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

[books]

Lrasm and JASSM will be easily destroy by a strong air/air defense and fighter interceptor like J-20, you can't match the China by number, you can beat it by technology , offensive laser , hypersonic , strong stealth and speed fighter /bomber, you must disrupt the technology in face of China, impossible to win by number.

If the USN was launching a handful a day, that might well be true. If the Chinese are trying to handle dozens or hundreds in an afternoon, I don’t agree. Especially if the attack can be diversified with different munitions types, some LO/VLO cruise missiles, some hypersonic, some small and cheap but in greater numbers like JSM, etc.

Also though, as you’re pointing out, the F/A-XXes all of us are proposing would have tech advantages in ECM, EA, and probably BVR combat, as well as perhaps similar-to-the-J20-and-J35 WVR characteristics. While the F/A-XXes would be designed around strike, they’d have competitive air-air characteristics in kinematic terms, while having a clear electronic advantage…and, later, drones to help too. It’s not like we’re disagreeing on whether F/A-XX should have next gen tech…

And furthermore, lots of those Chinese escort ships are likely to be pretty damned busy dealing with USN submarines as well!

 

[Josh_TN]

The F/A-XX should be a fleet defence fighter first and a strike fighter second.

As pointed out in a previous post, long range strike can remove the need for fleet defense. Moreover if the primary threat is aeroballistic and hypersonic, high performance aircraft are not well suited to the defensive role anyway. Were a CSG to operate a thousand miles off the Chinese coast, it would be out of range unrefueled tactical aircraft and any land based missiles smaller than an MRBM/IRBM (only DF-26 comes to mind but my knowledge of PLARF weapons is not encyclopedic). At that range, there would be little requirement for a large cap force.

It’s also worth noting that if a large part of the air wing is dedicated to defensive fighters, then there is little density to any strikes launched. Launching a couple dozen munitions is a pointless exercise; strikes need to be more in the range of a hundred or more weapons to be effective, IMO.

 

[Josh_TN]

With the quality of weapons like the LRASM/JASSM, I don't think this is true anymore. I think a handful of F-35s carrying a pair of external LRASMs each are already fairly scary, and then if you supplement that with some F/A-XX carrying a pair of them internally and then maybe another pair externally, that should be a pretty scary prospect for Chinese shipping trying to move across the Straight. Or the same with some of the LRASM switched out for a larger quantity of JSM.

I think the AGM-158 family rather capable but nevertheless PLAN defenses will detect and engage them at closer ranges, and the subsonic speed means they can be readily engaged. In the short term, the solution seems to be MALD-N: give them a lot of other things to shoot down that are far cheaper, more plentiful, and can be carried in much larger numbers. In the medium term MACE or something like it fulfills the role of missile/jammer/decoy/etc on a common platform. Long term HALO hopefully comes into play.

 

[Ainen]

Umm, I think it's the USMC that would be saying that, not USAF. Although it's also a question for the F-35 forum maybe.

USMC would've preferred something much smaller, basic, servicable and affordable.

Too much capability is a con for the poorest service, which is way more than just a 3rd best western force.

And f-35 is so much investment and capability, that it makes USMC orbit around itself.

 

[books]

Were a CSG to operate a thousand miles off the Chinese coast, it would be out of range unrefueled tactical aircraft and any land based missiles smaller than an MRBM/IRBM (only DF-26 comes to mind but my knowledge of PLARF weapons is not encyclopedic). At that range, there would be little requirement for a large cap force.

It’s also worth noting that if a large part of the air wing is dedicated to defensive fighters, then there is little density to any strikes launched.

Yup. Sad though it is for everyone who always dreamed of a true Tomcat replacement for reasons as much, or more, emotional and aesthetic as practical.

And, as you said, using aircraft to intercept the tougher missiles is not wise.

Launching a couple dozen munitions is a pointless exercise; strikes need to be more in the range of a hundred or more weapons to be effective, IMO.

It’s not half bad as a supplement to a USAF surge though. A couple NGAD disrupting local defenses + some bomber-launched munitions + a wave of F/A-XX strikes could have outsize effects if properly coordinated.

I think the AGM-158 family rather capable but nevertheless PLAN defenses will detect and engage them at closer ranges, and the subsonic speed means they can be readily engaged. In the short term, the solution seems to be MALD-N: give them a lot of other things to shoot down that are far cheaper, more plentiful, and can be carried in much larger numbers. In the medium term MACE or something like it fulfills the role of missile/jammer decoy/etc on a common platform. Long term HALO hopefully comes into play.

