www.airandspaceforces.com
"Industry sources said the other classified program on which Lockheed took a charge may be an advanced drone for surveillance."
I hope Boeing does.
USAF NGAD isn't landing on a carrier so the sweep can be more aggressive. I'm not sure the statement that 1830 km/h cruise is a requirement is valid or at least confirmed. We just don't know what the USAF has asked for although at the very least some sort of high speed dash capability seems likely and supercruise might be a happy coincidence of the engine/airframe combination.
Boy, do I remember this, I still have my display model.
That would be a bad assumption... The programs are different enough that there potentially aren't enough cross over requirements, even between just the two US programs, that it won't happen. Additionally outside of capability requirements there are also industrial requirements. The Europeans are building their aircraft to preserve their industry as well as replace their current fighter fleets.
Again you're working from a flawed assumption. There may be a requirement for a supercruise capability but the F-22/ATF was conceived in the 1980s to dominate a Soviet threat. Air warfare has changed since the 1980s and so the set of requirements from which the F-22 emerged may be different to that of the NGAD, FCAS, GCAS, F/A-XX. For example these airframes may not retain a 9g manoeuvre capability, trading the structural reinforcement and fatigue life for additional payload
Instead of building the Rafale the French could have joined n on the F/A-18 but they chose not too. Given the Rafale's recent export success why would you expect the French to drop tools and work with the US on a new carrier fighter? The new French aircraft carrier is expected to be 310m long, 23m shorter than a Nimitz and 27m shorter than the Ford class. I haven't seen any info yet on whether the French Aircraft Carrier will use the same EMALS catapult as the US Ford or whether it will use a smaller or less powerful version as they do with their current steam catapults (currently France use the C-13-3 which generates only 60k lbs compared to the US carriers with 80k lbs).
Every time I look at it I wonder if they remember the problems the F-111 had with intakes in that location and how would they have fared in the kind of high AOA environment we see the F-22 fly.
I prefer chains, bushels, fathoms, and rods anyway.The key differences may be in the measurement system, and it's high time to abandon this anachronism of feet and gallons
The characteristics are almost identical, except for the range.
NGAD vs GCAS
The moment they realized it's going to be a sub-200 fleet, they asked for a way out, though.
The best 'large quantity' w/ 'smart & sensible technology trades w/affordability in mind' w 'adaptive engines' & 'a generational leap in VLO' capability is more missiles launched from VLSs, likely from minimally manned ocean barges able to disperse across the near littoral.
Well, I guess we know what F/A-XX will look like then.
My understanding is exactly after 2023, and especially after hold in 2024 this can not be considered plan anymore.
They really do need to get their $hit together.
NGAD is specifically USAF.
The F/A-XX is basically the return of the A/F-X (A-6 and F-14 replacement). Mostly a long-range strike platform, with AA as a secondary role.
I think the SCAF will still be a strike fighter. I mean, it's intended to replace Rafale. As to range, I suspect it's going to be fairly long. Like "Western France to the Polish-Russian border and back".
My personal hope is that NGAD is reasonably capable, affordable, and quickly produced and fielded with a minimum of foreign subs so that the only supply lines I have to worry about threatening rapid production are here. I don't need to worry about foreign labour strikes or transporting major systems and sub-assemblies across oceans to actually produce my new fighter in large quantities rapidly if the smelly stuff ever hits the fan.
Unfortunately, the supply chain for any complicated production effort, like a next gen aircraft, will be multinational. The United States does not make every possible input and precursor for an aircraft. Many rare earth metals come from China, for example. During wartime, there will be disruptions in production. There will also be a scramble to secure alternative supply chains for any inputs that have been disrupted. Replacements will be found or seized by force. The only 100% effective hedge against supply chain disruption are your stockpiles at the outset of war.
At this point we haven't seen any serous mention of USAF NGAD being exported so I expect it will be almost exclusively a US supply line. Could maybe include a smattering of Japanese or Australian manufactured composites etc but even that seems unlikely.
Agree but multinational programs also help in other ways. F-35 supply line is wide and diverse and has provided the justification, whether people agree or not, regarding industrial participation in the program. The UK is the best example, as a tier 1 partner they have huge industrial work on the program for a comparatively low investment and aircraft acquisition. Hence going multinational adds airframes and reduces overall costs.
Rare earth minerals are not rare. We have a ton of our own, and even mine them.
In the case of the F-35, it only served to make it "too big to fail".
Alternate reading: While partner nations helped with "comparatively low investment" towards development cost, they also stripped outsized shares of industrial work from American firms.
