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

Status
Not open for further replies.
dark sidius said:
They must afford it if USAF don't want to be the second Air Force behind China for the 21 century and more.
Click to expand...
Not so dire, and China has problems of its own. There are plenty of contemporary and historical arguments for alternative routed to our procurement policy, and we don't have much choice even if the arguments were not persuasive (and I think they are). Things are going to change. They have to. Get used to it.
We'd be done in a few weeks against China right now, today, with all the advantages we hold. It's not enough to simply field "better" technology if it doesn't accomplish our goals.
 
dark sidius said:
They must afford it if USAF don't want to be the second Air Force behind China for the 21 century and more.
Click to expand...
_Del_ said:
Not so dire, and China has problems of its own.
Click to expand...

That's not very likely in regards to the PRC as it is dealing with intractable demographic and economic issues that are getting worse.
 
dark sidius said:
They must afford it if USAF don't want to be the second Air Force behind China for the 21 century and more.
Click to expand...

I think your assumption that this is not an option is misplaced. Ending manned NGAD is absolutely something that might happen.
 
NMaude said:
That's not very likely in regards to the PRC as it is dealing with intractable demographic and economic issues that are getting worse.
Click to expand...

That hardly makes it less dangerous in the short to medium term. Probably quite the opposite. Never the less, it does not seem like Congress is willing to pay for NGAD or let the USAF part with old aircraft to pay for it. So Legacy A-10s it is.
 
Josh_TN said:
That hardly makes it less dangerous in the short to medium term. Probably quite the opposite. Never the less, it does not seem like Congress is willing to pay for NGAD or let the USAF part with old aircraft to pay for it. So Legacy A-10s it is.
Click to expand...

The Air Force has been trying to retire F-22s and invest the “savings” directly into the NGAD program. Congress has been opposed.

Congress has not said it is not willing to
pay for NGAD. It has paid for the program each year so far.
 
quellish said:
The Air Force has been trying to retire F-22s and invest the “savings” directly into the NGAD program. Congress has been opposed.
Click to expand...
They're both right. We should divest the F-22 as soon as possible to use that money on future programs, and we shouldn't do it until they've demonstrated that NGAD can deliver an affordable airplane in numbers that lets them retire the F-22.

JSF was touted as cheaper to operate than F-16's. ATF was going to be cheaper to own and operate than the Eagles. It would have been a disaster to retire the legacy aircraft and dump the money on ATF and JSF development programs.

We have recap needs right now, today. No need to exacerbate them with early retirements when the track record for procurement programs is so ugly.

I think they are looking in the right direction with multiple platforms in production with relatively short development cycles and service lives. If they can deliver on the "new century series" visions, then yes, absolutely, gut the F-22 force, but until they demonstrate it, there are short term needs to balance with the future.
 
_Del_ said:
They're both right. We should divest the F-22 as soon as possible to use that money on future programs, and we shouldn't do it until they've demonstrated that NGAD can deliver an affordable airplane in numbers that lets them retire the F-22.
Click to expand...
The USAF had previously been suggesting a 2030 IOC for manned NGAD. That seems increasingly unlikely given the pause and then wait now for the next administration. Getting rid of the 30 odd F-22s will help but there won't be real savings until the whole fleet is divested. Given the timeframe of 2027-2030 is prime Taiwan crisis it seems unlikely that will be allowed to happen and the budget woes will continue.

_Del_ said:
JSF was touted as cheaper to operate than F-16's.
Click to expand...
When you factor everything in it probably is. F-16 can no longer, and probably never really was capable of, self escort strike. F-35 does that every day of the week. Take away the host of additional assets the F-16 needs today to accomplish its mission and the F-35 is probably a bargain.

_Del_ said:
I think they are looking in the right direction with multiple platforms in production with relatively short development cycles and service lives. If they can deliver on the "new century series" visions, then yes, absolutely, gut the F-22 force, but until they demonstrate it, there are short term needs to balance with the future.
Click to expand...
There is no Digital Century Series for manned NGAD. Per the comments made by Andrew Hunter and Frank Kendall in 2022 the Digital Century Series remains for CCA but not manned NGAD. You can read their comments here, https://www.twz.com/boeing-australias-mq-28-ghost-bat-loyal-wingman-drone-is-in-the-u-s and here, https://www.twz.com/next-gen-air-dominance-fighter-still-being-competed-drones-farther-out

The short is here,
“The idea of the Digital Century Series is that you’re able to rapidly iterate designs. So you can make a lot of design progress in a short period of time, because you’re doing multiple design activities, in close proximity and/or simultaneously,” Hunter had said while speaking separately at the Air Force’s Life Cycle Industry Days conference, according to Breaking Defense. “I could see that approach being potentially really successful for a space where we think the design is going to need to iterate or could iterate quite a bit in a short period of time. And I would look at the Collaborative Combat Aircraft scenario where that could be the case.”

At the same time, “we are resource-constrained, and we are focused very much on capability,” Hunter added. “So we can’t afford to do four different kinds [of aircraft] where none of which actually develops into an operational capability.”

Secretary Kendall has himself publicly rejected the idea of using a Digital Century Series-like approach with regards to the manned combat jet component of NGAD, also citing concerns about spending time and money on development efforts that don’t lead to real capabilities.
Click to expand...

It is worth noting that both Hunter and Kendall are still in their respective roles...

What we will almost certainly see in manned NGAD is a platform that is better able to integrate new technologies and true open architecture thereby allowing updates to be smoother and more rapid.
 
quellish said:
The Air Force has been trying to retire F-22s and invest the “savings” directly into the NGAD program. Congress has been opposed.

Congress has not said it is not willing to
pay for NGAD. It has paid for the program each year so far.
Click to expand...

Congress has been quite unwilling to retire A-10s, to the best of my knowledge. And NGADs future seems very much to be determined by funding goals set by the incoming administration (assuming Congress yields to the incoming administration which is also in doubt).

Perhaps Congress pays for NGAD. We shall see. But the current situation seems to be Congress is attempting to retain fighters the USAF does not want, and not providing money for the projects it does. We can debate the wisdom that, but that seems to be the status quo.

ETA: USAF has been attempting to retire Block 20 F-22, not F-22. I do not have a strong opinion on that; I assume those aircraft are still useful for training and that combat operational aircraft have to pick up the slack if they retire - unclear if there are savings involved, IMO. But the A-10 force seems like an obvious congressional mandate that the USAF would divest itself of well before 2029 if it had a choice.
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
That's idealistic, but often won't happen.
Especially when there's no bomber in the first place.
Click to expand...

Any H-6 is going to kick off an aeroballistic missile outside CAP range. Assuming that passing through the PI/southern Japanese islands is something safe enough for a subsonic bomber. An F-14 analog is not going to win that fight, IMO.

Most of the threat is land based missiles and the primary ISR assets are in orbit. Outter battle doesn’t seem to apply here.

ETA: responding to your post but most agreed with you and responding to the post you are responding to; sorry for any confusion. Couple (dozen) drinks in.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
Perhaps Congress pays for NGAD. We shall see. But the current situation seems to be Congress is attempting to retain fighters the USAF does not want, and not providing money for the projects it does. We can debate the wisdom that, but that seems to be the status quo. If you disagree, please be less vague.
Click to expand...

This is not true. The Air Force is reducing the diversity of its fighters and replacing some older fighters with newer, more capable models (i.e. F-15C replaced with F-15EX). The Air Force has been trying to get rid of Block 20 F-22s - 32 aircraft - and use the "savings" for NGAD. The Air Force has not made a compelling case for any aspect of this, which is one of many reasons Congress is not allowing it to happen.

"F-22 Aircraft: Air Force Needs to Better Document Options Before Making Critical Decisions"
www.gao.gov

F-22 Aircraft: Air Force Needs to Better Document Options Before Making Critical Decisions

The Air Force proposed to divest—i.e., retire—its F-22 Block 20 aircraft without fully documenting the implications. Block 20s are used for training...
www.gao.gov www.gao.gov

If Congress is not providing money for projects you think the Air Force wants, please be more specific. Congress has been providing funding for NGAD and is likely to continue to do so. Congress has been largely onboard with what the Air Force has been trying to do with NGAD:

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022 AND THE FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON S. 2792, Senator Kelly speaking:

General, I had the opportunity to go out and see NGAD [Next Generation Air Dominance] in April. Very impressive. I think the NGAD efforts will help us outpace our adversaries who are also trying to invest in advanced technologies. I don’t want you to go into anything that could possibly be, you know, we should be doing in another room, so let’s not go there. I am really pleased to see the non-traditional approach being taken with this program, leveraging digital engineering, agile development processes, digital design to make sure we can develop and test and field these aircraft at a faster pace. But I am also interested to find out what your thought is on what impact that this non-traditional approach will have on acquisition and life cycle sustainment costs.
Click to expand...

So maybe you are thinking of some other program when you say Congress is not giving the Air Force money for programs the Air Force wants.
 
Ozair said:
There is no Digital Century Series for manned NGAD. Per the comments made by Andrew Hunter and Frank Kendall in 2022 the Digital Century Series remains for CCA but not manned NGAD. You can read their comments here,
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. While the Air Force moved away from the "Digital Century Series" terminology a long time ago, the effort itself is still very much alive and is being incorporated across all of the Air Force. Agile Acquisition and the Next Generation Acquisition Model, government reference architectures, "building codes", digital simulation and engineering, etc. are all still very much alive and in use. AIM-260 for example is following the "Digital Century Series" model.

The manned NGAD aircraft continues to follow this model as well. The intent is to rapidly iterate both hardware and software ("software defined and hardware enabled") to meet changing threats and keep every aspect of the program in competition for the life of the program.
 
Ozair said:
There is no Digital Century Series for manned NGAD. Per the comments made by Andrew Hunter and Frank Kendall in 2022 the Digital Century Series remains for CCA but not manned NGAD
Click to expand...
It's all under the same budget line until next year. You'll still see all the same buzzwords in regards to industry/acquisition: "agile", "responsive", " non-traditional" in the reports when they separate them for the 2026 budget like they were ordered to.




quellish said:
So maybe you are thinking of some other program when you say Congress is not giving the Air Force money for programs the Air Force wants
Click to expand...
Senate Armed Services Committee recommended $500+ million from manned NGAD to CCA effort -- because they did not like Air Force's new "pause" and questioned the commitment to the program. But that's because half of Congress views NGAD as a potential cash cow for their district, and the other half are on dementia meds. Congress's commitment is stronger than the Air Force's right now.

Gen. Slife said:
“From a requirements perspective, what I would say is we’re going back and starting at the beginning with ‘What is the thing we’re trying to do?’
'How do we achieve air superiority in a contested environment?’ would be one way to frame the question.
A different way to frame the question would be, ‘How do we build a sixth-gen manned fighter platform?’ I mean, those are not necessarily the same question.
Click to expand...
 
_Del_ said:
It's all under the same budget line until next year. You'll still see all the same buzzwords in regards to industry/acquisition: "agile", "responsive", " non-traditional" in the reports when they separate them for the 2026 budget like they were ordered to.
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with anything, as they are already executing on all of those things across the service. Programs are fielding hardware using these processes, today.


_Del_ said:
Senate Armed Services Committee recommended $500+ million from manned NGAD to CCA effort -- because they did not like Air Force's new "pause" and questioned the commitment to the program.
Click to expand...

That is not accurate. As your post itself pointed out, all of this is currently under the same line item. Manned NGAD and CCA are funded out of the same line item, which totaled $3.3b. Of that, manned NGAD was getting $2.7b and CCA $557m. The SASC recommended that the CCA funding be broken out into its own line item. Nothing would be removed from the manned NGAD program by this recommendation.

_Del_ said:
“From a requirements perspective, what I would say is we’re going back and starting at the beginning with ‘What is the thing we’re trying to do?’
'How do we achieve air superiority in a contested environment?’ would be one way to frame the question.
A different way to frame the question would be, ‘How do we build a sixth-gen manned fighter platform?’ I mean, those are not necessarily the same question.
Click to expand...

This is from a session at Defense News conference in September.

Slife later said in the same session:
Our traditional conception of what things like air superiority means have changed
Click to expand...

NGAD is a family of systems with the intent of achieving air superiority, including in "contested" environments. The term "air dominance" is frequently used to describe the NGAD mission. "Air dominance" is not equivalent to the traditional definition of "air superiority", and even that definition is now constantly changing (the Air Force has also stated this directly to congress). For example, the Air Force now considers JASSM XR an "air superiority" and "air dominance" weapon.

Air dominance/superiority in a contested environment does not necessarily require a new 6th generation manned aircraft. Many of the NGAD key technologies are being integrated into legacy platforms. But the Air Force still desperately needs to recapitalize their current fleet and adapt to new threats. The F-22 and F-35 are not going to be viable forever and are very difficult to upgrade for new threats.
 
quellish said:
That is not accurate. As your post itself pointed out, all of this is currently under the same line item. Manned NGAD and CCA are funded out of the same line item, which totaled $3.3b. Of that, manned NGAD was getting $2.7b and CCA $557m.
Click to expand...
You are correct -- I got my wires crossed.

Senate recommended full funding of NGAD (including both manned/CCA) - the House recommending cutting money from CCA.
 
_Del_ said:
You are correct -- I got my wires crossed.

Senate recommended full funding of NGAD (including both manned/CCA) - the House recommending cutting money from CCA.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I was wrong as well. Mea culpa.

I would say there are still platforms that Congress is unwilling to retire, and that this burdens the USAF budget somewhat. The wisdom of such can be debated on other threads. I personally do not see how blk 20 retirement saves money since those are training platforms, but I also do not see how the A-10 is relevant in the Pacific. But there are other threads.
 
Forest Green said:
???
Click to expand...
Why the ?? its a fact , number of AD systems in europe is absymal even more so the overlap of big ticket stationary items like Patriot with tactical IRIS-T.

Fighter sized drone with a bomb not even flying low level flew trough 3 NATO countries Airspace and crashed in a Croatian capital ,was not intercepted even tough half of nato europe ISR and fighter jet assets are on Ukrainan border
www.presstv.co.uk

Zagreb blames Russia for drone strike, rather than Ukraine

On 10 March 2022, a Tupolev Tu-141 reconnaissance drone crashed in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, which Zagreb, under US tutelage, blames on Russia.
www.presstv.co.uk www.presstv.co.uk
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
I think your assumption that this is not an option is misplaced. Ending manned NGAD is absolutely something that might happe
Click to expand...
And you fight in the air with what ? With a F-35 still unable to be block 4 ? You think that to have nothing to opposite to a Enemy is the better way ? realy ?
 
Something on a tangent but re: CCA, I found this after surfing the forum for quite a bit to blow off some steam
Sundog said:
What I found kind of funny is that what he was describing, to a certain extent, is the original JSF, in that the original JSF wasn't supposed to have all of the onboard sensors to keep weight and cost down.
Click to expand...
If this is indeed some reference to an early consideration of widely segregated, networked platforms then I'd love to see this original JSF concept that some 5 minutes of search couldn't reveal much about.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think your assumption that this is not an option is misplaced. Ending manned NGAD is absolutely something that might happen.
Click to expand...
As of now it becomes unlikely.

In-depth studies just don't show it's feasible at current state of tech.

You have to overturn the whole table to do it now. And overturning advantageous table for an uncertain alternative is not something an established power should do.
 
Ainen said:
As of now it becomes unlikely.

In-depth studies just don't show it's feasible at current state of tech.

