USAF/USN 6th Gen Fighter - General Discussion and Speculation

It's kind of wild that there has been so much talk by DoD about "family of systems" and "system of systems" yet the forum discussions are focused very much on the big ticket items like the manned aircraft and CCAs.

The "family of systems" is far more broad than those items. For example, networked disposable EW "decoys" that adapt to changing threats using software defined radios are part of the NGAD "family".
 
i think there is very little in the way of education to promote a holistic picture of modern warfare. there are no depictions for example of just how well low observables would fade into the electronic fog of war, or even what this electronic fog of war would look like. for many, we are left with mental images of top gun and ace combat, imagery that has departed little from that of the battle of britain. that is where the image of the hero fighterjet and ccas fit in.
so, perhaps inasmuch as it is safe to do so, enlighten us?
 
quellish said:
The "family of systems" is far more broad than those items. For example, networked disposable EW "decoys" that adapt to changing threats using software defined radios are part of the NGAD "family".
Click to expand...
Its unclear from public reporting that USAF is doing much development or acquisition of these sorts of additional systems. That said, there is still likely a decent stockpile of MALD-J.

Things JADC2 are also a key part of making such a family of systems work together, but talking about that is much duller than weird shaped pointy aeroplanes.
 
red admiral said:
Its unclear from public reporting that USAF is doing much development or acquisition of these sorts of additional systems. That said, there is still likely a decent stockpile of MALD-J.
Click to expand...
The AF is funding a NGAD Family of Systems through the NGAD RDT&E effort. Some of this work has not been carved out as its own separate effort (CCA) but lot of the FoS is still funded via NGAD. It also includes weapons. Industry too has been investing internally to demonstrate capability to the service and compete for these efforts.

 
Hydroman said:
Could we have another WH announcement for the F/A-XX tomorrow?
Click to expand...
According to his twitter account, the US SecDef is currently travelling the Indo-Pacific area, today he is visiting the Philippines, so I doubt hardly, that there will be an announcement today. Maybe the current US administration first wants to appoint a new CNO, before they announce a new fighter jet for the US Navy.
 
Remember the J-20 flight when Bob Gates was visiting the Pacific?

You could just as easily predict that the Hegseth visit could be underscored by a major US news item. After all, the present administration has a marked love for flamboyant gestures, and also is probably eager to accumulate defense-related talking points other than the social media scandal. An announcement with, say, Phelan and the head of NavAir could easily do the job, whether at the Pentagon or joining Trump at Andrews later today.

None of this is to deny the possibility of a delay. It’s just to point out the speculation could work equally well either way…
 
Last edited:
We could also see a more low key Navy announcement this afternoon instead of the event they put on for NGAD. Looks like the decision to proceed with both was taken together as these were discussed with POTUS and SecDef a few weeks back.
 
bring_it_on said:
Doesn't look like anything has been scheduled.

View attachment 764795
Click to expand...
The probability of having any F/A-XX announcement while the SIGNAL Controversy is present in the media is... Null.
Pr. Trump is very much on the Navy and owns the talks on it. He would probably not appreciate having to answer press question on this right after unveiling the winner.
 
Last edited:
quellish said:
There isn’t much of a reason to size a weapons bay to fit standoff weapons if they can be carried externally.
Click to expand...
Depends on how far into the A2AD bubble your target is. If the A2AD edge is 1000nmi from the target, you need to get 500nmi into the A2AD to drop that 500nmi-range standoff weapon.

Remember, LRASM, JASSM, and JASSM-ER are all the same length. 14ft1in.


SUPER=BUG said:
Maybe F51;)
Click to expand...
Unlikely, the previous F-51 Mustang was USAF.

If the FAXX ends up F/A-45 to stroke egos, that wouldn't surprise me.

Now, if it's as big a plane as I'm expecting (90klbs), I'm kinda hoping for the name to be Tigercat II in honor of the F7F Tigercat twin engine heavy fighter-bomber.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Depends on how far into the A2AD bubble your target is.
Click to expand...
Right, the size of that "bubble" depends on the signature of the aircraft, performance of the threat sensor, and kinematics of the friendly platform and threat system. The increased signature from external stores means that you're visible farther out. Though the idea of a 1000nmi WEZ is kind of... Maybe if you're counting interceptors, but you'd need a pretty beefy OTH set or absurdly high altitude radar to see far enough out to intercept at 1000nmi. But I digress...

But another point in favor of internal stores for FA/XX is the drag penalty / impact on range of external stores, given how the USN is wanting to push farther out.
 
whatismoo said:
But another point in favor of internal stores for FA/XX is the drag penalty / impact on range of external stores, given how the USN is wanting to push farther out.
Click to expand...
That may be the single greatest argument in favor of really big bays on FAXX.

My bay size estimate is 2x main bays, each roughly 20-25" deep, 55" wide, and ~180" long. Deep enough to hold LRASM or JASSM or JDAM-ER, wide enough to hold either a pair of LRASM or a single JASSM and an AARGM-ER side by side. Plus a couple smaller bays each holding an AMRAAM or two.

Yes, this is straight up the same reasoning as the ATA/A-12 bays, just sized for the current weapons today.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Maybe? I'm sure NG would want a lot of space for both programs.
Click to expand...
Nobody's using the ironworks and after the reporting about the plume I'm not sure you could ruin the groundwater any further tbh
Scott Kenny said:
That may be the single greatest argument in favor of really big bays on FAXX.

My bay size estimate is 2x main bays, each roughly 20-25" deep, 55" wide, and ~180" long. Deep enough to hold LRASM or JASSM or JDAM-ER, wide enough to hold either a pair of LRASM or a single JASSM and an AARGM-ER side by side. Plus a couple smaller bays each holding an AMRAAM or two.

Yes, this is straight up the same reasoning as the ATA/A-12 bays, just sized for the current weapons today.
Click to expand...
My mental model for FA/XX is F-111B, to be honest. I know it catches a lot of flak, but in terms of form factor (not performance), it makes a lot more sense for the kind of multi-role long range strike and air superiority aircraft.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Unlikely, the previous F-51 Mustang was USAF.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, but on the other hand the USAF had foisted onto it the A-7 and F-4 so I could see the USAF looking for a bit of payback with the USN;):D.

Scott Kenny said:
If the FAXX ends up F/A-45 to stroke egos, that wouldn't surprise me.
Click to expand...

A distinct possibility with the current occupant of the Oval Office, I could see it being named something like the Crusader II, Corsair III, Skyhawk II or Vigilante II.
 
https://www.twz.com/air/f-47-revelations-were-just-dropped-by-former-air-force-secretary

“What we call X-planes, experimental aircraft” were designed and built “to prove out the more risky and important technologies we were after,” he added.
Click to expand...
DARPA and the Air Force have previously confirmed that two X-planes were built for the Aerospace Innovation Initiative, and that they first flew in 2019 and 2022, respectively. Kendall has now added the detail that they were built sometime after 2017.
Click to expand...
Told (most of) you... I think it speaks volumes that the Chinese are moving faster with a different solution to a roughly similar problem than the Americans.

The tailless planes captured in satellite images years ago were in fact the tech demonstrators of the CHAD and SHENGAD, which are now flying as real, production-representative prototypes.

1000016548.jpg 1000016552.jpg

This is to say, I'm not downplaying the American efforts either...

Time will show us which approach proves to be the best.
--------

Kendall described the F-47 as having, in very broad strokes, an “aircraft configuration itself [that] is going to be [a] pretty direct descendant of F-22.”
Click to expand...
Hunter pointed out that the common architecture extends beyond the Air Force, and will help F-47 and the Navy’s future F/A-XX next-generation combat jet be more “seamlessly” interoperable with each other and other assets.

The F-47 and whatever design is selected for F/A-XX are also set to leverage a pool of common subsystems, including advanced sensors and communications suites.
Click to expand...
“We’re not a prisoner of a prime [contractor], basically, for upgrades and for competing for modular components that can be added to replace other components as the life of the aircraft goes on,” the former Air Force secretary said.
Click to expand...
“The Chinese have fielded literally thousands of weapons to attack those bases, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and hypersonics. So having an effective, cost-effective ability to defend them is very important.”
To the latter point, the former Secretary of the Air Force highlighted a broad need for lower-cost alternatives to Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) surface-to-air interceptors to help defend against large barrages of threats.
....
....
Click to expand...
He's once again confirming what at least some of us have been saying and suspecting...
 