I think JSM is a big part too. Pretty sure an F-35 can handle six of those at once, 2 internally and 4 externally. And then ECM and EA being huge parts of the picture as well…

 

[Josh_TN]

I think JSM is a big part too. Pretty sure an F-35 can handle six of those at once, 2 internally and 4 externally. And then ECM and EA being huge parts of the picture as well…

AFAIK the USN has no JSM purchases or any plans to do so. While the sub 1000 lb weight in theory should allow an F-18E/F to carry ten, I suspected main barrier is cost: I think it is still a $2 million missile. So actually buying them in hundreds or thousands is too costly. Range is also rather mediocre.

 

[yeetmahboi]

USMC would've preferred something much smaller, basic, servicable and affordable.

The USMC pursued a stealthy VSTOL fighter in the same time it took ATF to materialize. Later on those requirements were examined and found compatible with MRF, the USAF's would-have-been light component of the VLO force. The two programmes were then merged and through lots of politics and hurdles birthed the F-35 of today.

 

[books]

AFAIK the USN has no JSM purchases or any plans to do so. While the sub 1000 lb weight in theory should allow an F-18E/F to carry ten, I suspected main barrier is cost: I think it is still a $2 million missile. So actually buying them in hundreds or thousands is too costly. Range is also rather mediocre.

With USAF, RAAF, and I believe JASDF already investing in JSM, among others, I personally think it‘s extremely likely that the Navy will also end up with a bunch for NavAir, and possibly also for VLS. Sort of as a low end, high volume supplement to nicer items like LRASM and perhaps Tomahawk. Perhaps also as a bridge to MACE, or to large quantities thereof anyway…although with MACE being smaller (order of magnitude smaller warhead per Wikipedia, admittedly a feeble source), arguably they might be more complimentary.

Obviously, the F-35 integration and US standard certs will already be taken care of, so the barriers should be low, and IMO there would be a lot to be said for the Navy getting in on any available production line opportunities ASAP. With new lines coming in VA and Australia, my guess is that the opportunity will come along fairly soon.

In any case, JSM is clearly part of the USAF plan. That doesn’t prove that it would have an anti-shipping role like the LRASM/B-1 combo, but it very well might. I’m guessing it’s flexible, but that Chinese shipping is near the top of the target list.

 

[Ainen]

The USMC pursued a stealthy VSTOL fighter in the same time it took ATF to materialize. Later on those requirements were examined and found compatible with MRF, the USAF's would-have-been light component of the VLO force. The two programmes were then merged and through lots of politics and hurdles birthed the F-35 of today.

Their stealthy fighters were just much more basic.
But they've got a 30t high end, long range fighter-bomber. Which does the job, and way more of it than the basic necessity.

They're indeed compatible - just as Navy's.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Their stealthy fighters were just much more basic.
But they've got a 30t high end, long range fighter-bomber. Which does the job, and way more of it than the basic necessity.

They're indeed compatible - just as Navy's.

No arguments here. I think the Marines could have made do with a Harrier 3 solution. Was the AV-8Bs that much involved in deep interdiction that the aviators found LO desired? I was always more impressed by their ability to conduct CAS.
But the F-35 is history. Let history take its course. I think in the end the military acquired a terrific machine and many lessons for the future.

 

[Josh_TN]

With USAF, RAAF, and I believe JASDF already investing in JSM, among others, I personally think it‘s extremely likely that the Navy will also end up with a bunch for NavAir, and possibly also for VLS. Sort of as a low end, high volume supplement to nicer items like LRASM and perhaps Tomahawk. Perhaps also as a bridge to MACE, or to large quantities thereof anyway…although with MACE being smaller (order of magnitude smaller warhead per Wikipedia, admittedly a feeble source), arguably they might be more complimentary.

Obviously, the F-35 integration and US standard certs will already be taken care of, so the barriers should be low, and IMO there would be a lot to be said for the Navy getting in on any available production line opportunities ASAP. With new lines coming in VA and Australia, my guess is that the opportunity will come along fairly soon.

In any case, JSM is clearly part of the USAF plan. That doesn’t prove that it would have an anti-shipping role like the LRASM/B-1 combo, but it very well might. I’m guessing it’s flexible, but that Chinese shipping is near the top of the target list.

USAF has budgeted a buy of ~500 as a bridge to F-35 LRASM integration. AFAIK that is the only US purchase and IMO given its cost and current production rate, is likely to remain so. The USN already has its MALD/LRASM combo and JSM adds little to that. It has shown little interest in any single use VLS missile; it already passed on VL-LRASM with tomahawk and SM-6 being the anti surface weapons of choice (with NSM for small ships). There is no role for JSM to fill and at $2 mil, there is no financial reason to buy it - it is not a low end weapon. The next generation of USN SOW will be more lightweight, longer ranged, and less expensive. Warhead size will suffer, but it does not take much to disable a surface combatant or set a full landing ship on fire.

 

[bring_it_on]

A 500 missile inventory as a 'bridge' to a weapon with a planned 689 missile inventory?

 

[red admiral]

Their stealthy fighters were just much more basic.
But they've got a 30t high end, long range fighter-bomber. Which does the job, and way more of it than the basic necessity.

Were the ASTOVL aircraft really lighter and more basic? I don't see what capability USMC cuts off F-35B, and that's very much the variant driving both A and C

 

[kqcke for you]

Were the ASTOVL aircraft really lighter and more basic? I don't see what capability USMC cuts off F-35B, and that's very much the variant driving both A and C

As far as i can tell it only adds requierments and size to the aircraft

 

[books]

USAF has budgeted a buy of ~500 as a bridge to F-35 LRASM integration. AFAIK that is the only US purchase and IMO given its cost and current production rate, is likely to remain so. The USN already has its MALD/LRASM combo and JSM adds little to that. It has shown little interest in any single use VLS missile; it already passed on VL-LRASM with tomahawk and SM-6 being the anti surface weapons of choice (with NSM for small ships). There is no role for JSM to fill and at $2 mil, there is no financial reason to buy it - it is not a low end weapon. The next generation of USN SOW will be more lightweight, longer ranged, and less expensive. Warhead size will suffer, but it does not take much to disable a surface combatant or set a full landing ship on fire.

I think the JSM might actually offer two significant advantages, at least: another already existing production line (by the time of a possible Navy buy anyway), and that cost advantage you mentioned, ~2 mil vs ~3 for LRASM.

600 missiles for the price of 400, just to throw around notional amounts, from a wholly separate production line sounds like a pretty appealing supplement to me, even if LRASM is quite a bit better. IMO it would set up something of a hi-lo mix in near or near-ish term anti-ship missiles, on a schedule perhaps similar to the USN’s rather sedate pace of fielding the F-35.

Nothing against MACE or HALO, I’m just talking about a nearer term option. With larger volleys and copious jamming support, I think it could be pretty darn annoying for the PLAN. I very much doubt any of us, for example, would feel relaxed about the idea of a few dozen of these coming at some ships we were on! These advantages aside, I do admit it’s not cheap, is indeed similar go but worse than things USN already has, and has nothing unique to offer that we know of — those points are more than fair. But a cheaper makeweight with its own factory is darned good news for USN, imo.

 

[joshjosh]

Remember that the DOD has options for cheaper cruise missiles, if they'll actually invest. There's the Enterprise Test Vehicle, and Anduril's Barracuda line.

 

[kqcke for you]

I think the JSM might actually offer two significant advantages, at least: another already existing production line (by the time of a possible Navy buy anyway), and that cost advantage you mentioned, ~2 mil vs ~3 for LRASM.

But you trade range, stealth and probaly destructive power for it. JSM around half the range of lrasm which means we have to get closer

 

[bring_it_on]

I think the JSM might actually offer two significant advantages, at least: another already existing production line (by the time of a possible Navy buy anyway), and that cost advantage you mentioned, ~2 mil vs ~3 for LRASM.

600 missiles for the price of 400, just to throw around notional amounts, from a wholly separate production line sounds like a pretty appealing supplement to me, even if LRASM is quite a bit better. IMO it would set up something of a hi-lo mix in near or near-ish term anti-ship missiles, on a schedule perhaps similar to the USN’s rather sedate pace of fielding the F-35.

Nothing against MACE or HALO, I’m just talking about a nearer term option. With larger volleys and copious jamming support, I think it could be pretty darn annoying for the PLAN. I very much doubt any of us, for example, would feel relaxed about the idea of a few dozen of these coming at some ships we were on! These advantages aside, I do admit it’s not cheap, is indeed similar go but worse than things USN already has, and has nothing unique to offer that we know of — those points are more than fair. But a cheaper makeweight with its own factory is darned good news for USN, imo.

AF FY25 request (AUR Cost): JSM $2.8 MM ; LRASM $3.0 MM. There may be several good reasons to invest in an inventory of JSM. But cost advantage vs LRASM is unlikely to be one of them.

 

[books]

AF FY25 request (AUR Cost): JSM $2.8 MM ; LRASM $3.0 MM. There may be several good reasons to invest in an inventory of JSM. But cost advantage vs LRASM is unlikely to be one of them.

I’m not familiar with the term AUR. Do you suppose that that price for JSM is representative of what the missile will cost once the line is fully up and ironed out, the flyaway cost of the missile if you will?

I ask because I’m wondering if the costs of setting up the US factory described in the link below are temporarily inflating its cost.

KONGSBERG to Establish Missile Factory in the US

Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace (‘KONGSBERG’) is building a state-of-the-art missile production facility in the United States to meet global demand, following expansion in Norway and the recently announced missile factory in Australia. Located near key US Navy facilities, the site in James City...

www.kongsberg.com

But you trade range, stealth and probaly destructive power for it. JSM around half the range of lrasm which means we have to get closer

Closer, but internal on an F-35, with the signature and fuel efficiency advantages that go along with those.

Remember that the DOD has options for cheaper cruise missiles, if they'll actually invest. There's the Enterprise Test Vehicle, and Anduril's Barracuda line.

The more the merrier as far as I’m concerned. The more capacity and competition the better, even for comparable products. And if some of the become notably cheaper or better, then all the more so.

 

[Josh_TN]

A 500 missile inventory as a 'bridge' to a weapon with a planned 689 missile inventory?

I’m just quoting a USAF budget document. It described JSM as a “bridge” to F-35 LRASM integration; not my words.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think the JSM might actually offer two significant advantages, at least: another already existing production line (by the time of a possible Navy buy anyway), and that cost advantage you mentioned, ~2 mil vs ~3 for LRASM.

600 missiles for the price of 400, just to throw around notional amounts, from a wholly separate production line sounds like a pretty appealing supplement to me, even if LRASM is quite a bit better. IMO it would set up something of a hi-lo mix in near or near-ish term anti-ship missiles, on a schedule perhaps similar to the USN’s rather sedate pace of fielding the F-35.

Nothing against MACE or HALO, I’m just talking about a nearer term option. With larger volleys and copious jamming support, I think it could be pretty darn annoying for the PLAN. I very much doubt any of us, for example, would feel relaxed about the idea of a few dozen of these coming at some ships we were on! These advantages aside, I do admit it’s not cheap, is indeed similar go but worse than things USN already has, and has nothing unique to offer that we know of — those points are more than fair. But a cheaper makeweight with its own factory is darned good news for USN, imo.

Unit cost is modestly better, for a notable performance decrease and the added costs/complications of adopting an additional weapon. F-35 integration is a given but there would still be a lot of costs associated with adoption. The current cheap bulk enabler for long range AShM is MALD-N, which should already be in service (LRIP contract for 250 in 2021). Price per unit is not clear but MALD-J is in the $200,000-300,000 range, so a large multi year MALD-N buy is probably an order of magnitude cheaper than JSM. There was a sole source contract for a billion dollars to RTX a year or two ago that I highly suspect was the production buy for several thousand MALDs.

There are a couple systems on offer that look like they could fulfill MACE already, so I expect that in several years the difference between missile and decoy is probably a payload swap.

 

[bring_it_on]

I’m just quoting a USAF budget document. It described JSM as a “bridge” to F-35 LRASM integration; not my words.

Yeah, but it doesn't really make sense now does it

The JSM is a pretty good weapon given its unique ability to be deployed from the F-35A IWB. And it doesn't compete with the JASSM for production like LRASM does. We need to be stocking up on as many things that can strike ships as we can possibly afford to get into production.

 

[Josh_TN]

Yeah, but it doesn't really make sense now does it

The JSM is a good value and a pretty good weapon given its unique ability to be deployed from the F-35A IWB. And it doesn't compete with the JASSM for production like LRASM does.

JSM purchases to date seem quite anemic. JASSM on the other hand has already expanded to 750/year last I heard, with a company official stating they might go to 1100/year to meet demand. Are there even a thousand JSMs on order right now? The U.S. needs more munitions lines, sure, but I think there will be/are far cheaper options available than JSM, even allowing for the cost increases small batch orders incur.

ETA: were the Baracuda 250/500 to be adopted by the USN, either could be carried internally as well.

 

[bring_it_on]

We just started buying JSM in FY24. Other nations have bought them but most of those buy low volumes of most things they buy.

but I think there will be/are far cheaper options available than JSM

Will be perhaps. Are? Really? What tested stand-off range anti-ship cruise missiles compliant with the F-35 IWB are available to order in FY2024? or FY2025? There was a Turkish one but we kicked them out so its not really an option for the F-35. Not to mention it does not have a production line in the US while JSM will share one with NSM.

Until there's something on offer that is tested, and integrated / planned to be integrated on F-35 (JPO roadmap) the JSM is the only game in town for such a cruise missile class. Several F-35 customers have purchased it including now the USAF. This bodes well for its future.

JASSM on the other hand has already expanded to 750/year last I heard, with a company official stating they might go to 1100/year

I don't think I or anyone realistically claimed that the JSM is a competitor to JASSM. Its being bought by those buying it as an anti-ship missile. We're buying it because its going to be integrated with F-35A and the LRASM inventory is shared with other platform and probably because it won't fit inside the F-35. The combination of JSM, and AARGM-ER / SiAW should become quite popular with F-35A users given performance and IWB compliance. Of course these will begin picking up volumes in the coming years as block-4 capability is fielded. They were not an option for the baseline F-35 3F configuration which explains limited demand then.

 

[_Del_]

Worth noting that with the widespread adoption of the F-35's worldwide, designers are tailoring new weapons within this constraints. Many/most munitions in the next ten-fifteen years are going to be designed around that size-constraint. In spite of that they will probably increase, not decrease, the ability to deliver whatever effect downrange be it AAM, ARM, cruise-missile, ASh, EW, etc

The next fielded combat aircraft won't have to size themselves to carry 4 AMRAAM internally to deliver that equivalent effect downrange, or perhaps it is sized to deliver that effectx10 or more with a smaller bay than the F-35, as one example.

 

[Josh_TN]

We just started buying JSM in FY24. Other nations have bought them but most of those buy low volumes of most things they buy.


Will be perhaps. Are? Really? What tested stand-off range anti-ship cruise missiles compliant with the F-35 IWB are available to order in FY2024? or FY2025? There was a Turkish one but we kicked them out so its not really an option for the F-35. Not to mention it does not have a production line in the US while JSM will share one with NSM.

Until there's something on offer that is tested, and integrated / planned to be integrated on F-35 (JPO roadmap) the JSM is the only game in town for such a cruise missile class. Several F-35 customers have purchased it including now the USAF. This bodes well for its future.


I don't think I or anyone realistically claimed that the JSM is a competitor to JASSM. Its being bought by those buying it as an anti-ship missile. We're buying it because its going to be integrated with F-35A and the LRASM inventory is shared with other platform and probably because it won't fit inside the F-35. The combination of JSM, and AARGM-ER / SiAW should become quite popular with F-35A users given performance and IWB compliance. Of course these will begin picking up volumes in the coming years as block-4 capability is fielded. They were not an option for the baseline F-35 3F configuration which explains limited demand then.

I already stated what I think the USNs alternative is: MALD. I maybe wrong, but I do not think the USN will ever buy JSM. Your mileage may differ.

ETA: I also disagree that F-35 is the USNs primary anti ship strike platform in the near future, possibly ever. Certainly as it stands the F-18 is the strike platform. Internal carriage and sheer lack of numbers mean that F-35 strikes will be marginal in the near to medium term, at least.

 

[bring_it_on]

I already stated what I think the USNs alternative is: MALD. I maybe wrong, but I do not think the USN will ever buy JSM. Your mileage may differ.

MALD as an Anti ship weapon? No idea how long that is going to take to demonstrate and qualify / put into production.

LRASM and HALO are the Navy efforts for AL anti ship weapons in additional to what they have.

 

[Josh_TN]

MALD as an Anti ship weapon? No idea how long that is going to take to demonstrate and qualify / put into production.

LRASM and HALO are the Navy efforts for AL anti ship weapons in additional to what they have.

MALD-N is a decoy/ECM platform with a weapon data link and a radar altimeter for sea skimming. Read between the lines and it’s basically a AShM decoy even without an ECM package. If it can produce false targets on top, so much the better. But it will behave enough like an AShM that you can hardly ignore it. You will have to shoot them all down like they were LRASM or Tomahawk, even if they have no terminal guidance or warhead. They are going to look exactly like cruise missile on radar, and if they can receive target updates, they will probably be headed towards high value units even if they do not have terminal homing.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Lrasm and JASSM will be easily destroy by a strong air/air defense and fighter interceptor like J-20, you can't match the China by number, you can beat it by technology , offensive laser , hypersonic , strong stealth and speed fighter /bomber, you must disrupt the technology in face of China, impossible to win by number.

Stealth cruise missiles getting destroyed by fighters? Possible but unlikely.

 

[shin_getter]

In some sense why spend billions getting launch platforms when you can just have trucks in tunnels? Just push Taiwan to buy a bunch of AShM and station all of it on the Japanese island chain and call it a day?

 

[Forest Green]

Lrasm and JASSM will be easily destroy by a strong air/air defense and fighter interceptor like J-20, you can't match the China by number, you can beat it by technology , offensive laser , hypersonic , strong stealth and speed fighter /bomber, you must disrupt the technology in face of China, impossible to win by number.

You're underestimating the number of JASSMs and the difference between theory and practice. In theory Russia's air force should have been able to shoot down the relatively limited number of Storm Shadows sent to Ukraine, in practice they got through. The detection range for stealthy cruise missiles at low altitude is surprisingly limited.

 

[Ainen]

Stealth cruise missiles getting destroyed by fighters? Possible but unlikely.

Ugh, then what fighters are even for?

 

[Mr.T]

You're underestimating the number of JASSMs and the difference between theory and practice. In theory Russia's air force should have been able to shoot down the relatively limited number of Storm Shadows sent to Ukraine, in practice they got through. The detection range for stealthy cruise missiles at low altitude is surprisingly limited.

Just look at Yemen , it getting missiles trough and US is even shoting down its own fighters in the process and there is no tech or stealth in or airforce in Yemeni arsenal , and absolute air coverage with radars by western forces and Israel is most densely covered plot of land in terms of AD systems. Missiles will always go trough just imagine if they ever started flying somewhere in the west with non existing AD coverage.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1870666377205313934

View: https://x.com/AP/status/1870666377205313934

https://twitter.com/x/status/1870354540647903410

View: https://x.com/21WIRE/status/1870354540647903410

 

[Forest Green]

the west with non existing AD coverage.

???

 

[NMaude]

Just look at Yemen , it getting missiles trough

https://twitter.com/x/status/1870354540647903410

View: https://x.com/21WIRE/status/1870354540647903410

Any indication what the missile was that struck Tel Aviv? The six o'clock news just said that it was a hypersonic missile which isn't informative.

 

[TomS]

Any indication what the missile was that struck Tel Aviv? The six o'clock news just said that it was a hypersonic missile which isn't informative.

The Houthi claim called it a "Palestine 2" which seems to be the name they are using for the Iranian Fattah missile. Iran says Fattah has a hypersonic glide vehicle RV, but there's plenty of reason to be skeptical about that claim. Any ballistic missile with that kind of range will be technically hypersonic, but a maneuvering glide vehicle is a different thing altogether.

Do the Houthis really have a hypersonic missile?

The claim is concerning for more than just the high speeds; Hypersonic missiles are difficult for missile-defense systems to intercept.

www.atlanticcouncil.org

Iran unveils upgraded hypersonic missile as Khamenei touts Israel ‘failure’

The Iranian show of force comes amid heightened US military presence in the region after Israel began bombing Gaza.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[In_A_Dream]

Off-topic?

 

[dark sidius]

Is it possible to return on NGAD and FA/XX ?

 

[dark sidius]

EXCLUSIVE: New Air Force review supports manned 6th-gen NGAD fighter concept - Breaking Defense

Military analysis supports the fielding of a sixth-generation stealth fighter, Breaking Defense has learned, though a final decision on the Next Generation Air Dominance platform now rests with the Trump administration.

breakingdefense.com

The good news is there is a need for the 6th gen fighter in the review.

 

[_Del_]

EXCLUSIVE: New Air Force review supports manned 6th-gen NGAD fighter concept - Breaking Defense

Military analysis supports the fielding of a sixth-generation stealth fighter, Breaking Defense has learned, though a final decision on the Next Generation Air Dominance platform now rests with the Trump administration.

breakingdefense.com

The good news is there is a need for the 6th gen fighter in the review.

The bad news is they admit they can't afford it.