You have to overturn the whole table to do it now. And overturning advantageous table for an uncertain alternative is not something an established power should do.
Click to expand...
With the new administration it could change..
 
yeetmahboi said:
If this is indeed some reference to an early consideration of widely segregated, networked platforms then I'd love to see this original JSF concept that some 5 minutes of search couldn't reveal much about.
Click to expand...
If you have a look through material around CAIV (cost as an independent variable) trades, then the EOTS wasn't part of the baseline equipment on all aircraft. Much like at the time that targeting pods were only carried on some aircraft in the fleet.
 
dark sidius said:
And you fight in the air with what ? With a F-35 still unable to be block 4 ? You think that to have nothing to opposite to a Enemy is the better way ? realy ?
Click to expand...

I am not voicing my preference; I am acknowledging that money is tight, budgets almost certainly remain flat, and that there is at least one very vocal antagonist to the program with a lot of influence on the incoming administration.
 
The question is simple to answer: if tomorrow warfighters are unmanned, then probably that from root to tip, the future of CCA lies only where warfighters are capable to build the software.
(from warfighters to war codders)

It's a transformational and paroxysmal expectation. There, warfighters cease to be able to pipe down war experience to build better machines. The learning curve is flat etc...

Fundamentally this is the threshold where industry and services shouldn't want to ever reach. That only VC are calling for this should not be a surprise.
 
Last edited:
Ultimately strike carriers in the pacific are just not efficient nor necessary, except for budget battles and status of military brass. The ships are vulnerable and the rate of munitions projection is low due to extended ranges with resulting in low sortie rate. Air force, UUVs, prepositioning, missiles with more range, all work better. Even F-35B on "allied" territory can also be more useful than new plane.

The real job of the surface navy would be escorting resupply into Japan, and maybe run a operation pedestal at decisive points.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
The question is simple to answer: if tomorrow warfighters are unmanned, then probably that from root to tip, the future of CCA lies only where warfighters are capable to build the software.
(from warfighters to war codders)

It's a transformational and paroxysmal expectation. There, warfighters cease to be able to pipe down war experience to build better machines. The learning curve is flat etc...

Fundamentally this is the threshold where industry and services shouldn't want to ever reach. That only VC are calling for this should not be a surprise.
Click to expand...

I think only a tiny minority of people are actively thinking manned aircraft should end. Mostly I think what is being discussed is what form should manned NGAD take. I think even the more enthusiastic CCA supporters still assume F-35 continues for decades.
 
shin_getter said:
Ultimately strike carriers in the pacific are just not efficient nor necessary, except for budget battles and status of military brass. The ships are vulnerable and the rate of munitions projection is low due to extended ranges with resulting in low sortie rate. Air force, UUVs, prepositioning, missiles with more range, all work better. Even F-35B on "allied" territory can also be more useful than new plane.

The real job of the surface navy would be escorting resupply into Japan, and maybe run a operation pedestal at decisive points.
Click to expand...

USAF tactical air has the same limitations with a different type of base vulnerability. Though I do agree that were the U.S. starting from scratch, embarked airpower does not seem like the most cost effective mechanism for a PRC-US war. Most public tabletop wargames seem to indicate bombers achieve the highest munition density at the desired range with relatively faster reload times, though other units are necessary as enablers. But the carriers are a sunk cost, and not employing them with effective strike mechanisms is just throwing a lot resources away.
 
Josh_TN said:
USAF tactical air has the same limitations with a different type of base vulnerability. Though I do agree that were the U.S. starting from scratch, embarked airpower does not seem like the most cost effective mechanism for a PRC-US war. Most public tabletop wargames seem to indicate bombers achieve the highest munition density at the desired range with relatively faster reload times, though other units are necessary as enablers. But the carriers are a sunk cost, and not employing them with effective strike mechanisms is just throwing a lot resources away.
Click to expand...
Bombers flying from where?
Also, carriers' effect isn't limited to effectors' density.
Achieving it isn't their purpose even(and frankly never was until after Cold War), it's more of pax-Americana budget justification insanity.
Carrier's purpose is to bring air power to the fleet. Simple as that.
 
Ainen said:
Bombers flying from where?
Also, carriers' effect isn't limited to effectors' density.
Achieving it isn't their purpose even(and frankly never was until after Cold War), it's more of pax-Americana budget justification insanity.
Carrier's purpose is to bring air power to the fleet. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Where ever. CONUS, Australia, maybe a hot pit refuel in Guam. A B-52 using stand off missiles can probably make the round trip tanking over Alaska or Hawaii, certainly so after the reengining. B-21 is supposed to operate without “logistical support in theater”, which I read as tanking over AL or HI.

As for the purpose of a carrier, I think it changes over the course of a half century, which is the expected life span of a CVN (so far only Big E has been retired). Giving them as capable of an anti ship strike capability as possible seems like the best use of them right now to me.
 
For some context on the cost, the incremental unit cost of an F-22 in 2009 was $138 million, which would be about $191 million in 2023. Granted, the F-22 never truly entered full-rate production since the rate only ever topped out at 24 annually even after Milestone C, which was half of the planned rate after the 1990 MAR. That said, it’s understandable that the NGAD Penetrating Counter-Air with a unit cost of $250-300 million is giving the Air Force second thoughts, as that exceeds the F-22 unit cost even accounting for inflation.

Even so, barring any severe disruption from someone like Elon Musk, I think the crewed PCA fighter still stands a good chance of happening but there is clearly pressure to rein in costs to make it more affordable, potentially by offloading certain capabilities, sensors and part of the weapons payload perhaps, to CCAs.
 
Last edited:
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
For some context on the cost, the incremental unit cost of an F-22 in 2009 was $138 million, which would be about $191 million in 2023. Granted, the F-22 never truly entered full-rate production since the rate only ever topped out at 24 annually even after Milestone C, which was half of the planned rate after the 1990 MAR. That said, it’s understandable that the NGAD Penetrating Counter-Air with a unit cost of $250-300 million is giving the Air Force second thoughts, as that exceeds the F-22 unit cost even accounting for inflation.

Even so, barring any severe disruption from someone like Elon Musk, I think the crewed PCA fighter still stands a good chance of happening but there is clearly pressure to rein in costs to make it more affordable, potentially by offloading certain capabilities, sensors and part of the weapons payload perhaps, to CCAs.
Click to expand...
That still suggests that $200-250mil/plane isn't an unreasonable cost for NGAD. I suspect that the Navy would prefer something closer to 150-200mil for FAXX.
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
For some context on the cost, the incremental unit cost of an F-22 in 2009 was $138 million, which would be about $191 million in 2023. Granted, the F-22 never truly entered full-rate production since the rate only ever topped out at 24 annually even after Milestone C, which was half of the planned rate after the 1990 MAR. That said, it’s understandable that the NGAD Penetrating Counter-Air with a unit cost of $250-300 million is giving the Air Force second thoughts, as that exceeds the F-22 unit cost even accounting for inflation.

Even so, barring any severe disruption from someone like Elon Musk, I think the crewed PCA fighter still stands a good chance of happening but there is clearly pressure to rein in costs to make it more affordable, potentially by offloading certain capabilities, sensors and part of the weapons payload perhaps, to CCAs.
Click to expand...

its around $200 million in 2024 dollars but even then, given overall aircraft size i.e fuel capacity and engines make up the huge bulk of costs, it makes sense for NGAD to cost that much if we expect it to just be longer legged and carry similar payload capacity alone. I dont see how they can get away with an NGAD that is not within at least the $200-300 mill range unless they want a regression.
 
Sevrent said:
its around $200 million in 2024 dollars but even then, given overall aircraft size i.e fuel capacity and engines make up the huge bulk of costs, it makes sense for NGAD to cost that much if we expect it to just be longer legged and carry similar payload capacity alone. I dont see how they can get away with an NGAD that is not within at least the $200-300 mill range unless they want a regression.
Click to expand...
It is juste the price of 2 F-35 so it is better to stop F-35 at 900 unit and instead buy 300 NGAD and CCA , instead of buying 1700 F-35 who where obsolete in 2 decades.
 
That is exactly what I was thinking dark sidius, to buy 300 NGAD and CCA instead of the full 1700 F-35s that the USAF were planning on buying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom