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

Forest Green said:
F-22, F-35, F-15EX, F-18E/F, no F-16? NGAD by 2027?
Click to expand...
Just F-15EX, F-16, F-22, F-35 if I'm counting correctly. Ideally, NGAD would be less of a concept and more something actually being manufactured by that point, but probably not at this rate.

I'm not sure how much longer the A-10s will be around, but they don't count as fighters anyway.

A cheap fighter version of Boeing's T-7 is possible although I don't have any idea if the USAF would actually be interested in operating any.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
A cheap fighter version of Boeing's T-7 is possible although I don't have any idea if the USAF would actually be interested in operating any.
Click to expand...

Maybe not the USAF however I'm sure that there would be plenty of export customers in the market for a budget light fighter and/or light attack aircraft.
 
A thought just occurred to me, with the new incoming Fanta Fascist administration I wonder if they will be crazy enough to go "Screw it, let's restart production of the F-22"?
 
quellish said:
The Air Force has already made those decisions. It will have a much smaller fighter force of 4 (manned) types + possibly NGAD by about 2027.
Click to expand...

Last I heard the A-10s were still being drawn out to 2029; maybe my information is out of date.
 
bring_it_on said:
Kelly's presentation form that AFA event (2021) is worth watching/rewatching again.
Click to expand...

In this case of course "right sizing" the A-10 force means "zero sizing". The Air Force wants them gone by I believe 2027.

ACC has been vocal that they need 60 squadrons of aircraft (currently 57). Big Air Force has responded with "We can even better than that! How about 50?" Math has not been a core competency at the Air Force in a long time. They want to get to 50 or less by removing the 7 A-10 squadrons, which Congress has a number of valid issues with.

The Air Force wants to have a smaller fighter force (less than 50 squadrons) comprised of:
F-35
F-22
F-15EX ("replacing" F-15C, also replacing F-15E)
F-16
+ NGAD (eventually replacing F-22)

With a large portion of that being the F-16.
F-15EX production is limited to 24 a year (36 if Boeing gets a $40m handout to hire more managers), with a total buy of 104 (not the original 144, and USAF calls 104 an "increase").
 
NMaude said:
A thought just occurred to me, with the new incoming Fanta Fascist administration I wonder if they will be crazy enough to go "Screw it, let's restart production of the F-22"?
Click to expand...
It's not the same case as the F-15, which is a much simpler plane and built in much greater numbers for much longer. The tooling no longer exists and many subcontractors may have gone out of business or be unable to provide new parts. The chips and software would also be waaay out of date and out of production.
 
NMaude said:
A thought just occurred to me, with the new incoming Fanta Fascist administration I wonder if they will be crazy enough to go "Screw it, let's restart production of the F-22"?
Click to expand...

Why would anyone attempt to spend billions redesigning it and establish new parts streams rather than just completing the NGAD? And new build F-22 would have to be a brand new design from the wheels up anyway; maybe you could keep the engines as is more or less. But non of the subcontractor inputs exist anymore. Plus why would you want your avionics and range to be that limited?
 
NMaude said:
A thought just occurred to me, with the new incoming Fanta Fascist administration I wonder if they will be crazy enough to go "Screw it, let's restart production of the F-22"?
Click to expand...
All of the F-22 tooling is gone, there are time periods the Govt establishes for how long the prime stores and maintains the tooling after production ends. The USAF and USN really need to nail down their requirements for NGAD and F/A-XX and STREAMLINE the programs. Example: My current company, we were quoting subsystem components for the V280 and the amount of SDRLs was astounding to what was flowed from the Army down to Bell plus I am amazed the Army actually selected a platform and put a prime under contract since we know the Amy does not have a very good track record. 75% of the cost was bureaucracy, duplicated requirements and general non-meat fillers.

We (the US) apparently developed, built and flown an NGAD demonstrator within a 12-month period (I think there were 3 platforms, one from each prime but I could be wrong) and it seemed to validate some new tech and performance. I am also sure our intelligence agencies are working overtime regarding the two new Chinese aircraft including their new naval ships as well. The US has to re-think our procurement system for new hardware and systems, we use to be able to build excellent aircraft but that was many decades ago.
 
Rhinocrates said:
It's not the same case as the F-15, which is a much simpler plane and built in much greater numbers for much longer. The tooling no longer exists and many subcontractors may have gone out of business or be unable to provide new parts. The chips and software would also be waaay out of date and out of production.
Click to expand...
Taking that a step further the F-15E was still in production and the Saudi's had invested literally billions of dollars into modernization of the platform.
 
Might this set-back help the cause of a B-1R missile truck controlling loyal wingmen?