NMaude said:
A distinct possibility with the current occupant of the Oval Office, I could see it being named something like the Crusader II, Corsair III, Skyhawk II or Vigilante II.
Click to expand...
It'd technically be Crusader III or even IV, the F-8C was changed enough from the original Crusader that it was called the Crusader II, and the only-5-built F8U-3 was called the Crusader III.



Kendall described the F-47 as having, in very broad strokes, an “aircraft configuration itself [that] is going to be [a] pretty direct descendant of F-22.”
Click to expand...
Interesting. That suggests that maneuverability was still a very strong requirement in the design.
 
whatismoo said:
Nobody's using the ironworks and after the reporting about the plume I'm not sure you could ruin the groundwater any further tbh
Click to expand...
I thought the Grumman plant was torn down?


whatismoo said:
My mental model for FA/XX is F-111B, to be honest. I know it catches a lot of flak, but in terms of form factor (not performance), it makes a lot more sense for the kind of multi-role long range strike and air superiority aircraft.
Click to expand...
That's more or less where I am, as well. Very large airframe due to fuel required. Made a bit thicker due to needing even bigger weapons bays and more of them. But absolutely something about that size is what I have in mind.
 
I am in agreement with you Scott Kenny about the F/A-XX weapons bays they would need to be a lot bigger to carry the AIM-174 missile internally that is if that is one of the requirements of the F/A-XX.
 
FighterJock said:
I am in agreement with you Scott Kenny about the F/A-XX weapons bays they would need to be a lot bigger to carry the AIM-174 missile internally that is if that is one of the requirements of the F/A-XX.
Click to expand...
I don't think that AIM-174 is one of the weapons they designed the FAXX around.



whatismoo said:
No it's just an industrial park, at least at Calverton. Not as familiar with Bethpage.
Click to expand...
Ah, okay, that's useful! Thanks!
 
whatismoo said:
No it's just an industrial park, at least at Calverton. Not as familiar with Bethpage.
Click to expand...

Bethpage became a mixed use commercial and residential development. At least part of what used to be the Grumman aircraft factory is now baseball fields. Last year they dug up a bunch of waste barrels there.

www.nbcnewyork.com

More chemical drums turn up encased in concrete under Long Island park

More chemical drums were discovered in concrete blocks found buried under ballfields at a Long Island park, remnants of when the land was used for aircraft production, authorities confirmed Wednesday. The find, which was expected, involved concrete blocks that were initially removed from the...
www.nbcnewyork.com www.nbcnewyork.com
 
whatismoo said:
Nobody's using the ironworks and after the reporting about the plume I'm not sure you could ruin the groundwater any further tbh

My mental model for FA/XX is F-111B, to be honest. I know it catches a lot of flak, but in terms of form factor (not performance), it makes a lot more sense for the kind of multi-role long range strike and air superiority aircraft.
Click to expand...
Will it continue the layout of two large bomb bays and two small single bays like A12? And then give way to the engine for extreme stealth? This is only a guess, of course
 

Attachments

  • d7d54e8be0ae6e089f5da9131f2fa470.jpg
    d7d54e8be0ae6e089f5da9131f2fa470.jpg
    124.1 KB · Views: 61
kken said:
Will it continue the layout of two large bomb bays and two small single bays like A12? And then give way to the engine for extreme stealth? This is only a guess, of course
Click to expand...
Couldn't say! Hopefully we'll find out in the next few years.
 
snne said:
https://www.twz.com/air/f-47-revelations-were-just-dropped-by-former-air-force-secretary



Told (most of) you... I think it speaks volumes that the Chinese are moving faster with a different solution to a roughly similar problem than the Americans.

The tailless planes captured in satellite images years ago were in fact the tech demonstrators of the CHAD and SHENGAD, which are now flying as real, production-representative prototypes.

View attachment 764886View attachment 764889

This is to say, I'm not downplaying the American efforts either...

Time will show us which approach proves to be the best.
--------





He's once again confirming what at least some of us have been saying and suspecting...
Click to expand...
Advanced planform: FATE/ICE/general post-ATF studies.
Advanced aero effector: TACT/SCW/fluidic or physical TVC.
Materials, SW/HW, engines and sensors: concurrent with JSF, UCAS, NGB etc.

After 2010 the US basically already had all the basic building blocks for a 6th gen when China was still flight testing its first 5th. The fact that it took this long to even announce one in the production pipeline is absurd. You could probably write a series longer than Tolkien just detailing how the US MIC has crumbled over the past decades.
 
kken said:
Will it continue the layout of two large bomb bays and two small single bays like A12? And then give way to the engine for extreme stealth? This is only a guess, of course
Click to expand...
That's what I'm assuming. Of course, the newer weapons the US is using mean an even wider bay than the A-12. The A-12 bays ended up as 185" long by 34" wide and ~25" deep to hold 1x AGM-84 and 1x GBU-15.

But the AGM-158 is 25" wide, and the AARGM-ER is on the order of 22" wide. If you decide that the weapons load is 1x AGM-158 and 1x AARGM-ER per bay, you need a weapons bay some 55" wide(!).

If you decide that the weapons load is 1x AARGM and 1x JDAM-ER per bay, you end up with a bay that is about 45" wide.
 
quellish said:
It's kind of wild that there has been so much talk by DoD about "family of systems" and "system of systems" yet the forum discussions are focused very much on the big ticket items like the manned aircraft and CCAs.

The "family of systems" is far more broad than those items. For example, networked disposable EW "decoys" that adapt to changing threats using software defined radios are part of the NGAD "family".
Click to expand...

I think this is because there is a lack of information concerning other NGAD components. I would expect, at the minimum, a smaller UAV that acted as a passive IR/ESM sensor node that was optionally recoverable - there was a UTAP-22 with what looked like some kind of IRST or FLIR hanging from an F-15. I would also assume there will be a MALD like expendable, but perhaps bigger, more autonomous, and more capable (able to make simple decisions or possibly even hold formation with a CCA as live bait). There also likely will be dedicated sensor platforms, and we have seen this in OBSS. But I have not seen much news concerning low end UAV development.
 
quellish said:
There isn’t much of a reason to size a weapons bay to fit standoff weapons if they can be carried externally.
Click to expand...

I could see the USN want to future proof the aircraft. So maybe room for a pair of oversized stand off weapons. That would not require a dramatically bigger bay(s) than F-35 since the elevators set the limit to 15’.
 
Probably too early to say but good point.
Trump doesn't change ties from seasons to seasons... But execs and appointees.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think this is because there is a lack of information concerning other NGAD components. I would expect, at the minimum, a smaller UAV that acted as a passive IR/ESM sensor node that was optionally recoverable - there was a UTAP-22 with what looked like some kind of IRST or FLIR hanging from an F-15. I would also assume there will be a MALD like expendable, but perhaps bigger, more autonomous, and more capable (able to make simple decisions or possibly even hold formation with a CCA as live bait). There also likely will be dedicated sensor platforms, and we have seen this in OBSS. But I have not seen much news concerning low end UAV development.
Click to expand...
I'd want the "Jammer UCAV" to be bigger than MALD, just to have a longer range.

My understanding of the "spear carrier" UCAV was that they'd all be packing an IRST/FLIR unit, not an emitting radar. And that was for cost reasons. With one of the new AESA radar options that may no longer be true.


Josh_TN said:
I could see the USN want to future proof the aircraft. So maybe room for a pair of oversized stand off weapons. That would not require a dramatically bigger bay(s) than F-35 since the elevators set the limit to 15’.
Click to expand...
Which does raise the question of how exactly the USN loads AIM-174s, since they're 15.5ft long. Still need to use weapon elevators to get those up to the hangar deck (if there's even an outlet in the hangar), so I guess they carefully angle the loader cart on the elevator to squeeze in the extra 6"?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom