USAF/USN 6th Gen Fighters - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS News & Analysis

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsport said:
Manuducati said:
shin_getter said:
canards, clearly stealth isn't a consideration /s
Click to expand...
Not that myth again, please.
Click to expand...
sensors, missiles, DEW defense, UCRAV mothership, buildability, maintainability, cost efectiveness are the mainshows now, not stealth, which is increasingly countered and at longer ranges.

Personnally for canards.

PS: NGAD's engine development still appears to be diminishing returns not worth the investment. hopefully a revolution in the classifed world, otherwise it is industrial Welfare.
Click to expand...
There are some folks at GE, P&W, RR, USAF, and AFRL that would certainly argue with you.
 
Hanz2k said:
The cockpit glass looks outdated. Visibility outside is bad. Looks more like high speed, high altitude stealth ISR platform. Let’s say Mach 2,5 without after burning. That’s why inlets are above.
Click to expand...
Better send an urgent message to the Northrop Grumman commercial art department
 
If you thought fifth gen designs are all boring and formulaic then wait for sixth gen, where all of them are going to be tailless deltas.
 
Only half the point of a weapon is it's combat effectiveness. The other half is to serve as a deterrant. Obviously you eventually want your enemies to know about your deterrant, for it to be effective, but not before it's ready, otherwise they would have time to respond, by building countermeasures or by attacking you before you can field it (thank you Dark Skies).
 
Circling back to the digital century series discussion for a sec…

I’ve been under the impression that the argument for it operates in two parts, and I’m wondering if others agree in their interpretation or not.

As I hear it, the main argument is that if you look at the life cycle costs of your generic fighter aircraft program, MRO and upgrades are more expensive than R&D and acquisition. And, this goes double (or some other financially painful multiplier) for stealth, as well as for aircraft late in their fatigue lifetimes.

Therefore, according to this argument, we are irrational in our tendency to try to buy future-proofed, long-fatigue-life airplanes that push the state of the art rather than embody it. Instead, we should cut back on sustainment costs by building mechanically less robust airframes with off-the-shelf avionic systems (though we should evolve what off-the-shelf means in a steady, independent way). A new generation of cheaper, shorter lifetime systems can provide equal capability for less cost, or greater fleet size for equal cost, and then when it ages quickly out of service, it can be replaced by new tails that do the same. And so we just buy more tails per decade, while retiring more tails per decade. 10 year airplanes rather than 30 year, say.

And then the second part of the argument comes in as an independent premise: that digital engineering tech has more or less advanced to the point where projects can go from RFP to squadron service in approximately the fatigue lifetime stated above.

Since cleansheet designs can appear so rapidly, tail churn can be equivalent to type replacement, resulting in a new jet type each decade, or mutatis mutandis for fleets with multiple types at any given time. If you had a future fighter force of two types at any time, for example, you could have a new type entering every five years if you staggered things.

So, again according to the argument, if we just have the courage to make the up-front investment in new airplanes, we can address the problems of the current thirty fatigue year model in general, and the sustainment costs of the F-35 in particular, all basically for free, while also getting to refresh our fleet decadally and therefore to tune its parameters against specific threats on something like a decadal basis.

Does that sound like a fair rendering of the argument? I seem to be hearing it as much less whiz-bang than others, who seem to hear “glittering edge faster!” and “cool new stylez!” much more. To me it all seems worrisome…with platform characteristics taking center stage and practicalities of testing, validation, maintenance, pilot familiarization, tactics development, and the like being potentially shortchanged. IMO, the fighter fleet needs range and maybe a second crewmember for battle management, but after that I don’t think platform design will win wars, unless maybe laser needs dictate constantly evolving platforms, which I doubt. Would love to hear other opinions though.

Would also appreciate it if anyone could comment on (my names for them) NGAD-C and NGAD-R being examples of this. My impression is that modern digital tools have been in use, but the digital century series hasn’t been implemented for crewed fighters, and is increasingly seen as more expensive and perhaps less practical than advertised…fighters not being smartphones after all…
 
books said:
Circling back to the digital century series discussion for a sec…

I’ve been under the impression that the argument for it operates in two parts, and I’m wondering if others agree in their interpretation or not.

