn't have a single carrier. US navy has catobsr carriers and ships capable of servicing stovl planes.
USMC planes can and do operate from US navy ships.

To elaborate a bit, some Marine squadrons operate conventional cat-and-trap aircraft (F/A-18 and F-35C) from Navy aircraft carriers (CVNs) as part of Navy airwings. In addition, some Marine squadrons fly STOVL aircraft (AV-8 and F-35B) from Navy amphibious assault ships (LHA/LHD) as part of an embarked Marine Air Combat Element.

No US service operates STOBAR aircraft from any ships.

 

[bobbymike]

Subscription needed

Fighter Radars Poised For Gallium Nitride Breakthrough | Aviation Week Network

Gallium nitride has migrated across terrestrial radar applications for a decade but is ready to enter the challenging market for fighters.

aviationweek.com

 

[stealthflanker]

Subscription needed

Fighter Radars Poised For Gallium Nitride Breakthrough | Aviation Week Network

Gallium nitride has migrated across terrestrial radar applications for a decade but is ready to enter the challenging market for fighters.

aviationweek.com

The challenge will always be heat. GaN can convert more power to RF wave.. in smaller package than GaAs but ... with big power comes big heat flux.

 

[Forest Green]

Subscription needed

Fighter Radars Poised For Gallium Nitride Breakthrough | Aviation Week Network

Gallium nitride has migrated across terrestrial radar applications for a decade but is ready to enter the challenging market for fighters.

aviationweek.com

The challenge will always be heat. GaN can convert more power to RF wave.. in smaller package than GaAs but ... with big power comes big heat flux.

Carbon nanotubes are very good heat dissipaters, but then I'm still waiting on those 1THz CPUs that were supposed to be possible with them.

 

[Ingraman]

Q&A: Future Force | Air & Space Forces Magazine

As Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategy, Integration, and Requirements at Air Force Headquarters in the Pentagon, Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote is sometimes dubbed “the Air Force futurist.” He is responsible for developing Air Force strategy and multi-domain operating concepts, and for integrating...

www.airforcemag.com

 

[isayyo2]

Q&A: Future Force | Air & Space Forces Magazine

As Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategy, Integration, and Requirements at Air Force Headquarters in the Pentagon, Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote is sometimes dubbed “the Air Force futurist.” He is responsible for developing Air Force strategy and multi-domain operating concepts, and for integrating...

www.airforcemag.com

Nice to see Dr. Roper being mentioned still