dark sidius
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 1 August 2008
- Messages
- 1,171
- Reaction score
- 1,035
They must afford it if USAF don't want to be the second Air Force behind China for the 21 century and more.The bad news is they admit they can't afford it.
They must afford it if USAF don't want to be the second Air Force behind China for the 21 century and more.The bad news is they admit they can't afford it.
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.They must afford it if USAF don't want to be the second Air Force behind China for the 21 century and more.
They must afford it if USAF don't want to be the second Air Force behind China for the 21 century and more.
Not so dire, and China has problems of its own.
shooting down bombers before they drop the cruise missiles.Ugh, then what fighters are even for?
They must afford it if USAF don't want to be the second Air Force behind China for the 21 century and more.
That's not very likely in regards to the PRC as it is dealing with intractable demographic and economic issues that are getting worse.
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.
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.The Air Force has been trying to retire F-22s and invest the “savings” directly into the NGAD program. Congress has been opposed.
That's idealistic, but often won't happen.shooting down bombers before they drop the cruise missiles.
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.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.
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.JSF was touted as cheaper to operate than F-16's.
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-outI 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.
“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.
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.
That's idealistic, but often won't happen.
Especially when there's no bomber in the first place.
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.
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.
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,
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.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
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.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
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Our traditional conception of what things like air superiority means have changed
You are correct -- I got my wires crossed.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.
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.
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.
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 ?I think your assumption that this is not an option is misplaced. Ending manned NGAD is absolutely something that might happe
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.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.
As of now it becomes unlikely.I think your assumption that this is not an option is misplaced. Ending manned NGAD is absolutely something that might happen.
With the new administration it could change..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.
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.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.
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 ?
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.
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.
Bombers flying from where?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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.