As I hear it, the main argument is that if you look at the life cycle costs of your generic fighter aircraft program, MRO and upgrades are more expensive than R&D and acquisition. And, this goes double (or some other financially painful multiplier) for stealth, as well as for aircraft late in their fatigue lifetimes.
Click to expand...
Why, w/near term advanced materials, should fatigue be an issue at all? IMO
books said:
Therefore, according to this argument, we are irrational in our tendency to try to buy future-proofed, long-fatigue-life airplanes that push the state of the art rather than embody it. Instead, we should cut back on sustainment costs by building mechanically less robust airframes with off-the-shelf avionic systems (though we should evolve what off-the-shelf means in a steady, independent way).
Click to expand...
Mechanically less robust!?
books said:
A new generation of cheaper, shorter lifetime systems can provide equal capability for less cost, or greater fleet size for equal cost, and then when it ages quickly out of service, it can be replaced by new tails that do the same.
Click to expand...
An F-16 replacement as a little cheaper, but, "ages out of svc" no.
books said:
And so we just buy more tails per decade, while retiring more tails per decade. 10 year airplanes rather than 30 year, say.

And then the second part of the argument comes in as an independent premise: that digital engineering tech has more or less advanced to the point where projects can go from RFP to squadron service in approximately the fatigue lifetime stated above.

Since cleansheet designs can appear so rapidly, tail churn can be equivalent to type replacement, resulting in a new jet type each decade, or mutatis mutandis for fleets with multiple types at any given time. If you had a future fighter force of two types at any time, for example, you could have a new type entering every five years if you staggered things.
Click to expand...
This 'every 5 yrs a new plane' was never a good idea, but as you disagree w/ DEW tech will drive an upgradeable concept.
books said:
To me it all seems worrisome…with platform characteristics taking center stage and practicalities of testing, validation, maintenance, pilot familiarization, tactics development, and the like being potentially shortchanged. IMO, the fighter fleet needs range and maybe a second crewmember for battle management, but after that I don’t think platform design will win wars, unless maybe laser needs dictate constantly evolving platforms, which I doubt. Would love to hear other opinions though.
Click to expand...
See above DEW will drive.
 
The digital century series was merely a marketing exercise in trying to drive towards DE adoption across AF systems (well intentioned but not very serious). It wasn't a very serious and organized effort to drive the entire R&D, acquisition, operations, and sustainment enterprise to that new type every five year model. The USAF and ANG are taking about five years or more to put the first squadron of F-15EX in service so suffice to say that the enterprise will collapse under the burden of introducing a new type every five years, assuming of course that a new type can be developed and tested every five years. Where the idea will live though is in the attritable and unmanned side of the house. Here we could see multiple variants, with varying attributes and characteristics, from multiple vendors come to life every few years. Between the 3-5 vendors who seem to be involved in these efforts we could see numerous types of attritables fielded in the next decade that could each be one or two mission specific. But that's far different from the sale pitch which meant that we could replace entire wings of manned platforms one for one through this model.
 
DOD procurement will never be efficient, no matter how much the bean counters and policy makers want to try. That's just the nature of the beast. What we wanted yesterday will be different than what we want today, which will be different than what we'll want tomorrow. Compound that over the potential lifespan of any DOD project and you'll understand why costs can never be successfully reigned in.
 
In_A_Dream said:
DOD procurement will never be efficient, no matter how much the bean counters and policy makers want to try. That's just the nature of the beast. What we wanted yesterday will be different than what we want today, which will be different than what we'll want tomorrow. Compound that over the potential lifespan of any DOD project and you'll understand why costs can never be successfully reigned in.
Click to expand...
Now drop in politicians who change their minds every four years and it's a miracle anything gets accomplished at all.
 
Deino said:
www.airforcemag.com

Kendall’s Top Seven Priorities to Cope With Peer Adversaries Include Two New Aircraft | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall's top seven priorities include two new programs of record, he said Dec. 9.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
Click to expand...

A New Unmanned Fighter​

“Basically, the idea here is that you have, … nominally, up to five” unmanned aircraft escorting a single F-22, F-35, or the fighter platform element of the Next-Generation Air Dominance system. The pilots of these aircraft are “essentially, calling ‘plays,’ and … using those other unmanned combat aircraft … as a formation to do things that make sense, tactically.”

Back too the digital quarterback ala Commanche. Apache could take such a role for a returned UCRotorAV. ALE has a bit to be desired. a bit low in capability. ALE on UCRotorAV maybe.
 
She's still undecided

Bashful-Talking-With-Snow-White.jpg
 
jsport said:
Deino said:
www.airforcemag.com

Kendall’s Top Seven Priorities to Cope With Peer Adversaries Include Two New Aircraft | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall's top seven priorities include two new programs of record, he said Dec. 9.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
Click to expand...

A New Unmanned Fighter​

“Basically, the idea here is that you have, … nominally, up to five” unmanned aircraft escorting a single F-22, F-35, or the fighter platform element of the Next-Generation Air Dominance system. The pilots of these aircraft are “essentially, calling ‘plays,’ and … using those other unmanned combat aircraft … as a formation to do things that make sense, tactically.”

Back too the digital quarterback ala Commanche. Apache could take such a role for a returned UCRotorAV. ALE has a bit to be desired. a bit low in capability. ALE on UCRotorAV maybe.
Click to expand...

They specifically mention 'playbooks'. I get the impression that the manned fighter would only provide a directive or a behavior option and that the wingman would then operate along preset patterns. Maybe nominally they would act as decoys in formation flying, with the ability for the pilot to tell one or more "sic em!" and have it engage air or ground targets (depending on how it is armed). Perhaps other options for stand in jamming instead of close escort, with one or more wingmen maintaining bearing and azimuth relative to the parent a/c and a threat emitter.
 
Deino said:
www.airforcemag.com

Kendall’s Top Seven Priorities to Cope With Peer Adversaries Include Two New Aircraft | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall's top seven priorities include two new programs of record, he said Dec. 9.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
Click to expand...

Besides the mentioning of 2 new unmanned fighter/compagnon programs, once again;

"The NGAD has been underway since Kendall was the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics, but has gone beyond the technology demonstrator stage, he said. It has “moved forward very well” and will be the next-generation fighter after the F-35, but as part of a system of systems, Kendall noted."
 
TomcatViP said:
Yes yes. I think we can now burry the debate b/w those who thought it had already flown or not. :)
Click to expand...


Indeed ... the only question that so remains is: When will we get a first glimpse of it?
 
When might we see an actual competition announced?
And when might we hear that a winning design has been chosen?

I am guessing those two pieces of info are the only info that might be disclosed about ngad anyway. For some years to come anyway. Possibly all the way up to the first flight of the winning design prototype.
 
Dreamfighter said:
Deino said:
TomcatViP said:
Yes yes. I think we can now burry the debate b/w those who thought it had already flown or not. :)
Click to expand...


Indeed ... the only question that so remains is: When will we get a first glimpse of it?
Click to expand...

And/or a glimpse of the one(s) who did not proceed beyond the technology demonstrator phase.
Click to expand...

There will likely be (or planned) multiple demonstrators. Frank Kendall had originally mentioned "Demonstrators" when he revealed the AII back in 2015 ish. He brought that up again this week. If the entire digital push is to be taken at face value than its pretty safe to assume that multiple demonstrators (some full scale, some test bed) may be in the works or already flying.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDxz01GmO34
 
bring_it_on said:
Dreamfighter said:
Deino said:
TomcatViP said:
Yes yes. I think we can now burry the debate b/w those who thought it had already flown or not. :)
Click to expand...


Indeed ... the only question that so remains is: When will we get a first glimpse of it?
Click to expand...

And/or a glimpse of the one(s) who did not proceed beyond the technology demonstrator phase.
Click to expand...

There will likely be (or planned) multiple demonstrators. Frank Kendall had originally mentioned "Demonstrators" when he revealed the AII back in 2015 ish. He brought that up again this week. If the entire digital push is to be taken at face value than its pretty safe to assume that multiple demonstrators (some full scale, some test bed) may be in the works or already flying.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDxz01GmO34
Click to expand...

"I put NGAD into the budget in about 2014"
"we´ve ordered the contract before I left". (He left January 20th, 2017)
"I lost track of it because it was a SAP"
"... acknowledged SAPs ... "
"what we told people publicly was that it was a program that built some X-planes, technology demonstrators ..."
"that program has moved forward very well"
"it is a feeder to both the NGAD 'platform', if you will, and the NGAD family of systems."

Hmm..
So, a (1984/2014) 'X-29' and a (1990/2020) 'X-31'?
Or (1990/2000/2020) 'XYP-2235' and 'XYP-2332 ?

@ Kendall & Co.:
Okay, I will, but when the Russians come up with a 6th gen NGADski-platform, you will give it 'Flatworm' as reporting name.
 
Dreamfighter said:
"what we told people publicly was that it was a program that built some X-planes, technology demonstrators ..."
"that program has moved forward very well"
"it is a feeder to both the NGAD 'platform', if you will, and the NGAD family of systems."
Click to expand...
The only X-plane that would fit would be the X-62A, which is the old NF-16D VISTA converted with the System for Autonomous Control of Simulation (SACS) as part of the Skyborg programme, which would tie-in nicely with the Loyal Wingman efforts.
 
Hood said:
Dreamfighter said:
"what we told people publicly was that it was a program that built some X-planes, technology demonstrators ..."
"that program has moved forward very well"
"it is a feeder to both the NGAD 'platform', if you will, and the NGAD family of systems."
Click to expand...
The only X-plane that would fit would be the X-62A, which is the old NF-16D VISTA converted with the System for Autonomous Control of Simulation (SACS) as part of the Skyborg programme, which would tie-in nicely with the Loyal Wingman efforts.
Click to expand...
They haven't revealed them. For all we know they're the XF-26 and XF-27 or XF-126 and XF-127. They may even just be going "Program Name" Vehicle 1 and "Program Name" Vehicle 2. He's most likely just using the term "X-Plane" in the sense that they were experimental demonstrators, not necessarily receiving an X designation. Having said that, does that mean we're at the YF stage of the program? That's a question for him which I don't think he'll answer. ;)
 
Hood said:
Dreamfighter said:
"what we told people publicly was that it was a program that built some X-planes, technology demonstrators ..."
"that program has moved forward very well"
"it is a feeder to both the NGAD 'platform', if you will, and the NGAD family of systems."
Click to expand...
The only X-plane that would fit would be the X-62A, which is the old NF-16D VISTA converted with the System for Autonomous Control of Simulation (SACS) as part of the Skyborg programme, which would tie-in nicely with the Loyal Wingman efforts.
Click to expand...

"we´ve ordered the contract before I left"
"what we told people publicly was that it was a program that built some X-planes, technology demonstrators ..."

That (the contract) would then be no later then 2016, or the first weeks of January 2017.
AFAIK, NF-16D has been / is undergoing upgrades to support the USAF Skyborg-program much more recently, and has received it´s X-62A designation only past summer.
 
Last edited:
Sundog said:
Hood said:
Dreamfighter said:
"what we told people publicly was that it was a program that built some X-planes, technology demonstrators ..."
"that program has moved forward very well"
"it is a feeder to both the NGAD 'platform', if you will, and the NGAD family of systems."
Click to expand...
The only X-plane that would fit would be the X-62A, which is the old NF-16D VISTA converted with the System for Autonomous Control of Simulation (SACS) as part of the Skyborg programme, which would tie-in nicely with the Loyal Wingman efforts.
Click to expand...
They haven't revealed them. For all we know they're the XF-26 and XF-27 or XF-126 and XF-127. They may even just be going "Program Name" Vehicle 1 and "Program Name" Vehicle 2. He's most likely just using the term "X-Plane" in the sense that they were experimental demonstrators, not necessarily receiving an X designation. Having said that, does that mean we're at the YF stage of the program? That's a question for him which I don't think he'll answer. ;)
Click to expand...

March 2014 ...

"Prototypes and demonstrations that develop technology surprise
While mitigating current threats and developing affordable systems are important, we are also asked to develop new systems that provide a leap-ahead technology. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall has initiated a new Aerospace Innovation Initiative (AII) to ensure that the United States can maintain air dominance in future contested environments. The AII includes a new program to demonstrate advanced aircraft technologies in X-planes (AII-X) as well as the on-going and previously mentioned Advanced Engine Technology Program (AETP). AII’s goals include strengthening the critically important design teams in the defense industrial base and reducing the lead time for future systems. DARPA will lead AII as a DARPA/Air Force/Navy program to develop and demonstrate technologies enabling cost-effective air warfare capabilities necessary to defeat future near-peer threats. This program will develop and fly two X-plane prototypes that demonstrate advanced technologies for future aircraft. Teams will compete to produce the X-plane prototypes, one focused on future Navy operational capabilities and the other on future Air Force operational capabilities. The X-planes will not be Engineering, Manufacturing and Development prototypes or have residual operational capabilities. The result of a successful development and demonstration X-plane program will inform future aircraft system acquisitions. "

Source:


In Sept. 2020 it was announced a NGAD 'full-scale flight demonstrator' had flown (in the real world).
ATF´s YF-22 and YF-23 flew in 1990 and they were not EMD prototypes. They were 'feeders' to the EMD F-22A prototype...
 
But now, Boeing sees a highly digital future for aircraft design and production unfolding here, with the T-7 paving the way. And manufacturing lessons learned from the T-7 have already helped in the creation of the Air Force’s new F-15EXs and the secretive Next Generation Air Dominance fighter, said Matt Giese, Boeing’s chief test pilot for the F-15EX.
Click to expand...
www.defensenews.com

The T-7 takes shape: Inside the factory where the Air Force’s next trainer is being built

Boeing says its high-tech methods to design and build the T-7A Red Hawk are saving time, simplifying processes, improving quality and cutting down on defects.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
Dreamfighter said:
ATF´s YF-22 and YF-23 flew in 1990 and they were not EMD prototypes. They were 'feeders' to the EMD F-22A prototype...
Click to expand...
The YF-22 and YF-23 were the very definition of prototypes. In fact, that's what the Y stands for; I never said anything about EMD.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i though the YF where tech demos while a true prototype would be the same as production standard. A tech demo proves a design is viable while a prototype is to see if the specifics of a design work as intended and what must be changed for full rate production. The YF-22, YF-23, YF-16, EAP, Rafale A, X-35, X-32 are tech demos (I’m not sure if the YF-17 is as it was based on a prexisting design that was to be produced, I don’t know enough) these are basically “toy planes” that prove a basic idea is workable. while a prototype might be the EMD Raptors, the Rafale C01, Eurofighter DA aircraft etc. these are very similar to the final design and exist to see what problems might be avoided before mass production.
 
Sundog said:
The YF-22 and YF-23 were the very definition of prototypes. In fact, that's what the Y stands for; I never said anything about EMD.
Click to expand...

I know, I was just emphasizing a few things that were mentioned before, rather as an addition to your post then as a reply or remark.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bring_it_on said:
But now, Boeing sees a highly digital future for aircraft design and production unfolding here, with the T-7 paving the way. And manufacturing lessons learned from the T-7 have already helped in the creation of the Air Force’s new F-15EXs and the secretive Next Generation Air Dominance fighter, said Matt Giese, Boeing’s chief test pilot for the F-15EX.
Click to expand...
www.defensenews.com

The T-7 takes shape: Inside the factory where the Air Force’s next trainer is being built

Boeing says its high-tech methods to design and build the T-7A Red Hawk are saving time, simplifying processes, improving quality and cutting down on defects.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
It could meen that Boeing could be the builder of Ngad Demonstrator ?
 
dark sidius said:
bring_it_on said:
But now, Boeing sees a highly digital future for aircraft design and production unfolding here, with the T-7 paving the way. And manufacturing lessons learned from the T-7 have already helped in the creation of the Air Force’s new F-15EXs and the secretive Next Generation Air Dominance fighter, said Matt Giese, Boeing’s chief test pilot for the F-15EX.
Click to expand...
www.defensenews.com

The T-7 takes shape: Inside the factory where the Air Force’s next trainer is being built

Boeing says its high-tech methods to design and build the T-7A Red Hawk are saving time, simplifying processes, improving quality and cutting down on defects.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
It could meen that Boeing could be the builder of Ngad Demonstrator ?
Click to expand...
No. More like a subsupplier like on the f22. I suspect no matter who wins, Boeing wins.
 
dark sidius said:
bring_it_on said:
But now, Boeing sees a highly digital future for aircraft design and production unfolding here, with the T-7 paving the way. And manufacturing lessons learned from the T-7 have already helped in the creation of the Air Force’s new F-15EXs and the secretive Next Generation Air Dominance fighter, said Matt Giese, Boeing’s chief test pilot for the F-15EX.
Click to expand...
www.defensenews.com

The T-7 takes shape: Inside the factory where the Air Force’s next trainer is being built

Boeing says its high-tech methods to design and build the T-7A Red Hawk are saving time, simplifying processes, improving quality and cutting down on defects.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
It could meen that Boeing could be the builder of Ngad Demonstrator ?
Click to expand...
No. More like a subsupplier like on the f22
Sundog said:
Dreamfighter said:
ATF´s YF-22 and YF-23 flew in 1990 and they were not EMD prototypes. They were 'feeders' to the EMD F-22A prototype...
Click to expand...
The YF-22 and YF-23 were the very definition of prototypes. In fact, that's what the Y stands for; I never said anything about EMD.
Click to expand...
Not really. They were a blend of X plane and prototype. If they were true prototypes then the yf22 would have carried more then 4 aams.... The yf23 didn't even carry one. The 22 was far more production intent as is obvious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom