Does this mean, the USAF has chosen a design and awarded the contract to build a true prototype after the demonstrator(s) has/have been tested.
That was exactly my thought too. It's like we are back in 1991 but we don't know how YF-22 or YF-23 looks or which have been chosen.Does this mean, the USAF has chosen a design and awarded the contract to build a true prototype after the demonstrator(s) has/have been tested.
The other possibility is that the down-selection happed at the X-plane demonstrator level.
There might be two separate primes, one for the USAF NGAD and another for the USN NGAD? As an example, the USAF is using the Rapid Capabilities Office for two major programs, B-21 and NGAD. Since NGC is the sole prime for B-21, may not see teaming any longer.
i hope not, i wanted to see the demonstrators of all the participating companies on the program.Does this mean, the USAF has chosen a design and awarded the contract to build a true prototype after the demonstrator(s) has/have been tested.
Navair ain't what it used to be, for sure. I would be thankful for a super super hornet at this point with more powerful engines. The usaf ngad at least involves a manned component.I dont see what everybody is getting all excited about NGAD is not a fighter program. The Navy version of NGAD is also not a fighter program.
Not a design as much a process for creating a capability.Does this mean, the USAF has chosen a design and awarded the contract to build a true prototype after the demonstrator(s) has/have been tested.
Not a design as much a process for creating a capability.Does this mean, the USAF has chosen a design and awarded the contract to build a true prototype after the demonstrator(s) has/have been tested.
That’s what the Air Force and Navy have been saying, iirc. A “family of systems”. Something like an optionally manned fighter as the main component acting as a quarterback and a bunch of purely unmanned little dudes flying around with internal bays that are holding precision bangbangs or loitering munitions. Take this with some salt as I’m just a novice in this arenaWhat if NGAD is not one plane, but a system or network of different aircraft?
I'd hope there would be one 40- 50 tons, lots of range and payload for the Pacific.I am sure that these are at least two types of aircraft: - double with internal weapons compartment, take-off weight of about 40 tons - single / unmanned with one engine and take-off weight of 20 tons
Have you seen the F-35?Don't forget that modern airframe are significantly lighter (and then nimbler) than classical airframe. The significance of lightweight, highly resistant and economically acceptable CRFP materials used in structural applications as well as digital design push the total mass down to a new paradigm: wet surfaces are somewhat decolerated from the total mass and the latter from range.
I am sure that these are at least two types of aircraft: - double with internal weapons compartment, take-off weight of about 40 tons - single / unmanned with one engine and take-off weight of 20 tons
An F-35 built 20 years before would have probably been 15ft longer with a larger wing and would have needed a doublet engines... In fact, something b/w an F-111 and an F-101 would be a good candidate to start with. See how the J-20 that doesn't benefit from all mentioned improvements is significantly bigger for example for a comparable mission.Have you seen the F-35?Don't forget that modern airframe are significantly lighter (and then nimbler) than classical airframe. The significance of lightweight, highly resistant and economically acceptable CRFP materials used in structural applications as well as digital design push the total mass down to a new paradigm: wet surfaces are somewhat decolerated from the total mass and the latter from range.
I am sure that these are at least two types of aircraft: - double with internal weapons compartment, take-off weight of about 40 tons - single / unmanned with one engine and take-off weight of 20 tons
I'm sure it will be designed to work with various unmanned systems. Also, don't forget there will be two versions of the manned aircraft component of the NGAD system; one for the European theater and one for the Pacific Theater (Larger with more fuel. Fuselage plug? Fuselage plug with large wing gloves so the increased weight is met with an increase in wing size?).
I’ve heard European NGAD is an upgraded F-22.I am sure that these are at least two types of aircraft: - double with internal weapons compartment, take-off weight of about 40 tons - single / unmanned with one engine and take-off weight of 20 tons
I'm sure it will be designed to work with various unmanned systems. Also, don't forget there will be two versions of the manned aircraft component of the NGAD system; one for the European theater and one for the Pacific Theater (Larger with more fuel. Fuselage plug? Fuselage plug with large wing gloves so the increased weight is met with an increase in wing size?).
IMO, it seems exceedingly hard to believe there is a "European" NGAD. The USAF can already match the Russian air force one for one 5th generation to 4th generation; I can't imagine in the current budget climate in the US and capability climate in Russia that anyone is going to invest money in a separate development of a platform where there is complete overmatch already.
Are you assuming the drones are not autonomous? I would expect they are and therefore C&C would be from the NGAD platform.Navair ain't what it used to be, for sure. I would be thankful for a super super hornet at this point with more powerful engines. The usaf ngad at least involves a manned component.I dont see what everybody is getting all excited about NGAD is not a fighter program. The Navy version of NGAD is also not a fighter program.
I don't know why everyone is jumping on the drones idea for air superiority: there isn't one example anyplace demonstrating drones are feasible for a2a. What happens when the command and control center is neutralized and your drones are useless? To me drones are a risky variable easily improved by keeping a human in the cockpit. Eliminating life support is a miniscule cost saving with dubious results.
From what we've witnessed in Ukraine, it's hard to believe the Russians have fielded anything capable of engaging F-16's let alone F-35. It's no wonder the EU have dismissed them for 30 years. The PLAAF on the other hand have numbers, location, and unknown tech on their side.I am sure that these are at least two types of aircraft: - double with internal weapons compartment, take-off weight of about 40 tons - single / unmanned with one engine and take-off weight of 20 tons
I'm sure it will be designed to work with various unmanned systems. Also, don't forget there will be two versions of the manned aircraft component of the NGAD system; one for the European theater and one for the Pacific Theater (Larger with more fuel. Fuselage plug? Fuselage plug with large wing gloves so the increased weight is met with an increase in wing size?).
IMO, it seems exceedingly hard to believe there is a "European" NGAD. The USAF can already match the Russian air force one for one 5th generation to 4th generation; I can't imagine in the current budget climate in the US and capability climate in Russia that anyone is going to invest money in a separate development of a platform where there is complete overmatch already.
Isn’t that or for the course for European development? When the US was developing 5th gen they were developing Typhoons and Rafale.I’ve heard European NGAD is an upgraded F-22.I am sure that these are at least two types of aircraft: - double with internal weapons compartment, take-off weight of about 40 tons - single / unmanned with one engine and take-off weight of 20 tons
I'm sure it will be designed to work with various unmanned systems. Also, don't forget there will be two versions of the manned aircraft component of the NGAD system; one for the European theater and one for the Pacific Theater (Larger with more fuel. Fuselage plug? Fuselage plug with large wing gloves so the increased weight is met with an increase in wing size?).
IMO, it seems exceedingly hard to believe there is a "European" NGAD. The USAF can already match the Russian air force one for one 5th generation to 4th generation; I can't imagine in the current budget climate in the US and capability climate in Russia that anyone is going to invest money in a separate development of a platform where there is complete overmatch already.
I'm assuming nothing more than drones have demonstrated zero capability in A2A and that there is no human in a cockpit with all the inherent benefits of the human brain.Are you assuming the drones are not autonomous? I would expect they are and therefore C&C would be from the NGAD platform.Navair ain't what it used to be, for sure. I would be thankful for a super super hornet at this point with more powerful engines. The usaf ngad at least involves a manned component.I dont see what everybody is getting all excited about NGAD is not a fighter program. The Navy version of NGAD is also not a fighter program.
I don't know why everyone is jumping on the drones idea for air superiority: there isn't one example anyplace demonstrating drones are feasible for a2a. What happens when the command and control center is neutralized and your drones are useless? To me drones are a risky variable easily improved by keeping a human in the cockpit. Eliminating life support is a miniscule cost saving with dubious results.
No, plasma projection is the going forward technology for decoys.That said I suspect the primary role of wingmen type UAVs is to act as forward sensor and stand in EW platforms, and in a pinch, decoys, to make the parent aircraft more survivable.
Why cant you have the UAVs using plasma projections to make even more decoys?No, plasma projection is the going forward technology for decoys.That said I suspect the primary role of wingmen type UAVs is to act as forward sensor and stand in EW platforms, and in a pinch, decoys, to make the parent aircraft more survivable.
If nothing else, nothing decoys as well as an actual physical aircraft with a complete signature. If you have the ability to project false targets, great, but worst case a loyal wingman type drone is a real aircraft that would still register as a legitimate target to most any SAM or AAM.
Kingfish had closely spaced engines.Those early RFI ATF designs from Lockheed that were like stealthy SR-71 battlecruisers suddenly seam like an NGAD solution ahead of its time. Granted, they were not that stealthy but did they have range and speed.
I am comvinced the NGAD will not have closely spaced engines like the F-22. That configuration make sustained supersonic speed for long periods of time a heat dissipation problem even if the fuel was not an issue.
I also think that the absence of the word “fighter” when discussing even the manned part of the NGAD is no accident.
Radar is pretty good and aircraft can be discerned from signature returns. Along with ir imaging one can separate the drone from the manned aircraft. F14 was doing target id decades ago coupling radar with ir.If nothing else, nothing decoys as well as an actual physical aircraft with a complete signature. If you have the ability to project false targets, great, but worst case a loyal wingman type drone is a real aircraft that would still register as a legitimate target to most any SAM or AAM.
![]()
The Air Force's secret next-gen fighter has reached development phase - Breaking Defense
Moving to the development stage more than likely means that the Air Force has coalesced around a single fighter design made by a single prime contractor, said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with AeroDynamic Advisory.breakingdefense.com