The missile truck flies above the ocean and controls them from below.
 
I still remember that 100 f-15E are going to stay, as judged by the nbr of EPAWSS kit attributed to the fleet (a number that is deemed to be slightly increased as we heard recently).
 
publiusr said:
Might this set-back help the cause of a B-1R missile truck controlling loyal wingmen?

The missile truck flies above the ocean and controls them from below.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not; even if such a platform had any viability (and it does not) the fleet is falling apart.

Everyone needs to get over the fact that once you stop building an aircraft, you cannot cost effectively build it again nor can you prolong its life indefinitely no matter how much you spend. Some aircraft like B-52 have uniquely high tolerances for high hours, but that is hardly normal.
 
TomcatViP said:
I still remember that 100 f-15E are going to stay, as judged by the nbr of EPAWSS kit attributed to the fleet (a number that is deemed to be slightly increased as we heard recently).
Click to expand...

I believe the newest/most modernized airframes remain.
 
Rhinocrates said:
The tooling no longer exists
Click to expand...

As far as I know the F-22 production tooling is in secure, controlled storage per congressional mandate.

Rhinocrates said:
many subcontractors may have gone out of business or be unable to provide new parts.
Click to expand...

Good points.

The reason I mentioned this idea is that the president-elect is NOT known for his intelligence plus his proposed cabinet is full of grossly unqualified people who have no business being in the government so I wouldn't put it past them to come up with such a hare-brained idea.
 
Josh_TN said:
Congress is the organization that would have to do that. And quite honestly that seems unlikely.
Click to expand...
Only if the US is the one starting WW3.

There's a couple countries that seem to be dancing on the edge of "launch the nukes" that may attack the US first. Or attack countries that the US is obligated by treaty to go to war to defend.



publiusr said:
Might this set-back help the cause of a B-1R missile truck controlling loyal wingmen?
Click to expand...
No.

B-1 fleet is out of fatigue life. All that loafing around at minimum sweep over Afghanistan wrecked the wings (and wing boxes, IIRC).


Josh_TN said:
Some aircraft like B-52 have uniquely high tolerances for high hours, but that is hardly normal.
Click to expand...
Helps that the B-52 was initially designed for an 80,000 hour airframe life.

That is not a typo, I mean eighty thousand hours. That is ten times the designed lifespan of F-15 or F-16, five times the designed lifespan of a Strike Eagle. Then in the 1960s and early 1970s, the BUFFs had to fly down in the weeds for their penetration missions, and that took a LOT of life out of them. USAF estimated that the fatigue lifespan is now down to about 37,000 hours, but at ~350 hours a year that puts the B-52 retirement into the 2060s. Where the currently serving BUFF airframes will be 100 years old!
 
quellish said:
In this case of course "right sizing" the A-10 force means "zero sizing". The Air Force wants them gone by I believe 2027.

ACC has been vocal that they need 60 squadrons of aircraft (currently 57). Big Air Force has responded with "We can even better than that! How about 50?" Math has not been a core competency at the Air Force in a long time. They want to get to 50 or less by removing the 7 A-10 squadrons, which Congress has a number of valid issues with.

The Air Force wants to have a smaller fighter force (less than 50 squadrons) comprised of:
F-35
F-22
F-15EX ("replacing" F-15C, also replacing F-15E)
F-16
+ NGAD (eventually replacing F-22)

With a large portion of that being the F-16.
F-15EX production is limited to 24 a year (36 if Boeing gets a $40m handout to hire more managers), with a total buy of 104 (not the original 144, and USAF calls 104 an "increase").
Click to expand...

I don't think that 104 F-15EX number will stand with this incoming administration unless the AF ups the number of F-35A's in its annual buys. My feeling is that we'll see a uptick in both given the stated position of incoming SecDef for buying 72 fighters a year and the fact that LM is in no place right now to deliver that many F-35A's to the USAF each year without a ramp. So a 48-24 or 60-12 F-35/F-15 split can be expected in FY26 and 27 which would restore some or most of those missing 40 F-15 EX's. The wildcard would be if the incoming administration starts counting CCA buys as 'fighter buys' in its future budgets but as far as I can tell most of those buys are still in RDT&E accounts for the next few years.
 
Hegseth did great at his hearing and put those idiots in their place. With his background, he should be a very good, common sense SECDEF to get our military back on track, we don't need a retired general, admiral or CEO. NGAD needs a good common sense approach among other programs.
 
Yeah we don't need someone with experience, expertise, understanding of programmatic issues, leadership experience, or any of that other crap. We need an unqualified talking head with a history of alcoholism who says "warfighter" and "warrior" a bunch. That will definitely fix procurement.
 
I don't think if I've been impressed by the work of any Defense Secretary in my lifetime but perhaps someone with more of an infantryman's perspective will be a good thing, perhaps not. Time will tell. I'm a bit more concerned with someone with the President's ear like Elon Musk talking far outside of his area of expertise to give bad ideas on national security matters (or anything really).
 
Hydroman said:
Hegseth did great at his hearing and put those idiots in their place. With his background, he should be a very good, common sense SECDEF to get our military back on track, we don't need a retired general, admiral or CEO. NGAD needs a good common sense approach among other programs.
Click to expand...
Sure May be better than somebody like Kendall.
 
Moose said:
Yeah we don't need someone with experience, expertise, understanding of programmatic issues, leadership experience, or any of that other crap. We need an unqualified talking head with a history of alcoholism who says "warfighter" and "warrior" a bunch. That will definitely fix procurement.
Click to expand...
Yeah, like we need another Dick Cheney, Lloyd Austin and Les Aspin types. Les Aspin was one of the main characters which screwed the B-2 over hence only 21 aircraft. We don't need anymore narcissists and conveying look at me, place me on a pedestal because I have a high-level govt position types, gimme a break.
 
Hydroman said:
Yeah, like we need another Dick Cheney, Lloyd Austin and Les Aspin types. Les Aspin was one of the main characters which screwed the B-2 over hence only 21 aircraft. We don't need anymore narcissists and conveying look at me, place me on a pedestal because I have a high-level govt position types, gimme a break.
Click to expand...
You mean you don't want another Four-star who immediately went to sit on the board for Raytheon to collect millions to then be in charge of procurement? Pretty sure RTX money is a requirement to be considered for SecDef!
 
Hydroman said:
Hegseth did great at his hearing and put those idiots in their place. With his background, he should be a very good, common sense SECDEF to get our military back on track, we don't need a retired general, admiral or CEO. NGAD needs a good common sense approach among other programs.
Click to expand...
We'll agree to disagree then. The guy seems like a flaming idiot to me. Now, back on topic.

One of the problems they're having with NGAD is who owns it. I don't know if that's been resolved. We know that's one of the reasons NG dropped out. I also understand that the government let LM have too much control over the F-35. But it seems their backlash has been a bit overboard, in that regard. Does anyone know if the ownership issue has been resolved?
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I don't think if I've been impressed by the work of any Defense Secretary in my lifetime but perhaps someone with more of an infantryman's perspective will be a good thing, perhaps not. Time will tell. I'm a bit more concerned with someone with the President's ear like Elon Musk talking far outside of his area of expertise to give bad ideas on national security matters (or anything really).
Click to expand...
(Musk, after taking a giant dose of ketamine)

“What of we equipped all the guns with AI that shouted ‘Le Epic Bacon’ every time a soldier pulled the trigger?”
 
Moose said:
Yeah we don't need someone with experience, expertise, understanding of programmatic issues, leadership experience, or any of that other crap. We need an unqualified talking head with a history of alcoholism who says "warfighter" and "warrior" a bunch. That will definitely fix procurement.
Click to expand...

#OnlyTheBestPeople :rolleyes:
 
www.airandspaceforces.com

Anduril Picks Ohio Site for ‘Arsenal’ Plant to Build CCAs and More

Anduril Industries will establish its "Arsenal" factory near Columbus, Ohio, planning to bring some 4,000 jobs to the area.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

www.anduril.com

Anduril Building Arsenal-1 Hyperscale Manufacturing Facility in Ohio

Anduril, a leader in autonomous systems and weapons manufacturing, today announced it has selected Columbus, Ohio as the location of Arsenal-1, its first hyperscale manufacturing facility.
www.anduril.com www.anduril.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1879847666798227655
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1879847666798227655
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

Anduril Picks Ohio Site for ‘Arsenal’ Plant to Build CCAs and More

Anduril Industries will establish its "Arsenal" factory near Columbus, Ohio, planning to bring some 4,000 jobs to the area.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

www.anduril.com

Anduril Building Arsenal-1 Hyperscale Manufacturing Facility in Ohio

Anduril, a leader in autonomous systems and weapons manufacturing, today announced it has selected Columbus, Ohio as the location of Arsenal-1, its first hyperscale manufacturing facility.
www.anduril.com www.anduril.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1879847666798227655
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1879847666798227655
Click to expand...


Good video.

View: https://youtu.be/T72DfPEBn0A?si=1QI1zLli-XVnc0xY
 
Still nothing in news about NGAD with the new administration coming....?. It is not like there is a J-36 starting flying....
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom