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

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

According to Kendall, the NGAD PCA was coming in at about three times the cost of the F-35A. This is before the program enters EMD so is likely to change once the aircraft is developed and put into rate production. The cost of the F-35 and the risk associated with its unit cost estimate is significantly less. That said, if the AF were to zero out F-35A procurement after buying say 900 aircraft then it would be in a position to move procurement dollars to NGAD sometime in the 2031-2033 timeframe and afford about 15 PCA's for the amount of money it was hoping to spend on about 45 F-35As each year. The AF would have to commit to being a lot smaller because a $300 MM fighter would be the only fighter it would be buying at that point at sub squadron a year rates.

TBH, I don't see the AF being very comfortable moving to NGAD in a world it has to basically stop buying the F-35 / F-15EX etc just in order to be able to buy a dozen a change a year. If CCA's were 5-10 years ahead of where the program is now then that might be a different conversation. I expect the decision to hinge on the incoming administration being comfortable carrying the NGAD bill on top of the F-35 and B-21 procurement plans. At least through the mid to late 2030s.
 
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...

What do you believe the total cost situation will look like when both the manned & unmanned components are factored in together? I wonder how it would compare to the cost per capability we have now.

I'm sure the added pressure of requiring hardware to be domestically sourced is not helping the cost situation.
 
In_A_Dream said:
What do you believe the total cost situation will look like when both the manned & unmanned components are factored in together? I wonder how it would compare to the cost per capability we have now.

I'm sure the added pressure of requiring hardware to be domestically sourced is not helping the cost situation.
Click to expand...
Probably better. If I can get 50 CCA even in a limited class like Valkyrie and 2 F-35's for two uberNGAD, then it's a pretty easy choice. And a Valkyrie is much cheaper than that (~$5, less with an extended run). Especially when you look at development costs and setting up supply chains for a boutique run of sixth generation fighter.
$250m buys a lot of hardware. Or one current NGAD (assuming it comes in on budget).

The goal has to be mission oriented. We want to be able to accomplish policy goals, not have the shiniest toys. If we can't achieve our goals with a limited number of shiniest toys, then it makes no sense to commit to it instead of attempting to accomplish our goals elsewise.

Rock hard reality is that we may even ultimately need to readjust our policy goals, like so many counties before us (UK, France, Germany, etc).

I think NGAD is awesome. I'd love to buy several thousand, but we are headed towards austerity budgets and facing recap problems. It will probably become the TSR2, Arrow of the new age, but reality is coming to the forefront
 
Last edited:
Airbus A340 said:
Look at carrier tactics through history. Carriers have always, except in a few periods used the same tactics. EMCON, dart in, launch a strike and get out of range before the enemy can respond. Carriers cannot take a punch from a land base. The only exception is the USN in mid '-43 through the end of the war and later with Aegis. A fighter can't do anything to protect a carrier from a large strike from a peer competitor. Against failed states, the fighters are not needed. No reason to equip carriers with air dominance aircraft. Especially if the carrier killers of choice are torpedoes and ballistic missiles.
Click to expand...
I had meant to respond to your point earlier but only recently got around to it. I fully understand that desire of carrier strategy, but in the missile age there is still a huge risk you'll get caught in a spot where the enemy can try to hit you with some of their AShMs arsenal. It's true some ballistic missile type threats (DF-21) have range and trajectories that makes fighter of little use. But those are limited in number and in-theory you could disrupt the targeting chain enough to limit their utility. A great deal of the threat is still in the form of aircraft-launched subsonic and supersonic AShMs. It's always best to shoot down the aircraft carrying them before they launch. The PLAAF and PLAN will be very much seeking to blind the USN as much as possible by shooting down the E-2Ds, likely trying to use fighters like the J-20 and J-35 to get close enough for a probable kill.

Against both threats you'd really want a fighter with an excellent air-to-air capability, going beyond just its avionics. And there is no reason such a fighter couldn't have an excellent strike capability in its own regard. Consider some of the proposed advanced F-14 Tomcat variants. Grumman very much seemed to believe they could turn that fighter into something that could replace the "medium attack" component of the carrier airwing then represented by the A-6 Intruder.
 
_Del_ said:
Probably better. If I can get 50 CCA even in a limited class like Valkyrie and 2 F-35's for two uberNGAD, then it's a pretty easy choice. And a Valkyrie is much cheaper than that (~$5, less with an extended run). Especially when you look at development costs and setting up supply chains for a boutique run of sixth generation fighter.
$250m buys a lot of hardware. Or one current NGAD (assuming it comes in on budget).

The goal has to be mission oriented. We want to be able to accomplish policy goals, not have the shiniest toys. If we can't achieve our goals with a limited number of shiniest toys, then it makes no sense to commit to it instead of attempting to accomplish our goals elsewise.

Rock hard reality is that we may even ultimately need to readjust our policy goals, like so many counties before us (UK, France, Germany, etc).

I think NGAD is awesome. I'd love to buy several thousand, but we are headed towards austerity budgets and facing recap problems. It will probably become the TSR2, Arrow of the new age, but reality is coming to the forefront
Click to expand...
50 CCA shot down in one wave, by the fleet of J-20 and J-35 and surely in a decade by a Chinese NGAD, or long range SAM missile because CCA miss of speed , maneuvrability and stealth for sure a good invest. Or we must invest on a high power laser able to fry everything flying and we install it in the B-21 payload bay , it could be the response.
 
_Del_ said:
Probably better. If I can get 50 CCA even in a limited class like Valkyrie and 2 F-35's for two uberNGAD, then it's a pretty easy choice. And a Valkyrie is much cheaper than that (~$5, less with an extended run). Especially when you look at development costs and setting up supply chains for a boutique run of sixth generation fighter.
$250m buys a lot of hardware. Or one current NGAD (assuming it comes in on budget).
Click to expand...
We know the value of manned fighters, whether 4th Gen or 5th Gen. We do not know the value or effectiveness of CCAs. All we have to go on is a vision and marketing. There is very little hard information regarding performance, payload, cost, or a CONOPS other than vague ideas regarding manned-unmanned teaming.

Kratos says the they could have produced the XQ-58 for $4 mil, which the company says could have been lowered to $2 million with volume production. Why didn't a service take them up on their offer?

Getting smaller companies involved in producing CCAs a good thing. They may be able to iterate faster and manufacture at a lower cost than the major primes. But we don't know that yet. Isn't there a price point where it doesn't make sense to proceed with CCAs as they are currently envisioned?

Frank Kendall has thrown out a $20-30 million price tag for Increment 1. JJ Gertler recently mentioned CCAs as being half the price of an F-35 - $40 million. It might be worth it if it is a LO platform that could carry 4 MRMs (Medium Range Missile) internally with passive sensors, and performance similar to a fighter. But if its payload is only 2 MRMs? You can buy 2 CCAs with passive sensors that carry 4 MRMs or you can buy 1 F-35 that can carry 6 MRMs as well as other payload mixes and have a fighter with long range active and passive sensors? Is that additional CCA really going to be able to cover more airspace?

A few months ago the Mitchell Institute ran a wargame to help determine a notional mix for CCAs. For penetrating counter air they arrived at the following requirements: LO, range greater than 650 nm, passive sensors, 2 AAMs, cost - $2-15 million. This notional aircraft has a greater resemblance to LongShot or the XQ-58 than the Increment 1 CCAs.

https://mitchellaerospacepower.org/...vecombat-aircraft-for-disruptive-air-warfare/
 
Last edited:
B2Blain said:
That ship has possibly sailed. Here are some of the challenges to launching short ranged CCAs like the XQ-58 within the first island chain.

You are going to lose a lot of them. How big is your stockpile day one? Similarly, how quickly can they be resupplied - not only the aircraft themselves but fuel and munitions. If you cannot continually generate mass then you undermine the rationale of affordable mass.

How difficult will it be to operate disaggregated Air Force CCAs squadrons? If the strategy to counter China is based on affordable mass how do operate hundreds of CCAs from cities, parks, highways, farms, etc? How do you effect command and control with small units that must synchronize the launching of CCAs with the arrival of manned aircraft?

A better option might be expendable CCAs with air refuelable CCAs with the range and performance of current manned fighters.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree if only for my own confirmation bias. Kratos in its industrious history has always been a target drone company. Anduril was started from the ground up to provide weapons. I think the procurement establishment sticks to coloring within the lines, and goes to GA-ASI/NOC/LM/whatever. If Kratos was the next big player, the stock would be at multiples like Palantir. I doubt there are any major, lifechanging big money contracts going to Kratos to arm the Marine Corps anytime soon. In the least the stock would rise dramatically from insider trading alone.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Any headline that ends in a question, the answer is automatically "NO".

Assuming that the range requirement of "more range than the F-35" remains in place, that means a larger airframe, and a larger airframe is automatically more expensive.
Click to expand...

Or a higher fuel fraction, or more efficient engines.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Larger airframe equals higher fuel fraction, and more efficient engines would have to be developed.

Both mean more expensive planes.
Click to expand...

NGAP is a program developing a more efficient engine for NGAD and other programs. It also delivers an absurd amount of cooling and electrical power.

High fuel fraction is high fuel fraction. Small aircraft can have high fuel fractions. Large aircraft can have low fuel fractions.

For example, AMBER had a very high fuel fraction.

What makes aircraft expensive is the cost of operating them over their lifetime.
 
It could have been worst: a reverse engineered NGAD flying in China...

Anyhow, I think the tempo is important. By flying them publicly days before the next administration takes office, it is an other push forward for F-35 cancelation (allegedly the 35 being decades old tech).
Any good American will however decipher the message, no matter what their TikTok level are: if Russia and China are both trying to push you in a direction...
 
Don't laugh too much yet, given how 'leaky' the US defence industry seems to have been over the last few years. Just how much of what they have is NGAD or related?
 
Foo Fighter said:
Don't laugh too much yet, given how 'leaky' the US defence industry seems to have been over the last few years. Just how much of what they have is NGAD or related?
Click to expand...

I'd advise against underestimating China though. There are a lot of people and a lot of educated engineers now... best not to fall into stereotypes.
 
No stereotype required, research and development is so much easier when someone else pays for at least half of it.......

NB, the Rolls Royce engines sent to Russia by Churchill et al.
 
Forest Green said:

The Debrief: Our Best Guess About Skunk Works’ Biggest Secret | Aviation Week Network

A Lockheed Martin classified contract that involves a “highly complex design and systems integration” project has fallen $45 million deeper into red ink.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1872649383847829940
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1872649383847829940

https://twitter.com/x/status/1872620617255764149
Click to expand...
We want to see concrete instead of rumors.
 
TomcatViP said:
It could have been worst: a reverse engineered NGAD flying in China...

Anyhow, I think the tempo is important. By flying them publicly days before the next administration takes office, it is an other push forward for F-35 cancelation (allegedly the 35 being decades old tech).
Any good American will however decipher the message, no matter what their TikTok level are: if Russia and China are both trying to push you in a direction...
Click to expand...

I am not quite sure what the message is, and I think it would be even harder to discern how it might be received, but the PRC regularly makes a show of force when there is a change of administration. The timing is definitely not accidental.
 
TomcatViP said:
It could have been worst: a reverse engineered NGAD flying in China...

Anyhow, I think the tempo is important. By flying them publicly days before the next administration takes office, it is an other push forward for F-35 cancelation (allegedly the 35 being decades old tech).
Any good American will however decipher the message, no matter what their TikTok level are: if Russia and China are both trying to push you in a direction...
Click to expand...
If they have time machine, then it's truly hopeless.
Time is on China's side, comrade.
1000011079.jpg

But with Chinese next gen effort, the message is clear.
Soviet union didn't claim anything special with mig-25, it simply shown that it's airpower isn't done after 1967.
Everything else was American own overthinking, which USSR simply let go - for fun purposes.

China, on the other hand, very obviously means it. It's a very direct, Dreadnought-like, challenge.
 
Last edited:
There may not be an answer to this question but typically how far is a program along to be able to “guesstimate or more accurately estimate” an actual per unit cost?

From a probably limited analogy I can guesstimate the cost of finishing my basement but estimate after I’ve done a lot of actual pricing work on electrical, plumbing, framing, etc.

Does the current estimate lend itself to a project further along then we know? Or not relevant to making that determination?
 
Cost estimates require attempting to predict development costs and timelines as well as total production run, etc, even if you actions the program goals and requirements. I think any number anyone came up would be meaningless. We can probably generalize that larger aircraft or more expensive and that more engines increase costs as well.

EDIT: thought I was responding to the PRC 6th Gen thread
 
Last edited:
bobbymike said:
There may not be an answer to this question but typically how far is a program along to be able to “guesstimate or more accurately estimate” an actual per unit cost?
Click to expand...
You'll have a good idea from way before EMD in the concept design phase and also the spread of costs over 10, 50, 90 % probability distribution. But this is dependent on program assumptions which can change during the program. e.g. if the max production rate changes then the unit costs are also going to change from the initial estimate - but you can simply change the assumptions to get out a new estimate.

From the 10, 50, 90 spread then you'll likely end up with a -25% to +50% spread on unit costs, but this uncertainty will shrink during the course of the program.

But you still may end up being in the 99% and seeing horrific cost growth like JWST etc.

The numbers people will be throwing around (like £300m) are likely 50% or median estimates

I think any number anyone came up would be meaningless
Click to expand...
As above, anyone can just pluck any number, but there is significant skill and experience in actually producing a meaningful number. But going through and doing this generally creates a lot of value in understanding the program and trade offs in program or technology.
 
Last edited:
Worth remembering that for the LRS-B, the USAF used multiple cost-estimates during evaluation including IIRC an ICE done by CAPE. They used the highest cost estimate for their baseline cost/budget assumptions and appear to be beating it in early LRIP lots.
 
bring_it_on said:
Worth remembering that for the LRS-B, the USAF used multiple cost-estimates during evaluation including IIRC an ICE done by CAPE. They used the highest cost estimate for their baseline cost/budget assumptions and appear to be beating it in early LRIP lots.
Click to expand...

CAPE has been engaged extensively on NGAD and F/A-XX.
- Various analysis of alternatives
- Study on wether "Digital Century Series" could work and would be worthwhile
- IIRC study on CCA
 
red admiral said:
As above, anyone can just pluck any number, but there is significant skill and experience in actually producing a meaningful number.
Click to expand...
NGAD as a program is fairly far along. Seems the price of everything in a large program is likely to creep north, but not given. The $300m figure, as you note, is for a given set of circumstances. A certain number of airframes across a set amount of time. And probably optimistic regarding development hiccups.
 
_Del_ said:
NGAD as a program is fairly far along. Seems the price of everything in a large program is likely to creep north, but not given. The $300m figure, as you note, is for a given set of circumstances. A certain number of airframes across a set amount of time. And probably optimistic regarding development hiccups.
Click to expand...

There is a maturity floor set for programs of this scale to enter EMD. So barring approved last minute changes or programatic disruption most large EMD programs should allow a high fidelity cost estimate to be performed. IIRC, on the B-21, requirement stability was paramount and changes had to be approved by the most senior AF/DOD officials.

On NGAD, there was this talk about IG launching a review to determine whether NGAD was mature for the type of milestone transition they were envisioning this summer. But AFAIK, that review never really occured. Instead we saw a SecAF triggered review by the five person blue ribbon committee. Depending on what course the AF decides to pursue, that IG review could resurface.

breakingdefense.com

False start? DoD IG 'terminated' NGAD next-gen fighter review, but may revisit down the road - Breaking Defense

The review was to examine whether the Air Force was moving too fast in pushing the plane into the EMD phase, but there was no EMD phase after all.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
It's funny. China shows a new strike aircraft that we knew was going to fly soon and everyone starts panicking because they were the ones who weren't paying attention. Although, I did enjoy laughing at all of the fanbois posts on Twitter talking about how it was a hypersonic super duper multi thrust vectored mega fighter that the world could never conceive of.

Anyway, NGAD need not be a large aircraft due to the increased efficiency of the new engines. People just like to assume it will be a large aircraft because the first three stream engines developed were for the F-35 and they are just using two of those to base their guess, and they are guesses, of the fighter's size on. The fuel efficiency of the three stream engine paired with the maneuvering requirement and the required internal load of the manned piece of the NGAD system will determine it's size and none of us here know what that is. However, I wouldn't expect it to be much larger than an F-22, unless it is required to carry a much larger internal payload. IIRC, the AIM-260 is supposed to fit within the AMRAAM's foot print, so I wouldn't expect more than six of those and two AIM-9X's. Is Cuda still a thing? But we have yet to hear what the review decided in terms of requirements and we probably won't have an idea of what those are until the first one rolls out.

What I want to know about is the F/A-XX, since down select for it will be happening relatively soon. I know it's in 2025 but has anyone heard which quarter within which that will occur?
 
Sundog said:
What I want to know about is the F/A-XX, since down select for it will be happening relatively soon. I know it's in 2025 but has anyone heard which quarter within which that will occur?
Click to expand...
Based on this,
According to Donnelly, the F/A-XX program is on track for the Milestone B decision to move the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase by the end of fiscal year 2025.
Click to expand...
theaviationist.com

U.S. Navy to Develop F/A-XX Next-Generation Fighter Independently of Air Force NGAD

The Navy’s decision could shield the F/A-XX program from the impacts of the Air Force’s NGAD review, especially as the source selection process is
theaviationist.com theaviationist.com

but money is still short,
In the Navy’s case, the 2025 budget for the new aircraft suffered a cut of 67%, with the $10.3 billion requested between 2025 and 2028 reduced to just $3.3 billion. The senate voted to restore $450 million to the budget but, even if approved, there would still a cut of 59% compared with last year’s budget.
Click to expand...
same link as above.

At this point even if a decision is made it looks like there won't be a lot of funding available to progress forward. The USN is talking about "sometime in the 2030s" now for F/A-XX so it is also murky as to when it will actually arrive and the funding profile doesn't look great for it to be early 2030s.
 
Ozair said:
Based on this,

theaviationist.com

U.S. Navy to Develop F/A-XX Next-Generation Fighter Independently of Air Force NGAD

The Navy’s decision could shield the F/A-XX program from the impacts of the Air Force’s NGAD review, especially as the source selection process is
theaviationist.com theaviationist.com

but money is still short,

same link as above.

At this point even if a decision is made it looks like there won't be a lot of funding available to progress forward. The USN is talking about "sometime in the 2030s" now for F/A-XX so it is also murky as to when it will actually arrive and the funding profile doesn't look great for it to be early 2030s.
Click to expand...
There is a hurry now , there is no time to wait Chinese 6th gen are flying.
 
Avimimus said:
I'd advise against underestimating China though. There are a lot of people and a lot of educated engineers now... best not to fall into stereotypes.
Click to expand...
China's issue is the lack of a Quality Assurance/Quality Control culture. They figure that out, the US is fucked.



Sundog said:
Anyway, NGAD need not be a large aircraft due to the increased efficiency of the new engines. People just like to assume it will be a large aircraft because the first three stream engines developed were for the F-35 and they are just using two of those to base their guess, and they are guesses, of the fighter's size on. The fuel efficiency of the three stream engine paired with the maneuvering requirement and the required internal load of the manned piece of the NGAD system will determine it's size and none of us here know what that is. However, I wouldn't expect it to be much larger than an F-22, unless it is required to carry a much larger internal payload. IIRC, the AIM-260 is supposed to fit within the AMRAAM's foot print, so I wouldn't expect more than six of those and two AIM-9X's. Is Cuda still a thing? But we have yet to hear what the review decided in terms of requirements and we probably won't have an idea of what those are until the first one rolls out.
Click to expand...
Assuming that those 3-stream engines are 25% more fuel efficient than F119s, that still won't get an F22 sized aircraft to a 3000nmi combat range/1000-1200nmi combat radius.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Assuming that those 3-stream engines are 25% more fuel efficient than F119s, that still won't get an F22 sized aircraft to a 3000nmi combat range/1000-1200nmi combat radius.
Click to expand...
F-22 is just designed with such range.
More could be done just by specifying more and going for a different design.

Like, Su-57 (f-22 sized aircraft) hits all those metrics on 117 engines, which aren't exactly cutting edge.

Scott Kenny said:
China's issue is the lack of a Quality Assurance/Quality Control culture. They figure that out, the US is fucked.
Click to expand...
Everywhere (Japan, Korea, ROC, PRC) this was just a function of going up market, and subsequent laborious job to remove all mistakes.

US may give a distorted picture(protected market), but there's reason premium Chinese gadgets up to cars take over rest of the world.
They don't break any more than best competition anymore.
And combat planes are turning into another gadgets, fast.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom