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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Deino said:
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.
Click to expand...

I most certainly hope so Deino.
 
Deino said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Is there any other historical precedent to awarding a contract after engineering development was started at multiple companies?
The other possibility is that the down-selection happed at the X-plane demonstrator level.
 
lantinian said:
The other possibility is that the down-selection happed at the X-plane demonstrator level.
Click to expand...

If that was the case then that would make the NGAD the 21st century equivalent of the X/F-35 program, though it does make you wonder what companies were involved in the initial x-plane demonstrator portion of the competition.
 
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.
 
Hydroman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think everyone is speaking to the USAF NGAD program; the USN program probably has little relation outside shared tech.

That said, I could easily see multiple contractors for multiple aspects of the project. There is a manned platform but also at least one, and it looks like more than one, unmanned component that likely would be a different prime.
 
Deino said:
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.
Click to expand...
i hope not, i wanted to see the demonstrators of all the participating companies on the program.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
sublight is back said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 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.
 
Last edited:
Deino said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not a design as much a process for creating a capability.
 
quellish said:
Deino said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not a design as much a process for creating a capability.
Click to expand...

"Well we got the 3D printer figured out. Now we need to figure out what to print." That sounds like a hell of a long ways from having anything real.
 
What if NGAD is not one plane, but a system or network of different aircraft?
 
siegecrossbow said:
What if NGAD is not one plane, but a system or network of different aircraft?
Click to expand...
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 arena :)

I can’t help thinking of a “Russian Nesting Doll” concept with UCAVs lmao.
 
paralay said:
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
Click to expand...
I'd hope there would be one 40- 50 tons, lots of range and payload for the Pacific.
 
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.
 
TomcatViP said:
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.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the F-35?
 
paralay said:
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
Click to expand...

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?).
 
sferrin said:
TomcatViP said:
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.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the F-35?
Click to expand...
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.
It's a miracle that so much could have been stuffed in such a tiny airframe* with it fullfiling so many missions but the postal service.
 
Last edited:
Sundog said:
paralay said:
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
Click to expand...

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?).
Click to expand...

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.
 
Josh_TN said:
Sundog said:
paralay said:
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
Click to expand...

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?).
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard European NGAD is an upgraded F-22.
 
rooster said:
sublight is back said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 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.
Click to expand...
Are you assuming the drones are not autonomous? I would expect they are and therefore C&C would be from the NGAD platform.
 
Josh_TN said:
Sundog said:
paralay said:
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
Click to expand...

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?).
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
F-2 said:
Josh_TN said:
Sundog said:
paralay said:
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
Click to expand...

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?).
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard European NGAD is an upgraded F-22.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that or for the course for European development? When the US was developing 5th gen they were developing Typhoons and Rafale.
 
NeilChapman said:
rooster said:
sublight is back said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 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.
Click to expand...
Are you assuming the drones are not autonomous? I would expect they are and therefore C&C would be from the NGAD platform.
Click to expand...
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.

you can take away GPS and radios and all communications and I can still fly my piper from Detroit to St Louis with just a little effort. I can't say that of any flying computer today or tomorrow.
 
Don't forget that even some cruise missiles have terrain recognition software that can accurately work their navigation without much external help (or external lights).
On the other hand, most GA pilot launched in the middle of the night would probably have a hard time doing chart navigation past their home airfield ;)
 
The USAF has already tested an AI that can out dogfight a human pilot. 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. I suspect a MADL type data link is all that they would need to pass data one way and receive orders and relative positional data from the manned aircraft in the other. The escort drone doesn’t need to know exactly where in the world it is; it just needs to know where it is in relation to the controller.
 
Josh_TN said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, plasma projection is the going forward technology for decoys.
 
With the info of the last few years in mind, I don´t find it very surprising we´re (already) entering EMD times.
 
sublight is back said:
Josh_TN said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, plasma projection is the going forward technology for decoys.
Click to expand...
Why cant you have the UAVs using plasma projections to make even more decoys?
 
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.
 
Josh_TN said:
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.
Click to expand...

It may extend beyond just decoys. There has been a lot of research into using plasma as electromagnetic reflectors. Imagine actively projecting a large oblique "radar shield" between you and the targeting radar. The Navy has been projecting large plasma objects over the decks of carriers for 4 hours straight, and playing tic tac with F-18s for nearly 20 years.
 
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.
 
lantinian said:
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.
Click to expand...
Kingfish had closely spaced engines.
 
Josh_TN said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I think NCTR of 5th gen fighters is probably very difficult - by definition they would lack a lot of the features and signal return of more traditional types. IR will make you eventually but generally at shorter range.

The other issue is that if the wingmen are armed, you can’t just ignore them anymore even if they are being intentionally used as decoys.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom