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

[Ainen]

I'd argue F-22 is an interceptor; certainly it is highly optimized for high altitude A2A work at the expensive of A2G payload and performance. NGAD is probably going to be more in the "interceptor" than "fighter" category as well.

Regarding interceptor qualities, F-22 isn't universally superior to the F-15.

When it comes to air superiority where does the F-15 beat the F-22. (Please don't say top speed.)

The point was, interceptor =/= air superiority, through the whole history.
Soviet Union tried to blend two types, but now this approach is widely seen as flawed.

So while this question is quite answerable (F-15EX serves as a good reminder), it isn't the point i wanted to convey.

p.s. for interceptor, top speed/altitude, as well as time to get to them - actually matters.

Which is where the F-15 falls short compared to the F-22.

Readiness (rate), capability to wait on standby (on ground), normal datalinks, range/loitering time(conformal tanks), Vmax.
As always with raptor, rather limited upgradeability, but to be fair - f-15 didn't get too much as an interceptor either.

Raptor sacrifices quite a lot for its survivability(low observability) - something pure interceptor doesn't really need at all...

 

[Scott Kenny]

Raptor sacrifices quite a lot for its survivability(low observability) - something pure interceptor doesn't really need at all...

I would argue that an aircraft intended to intercept anything smaller than a B52/Tu95 needs some level of stealth these days, because it may have to intercept something like an F16 or Su27/34 with nukes onboard. Which can definitely send a couple of AAMs at any potential interceptor.

 

[Hanse]

I'd argue F-22 is an interceptor; certainly it is highly optimized for high altitude A2A work at the expensive of A2G payload and performance. NGAD is probably going to be more in the "interceptor" than "fighter" category as well.

Regarding interceptor qualities, F-22 isn't universally superior to the F-15.

When it comes to air superiority where does the F-15 beat the F-22. (Please don't say top speed.)

The point was, interceptor =/= air superiority, through the whole history.
Soviet Union tried to blend two types, but now this approach is widely seen as flawed.

So while this question is quite answerable (F-15EX serves as a good reminder), it isn't the point i wanted to convey.

p.s. for interceptor, top speed/altitude, as well as time to get to them - actually matters.

Which is where the F-15 falls short compared to the F-22.

Readiness (rate), capability to wait on standby (on ground), normal datalinks, range/loitering time(conformal tanks), Vmax.
As always with raptor, rather limited upgradeability, but to be fair - f-15 didn't get too much as an interceptor either.

Raptor sacrifices quite a lot for its survivability(low observability) - something pure interceptor doesn't really need at all...

Readiness rate is a factor of priority. F-15C rarely use CFTs (and the Es aren't optimized for air-to-air). Vmax? Please. By that rational the F-15 falls short to the F-4 Phantom. How'bout we use the metric, "which aircraft can get to the target soonest with a useful payload".

 

[NeilChapman]

If they go for a full fighter sized UAV it sounds like what they are trying to save money on is pilots, not hardware. Or alternatively they envision CCAs operating independently from manned fighters altogether in the long run and local control is just a stepping stone on the way to geo fencing them with weapons free on the wrong side of line. I’m starting to get that feeling.

Reduction in the pilot 'bottleneck' would be sensible. CCAs seem most beneficial when operating independently. But operating as a truck, not a shooter. Stealthily flying them into the middle of a hot area where they can go weapons-free makes less sense to me.

With CCAs, I think of pilots as forward observers enabled with the F-35s radar. CCAs are flying, constantly shifting, artillery batteries, without the artillery crew. CCAs need to fly independently to some location where manned sensor-shooters engage targets using weapons from the CCAs. They make less sense to me flying in formation with F-35's

One would never think of an M777 as expendable. Perhaps more so because of the crews than the equipment.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think in the medium term the CCA concept will allow the USAF to grow the force without growing the pilot base, which is a bottleneck. Long term I think they are considering the ramifications of near full autonomy, or at least ROE option specified by the human on site with a number of preset behavior types (defensive, offensive, recon, ECM,etc).

In a drawn out war you can supply attrition replacement aircraft much faster than pilots.

 

[Ainen]

Raptor sacrifices quite a lot for its survivability(low observability) - something pure interceptor doesn't really need at all...

I would argue that an aircraft intended to intercept anything smaller than a B52/Tu95 needs some level of stealth these days, because it may have to intercept something like an F16 or Su27/34 with nukes onboard. Which can definitely send a couple of AAMs at any potential interceptor.

Well, [fighting] smaller aircraft is already DEFCA, i.e. air superiority

The difference, I guess, is proportions and sacrifices. Mig-31 isn't exactly defenseless, and Mig-31M (original deep upgrade) planned to go for a proper EW suite; both are considered to be very strong aircraft in WVR head-on (expectedly one-sided).
Make it less one-sided, however, or make interceptor to do something less aggressive - and it's sorta screwed.

By that rational the F-15 falls short to the F-4 Phantom. How'bout we use the metric, "which aircraft can get to the target soonest with a useful payload".

Erm, the only production aircraft which outdashes F-15 (Vmax PoW) is Mig-25/31.
Furthermore, phantom was indeed designed as an interceptor, thou a different kind of one. It's quite natural for it to be a good interceptor aircraft - even not necessarily for continental protection mission.

"Time to intercept point" is the right metric indeed - but Vmax, depending on the profile (range), is part of it. Furthermore, it's closely related to Hmax...

 

[Hanse]

Raptor sacrifices quite a lot for its survivability(low observability) - something pure interceptor doesn't really need at all...

I would argue that an aircraft intended to intercept anything smaller than a B52/Tu95 needs some level of stealth these days, because it may have to intercept something like an F16 or Su27/34 with nukes onboard. Which can definitely send a couple of AAMs at any potential interceptor.

Well, [fighting] smaller aircraft is already DEFCA, i.e. air superiority

The difference, I guess, is proportions and sacrifices. Mig-31 isn't exactly defenseless, and Mig-31M (original deep upgrade) planned to go for a proper EW suite; both are considered to be very strong aircraft in WVR head-on (expectedly one-sided).
Make it less one-sided, however, or make interceptor to do something less aggressive - and it's sorta screwed.

By that rational the F-15 falls short to the F-4 Phantom. How'bout we use the metric, "which aircraft can get to the target soonest with a useful payload".

Erm, the only production aircraft which outdashes F-15 (Vmax PoW) is Mig-25/31.
Furthermore, phantom was indeed designed as an interceptor, thou a different kind of one. It's quite natural for it to be a good interceptor aircraft - even not necessarily for continental protection mission.

"Time to intercept point" is the right metric indeed - but Vmax, depending on the profile (range), is part of it. Furthermore, it's closely related to Hmax...

Max speed clean is irrelevant for all practical purposes. Put your standard air-to-air loadout on and the F-15 will be left FAR in the dust.

 

[RavenOne]

View attachment 702422

https://twitter.com/x/status/1673330273411366912

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1673330273411366912


Interesting angle from the latest Lockheed Martin teaser, what do we think is this a V shaped vertical stab? Would love be right about it not being tailless hehe.

I have no idea about the V tail, but it sure looks like there are three engines.........notice three lines of exhaust shocks.

Or rather two exhausts with some overlap due to the angle...

You may be right, but it does appear to be 3 distinct lines of shock diamonds. Anyway, it is just art so who knows except for the artist.

I had another glance at the video

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-x8V75rc14


The fly by wire control looks interesting.more than anything, it for sure not a F_35...

However reading discussion forum on

Area 51 - Dreamland Resort

Implying that L-M may have lost the NGAD competition.

cheers

 

[DrRansom]

About the CCA, has anyone demonstrated the ability to write the autonomous software for it? As in, able to take-off, climb, cruise, engage, evade, and return?

 

[bring_it_on]

Edwards Stands Up Air Dominance Combined Test Force for Next Generation Testing

Lt. Col. Michael Coleman formally assumed command of the 411th Flight Test Squadron from Lt. Col. David Schmitt, during a change of command ceremony on Edwards AFB, June 9. The transition showcased

www.edwards.af.mil

 

[BDF]

Defense & Aerospace Air Power Podcast [Jun 22, 23] Ep23: French Lightning - Defense & Aerospace Report

From the Paris Air Show, on this week’s Air Power Podcast (powered by GE Aerospace), Lockheed Martin Aeronautics boss Greg Ulmer talks F-35, NGAD, AETP, and more. And we have this week’s headlines in airpower, including breaking some NGAD news. C’est formidable!

defaeroreport.com

Apologies if this was reported earlier. Apparently all three primes built demonstrators for NGAD. One of them has been eliminated. Supposedly it was Boeing that was eliminated.

 

[Bounce]

 

[VTOLicious]

View attachment 702736

Interesting! One of the demonstrators? Sub-scale?

 

[paralay]

Interesting! One of the demonstrators? Sub-scale?

the wing area is 420 sq. m.feet / 39.02 m2

 

[LowObservable]

I doubt very much that the LM artwork is anything real.

 

[bobbymike]

Edwards Stands Up Air Dominance Combined Test Force for Next Generation Testing

Lt. Col. Michael Coleman formally assumed command of the 411th Flight Test Squadron from Lt. Col. David Schmitt, during a change of command ceremony on Edwards AFB, June 9. The transition showcased

www.edwards.af.mil

Given the information contained in this article does it improve our speculation on what has maybe currently flown or when this something may be flying?

 

[VTOLicious]

I doubt very much that the LM artwork is anything real.

I tend to agree. However, in this case it is noticeable that the proportions indicate a rather small aircraft and the planform differs from the LM NGAD artwork shown so far.
Btw, did you see the story on Instagram? This pic appeared in between other LM planforms, like U-2, F-117, F-22, etc. Could it be a self funded demonstrator, in the likes of SC 401?

 

[RavenOne]

According to

View attachment 702736

HMmm I checked out the L-M IG and cannot see this video



However looking on the tagged button, click on that and someone already has posted said video and tagged L_M in it.

SO how many days ago was this posted and did L-M take it down?

cheers

 

[VTOLicious]

It was posted as a story. Storys disappear automatically after a certain time (24h?)

 

[flateric]

It's a story, not video, and it's still there.

 

[VTOLicious]

Direct link to the story:
https://www.instagram.com/s/aGlnaGx...136732321753_33614134&igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

 

[quellish]

I doubt very much that the LM artwork is anything real.

Looks like a Draken to me.

 

[bobbymike]

Skunk Works Cryptically Teases NGAD-Like Aircraft Silhouette

The Skunk Works appears to be teasing its still secret Next Generation Air Dominance manned tactical jet concept in a recent Instagram post.

www.thedrive.com

 

[CiTrus90]

I see some similarities to the thing being carried on the trailer at Helendale a few years ago...
Red outline flattened and inclined to try and match the slanted angle of the camera relative to the model.

 

[flateric]

...

 

[paralay]

the maximum take-off weight is about 10 tons. Combat load 2 - 4 medium-range missiles
engine F414-GE-400

 

[X-39]

Are you all sure this placeholder art is meant to represent NGAD and not another type of aircraft? They have never specifically stated it. If you removed the awkwardly oversized canopy, with the tail boom the planform would approach SR-72 or Hermeus's Darkhorse hypersonic concepts, implying a much larger airframe than a fighter, important if not two, but three engines are supposed to go inside that thing. Can some members provide insights as to why that decision? Then we have the blue and green lights at the cockpit, And they couldn't have chosen better timing than dusk to go out and film that brief clip of the rear of something. Too many callbacks to Top Gun Maverick IMHO.

 

[TomcatViP]

@paralay It's a twin engine aircraft...

 

[CiTrus90]

@paralay It's a twin engine aircraft...

NGAD for sure, but I suspect that what Lockheed teased (and was on the trailer at Helendale) is the demonstrator for it.
Paralay's drawing is an estimate probably based on the dimensions of the canopy (correct me if I'm wrong here Paralay).

Edit: to be more clear, what I think is that the demonstrator is way smaller than what the final NGAD will be. The final NGAD proposal will certainly have two engines, but the demonstrator doesn't necessarily need to.

 

[paralay]

@paralay It's a twin engine aircraft...

What kind of engines?

 

[Uuuuiiiuu]

...

What is the source of this image?

 

[Scott Kenny]

@paralay It's a twin engine aircraft...

What kind of engines?

NGAD? A100 or A101, or comparable size (IE, roughly F135 sized!). Maybe a second generation adaptive, using F-22/-35 as test dummies for working the bugs out of the A100 or A101

 

[paralay]

NGAD? A100 or A101, or comparable size (IE, roughly F135 sized!). Maybe a second generation adaptive, using F-22/-35 as test dummies for working the bugs out of the A100 or A101

The conversation is about a light unmanned fighter. For him, two engines are an unacceptable luxury

 

[Elysium]

A man can dream

 

[flateric]

This is not what-if topic

 

[Scott Kenny]

NGAD? A100 or A101, or comparable size (IE, roughly F135 sized!). Maybe a second generation adaptive, using F-22/-35 as test dummies for working the bugs out of the A100 or A101

The conversation is about a light unmanned fighter. For him, two engines are an unacceptable luxury

Agreed about the CCA/Loyal Wingman type, at least the small one. One of the other missions for CCA seems to be Electronic Attack, which to me implies a load of about 7000lbs of jammers and 3-4000lbs of ordnance (a pair of ARMs and a pair of JASSMs or JSOWs).

The smaller plane could easily use an F414 from the Super Hornet. Larger plane is carrying the same load as a Growler, so would likely need two F414s.

 

[Josh_TN]

I wonder if it isn’t an optionally manned demonstrator for the CCA. The production model would be a pure UAV.

 

[dark sidius]

Skunk Works Cryptically Teases NGAD-Like Aircraft Silhouette

The Skunk Works appears to be teasing its still secret Next Generation Air Dominance manned tactical jet concept in a recent Instagram post.

www.thedrive.com

Look the picture on the right in Instagram there is a tail and square nozzle, more something to see with a high speed demonstrator...

 

[flateric]

The conversation is about a light unmanned fighter. For him, two engines are an unacceptable luxury

But teaser plane is not single-engined one.

 

[LowObservable]

Pfft. Not real. The wing aft of the tip-to-tip line is doing almost nothing except generate weight, drag, and interesting longitudinal stability issues, and as for the planform alignment - the signatures group gonna grab you by the collar and drag you into the nearest anechoic chamber, where nobody can hear your squeals for mercy.