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

[Josh_TN]

Seems to me if engine development is a go, what is likely the most expensive/high risk piece of manned NGAD is already being paid for?

 

[Forest Green]

Billions For Next Generation Fighter Jet Engines Greenlit By Air Force

The USAF just accelerated funding for advanced engine work primarily for its sixth-generation tactical jet, the future of which is now uncertain.

www.twz.com

 

[Ozair]

Seems to me if engine development is a go, what is likely the most expensive/high risk piece of manned NGAD is already being paid for?

Probably not completely paid for. Per the article

This work will encompass design, analysis, rig testing, prototype engine construction and testing, and system integration

It looks like there is no flight test involved so there will still be some effort required once a platform has been selected.

Question is whether manned NGAD will have a single engine manufacturer or retain both for competition.

 

[B2Blain]

MQ-25 is a fairly large group 5 UAS built to support a requirement that would otherwise be met with a tactical fighter costing a lot more to own and operate, not to mention taking away from the overall combat power of the air wing. Given the fact that its offloading an amount of fuel equivalent to/greater than the internal fuel capacity of a Super Hornet at nearly 1,000 km from the aircraft carrier, the APUC of roughly $130 MM (2025 $) seems logical given the sub 100 aircraft production run. The requirements and the ability to take over a critical mission performed by a manned a/c kind of sealed the deal as far as procurement cost was concerned (it was always likely to cost similar - built around similar requirements)..so bulk of the savings will be in O&S. MQ-25 will be needed with or without adaptive engines so its really not an either or trade. It just needs to work!

You are paying $150 million for a refueling drone. What I quibble with is not being able to find a few billion according to Frank Kendall to finish development of the XA100. I say XA100 because it was thought to be the more advanced in terms of development and it would have enabled the JPO to compete engine buys which resulted in benefits in terms of performance, reliability, and cost during the 80 and 90s. It makes little sense to compete an engine buy on a small production run like the F-22 and likely NGAD, but it is a no brainer with a production run of over 1,000. I guess DEI and climate change were higher priorities in the DoD.

What is not settled with the MQ-25 is he size of the force. There is a real need to offload the AAR requirement to support cyclic ops from the Super Hornet to a dedicated platform. What is not undetermined is how many will be required for each carrier wing. There is a Hudson study by Bryan Clark that proposes a squadron of 15. Squadron size could be as little as 4 or 6. Whatever the case, the carrier wing in the Pacific will be able to strike at long distances. Increasing the range of the F-35 will reduce the need for AAR for both the Navy and Air Force.

 

[Josh_TN]

Adaptive engines do not necessarily increase range at subsonic speeds.

 

[Moose]

Adaptive engines do not necessarily increase range at subsonic speeds.

They increase the effective bypass ratio, increasing efficiency when the "third stream" is in use.

 

[Ozair]

What is not settled with the MQ-25 is he size of the force. There is a real need to offload the AAR requirement to support cyclic ops from the Super Hornet to a dedicated platform. What is not undetermined is how many will be required for each carrier wing. There is a Hudson study by Bryan Clark that proposes a squadron of 15. Squadron size could be as little as 4 or 6. Whatever the case, the carrier wing in the Pacific will be able to strike at long distances. Increasing the range of the F-35 will reduce the need for AAR for both the Navy and Air Force.

I think the USN has not settled it because they don't yet understand the implications of operating the MQ-25 on the boat. The projected 2030 Carrier Air Wing was here,

which includes 5-8 MQ-25 from 2021 and here

Interesting that in 2021 the USN, per the above TWZ article, was still considering whether the F/A-XX would be manned or not but was leaning towards manned.

This link lists the now outdated study on what the airwing of 2040 was supposed to look like including full F/A-XX, life extended F/A-18E/F and a mix wit increased unmanned aircraft.

Note MQ-25 features with double the expected number and F/A-XX is only a single squadron that is complemented by strike focused UCAV. In tat context perhaps an adaptive engined F-35C isn't necessary if additional refuelling assets will be available.

 

[bring_it_on]

Considering the adoption of the F35C has been slow going, wonder if the USN will opt to skip the widespread adoption of the plane altogether.

The US Navy intended to buy 369 F-35C's for itself and the Marines. It is on a path to field about 2/3 of that by 2030. Given the service is no longer buying the F-18 E/F, it is quite likely that it ends up buying anywhere from 80-90% of that planned 369 a/c inventory even if the Navy knocks it out of the park with F/A-XX development.

You are paying $150 million for a refueling drone. What I quibble with is not being able to find a few billion according to Frank Kendall to finish development of the XA100. I say XA100 because it was thought to be the more advanced in terms of development and it would have enabled the JPO to compete engine buys which resulted in benefits in terms of performance, reliability, and cost during the 80 and 90s. It makes little sense to compete an engine buy on a small production run like the F-22 and likely NGAD, but it is a no brainer with a production run of over 1,000. I guess DEI and climate change were higher priorities in the DoD.

The decision to not pursue the adaptive engine upgrade on the F-35 was because the Air Force backed off from its share of funding which kind of killed the business case since it has 3 times the Navy's planned inventory. The Navy needs MQ-25 to work. It frees up expensive fighters to do fighter missions and is the gateway to bring in semi-autonomous - autonomous UAS into the carrier air wing. Sacrificing the MQ-25 to pay the Air Force's share of XA-100/101 or adaptive engines for FA-XX...is not really helping the carrier air wing plan ahead for future capability. F/A-XX is going to max out RDT&E funds the Navy can realistically commit to it....its just that the Navy doesn't have the sort of cash to throw on it like the AF can on its premier fighter. Same for procurement. The Navy needs to buy 300-500 F/A-XX's unless they achieve a breakthrough in unmanned autonomous carrier based systems. That limits how much capability it can pack in FA-XX so the Navy must be very careful in where it places its bets.

 

[jsport]

I think the USN has not settled it because they don't yet understand the implications of operating the MQ-25 on the boat. The projected 2030 Carrier Air Wing was here,

which includes 5-8 MQ-25 from 2021 and here

Interesting that in 2021 the USN, per the above TWZ article, was still considering whether the F/A-XX would be manned or not but was leaning towards manned.

This link lists the now outdated study on what the airwing of 2040 was supposed to look like including full F/A-XX, life extended F/A-18E/F and a mix wit increased unmanned aircraft.

Note MQ-25 features with double the expected number and F/A-XX is only a single squadron that is complemented by strike focused UCAV. In tat context perhaps an adaptive engined F-35C isn't necessary if additional refuelling assets will be available.

wow, thank you for sharing. Unmanned ASW didnt see that till now..Seems in the end a FA-XX would be a " low density" asset ie not many. It is worth the development a new plane rather something F-35 based?

 

[Forest Green]

Air Force triples funding for prototype sixth-gen fighter engine

The future of the NGAD sixth-generation fighter remains unclear, but billions in extra funding would keep work progressing on its prototype engine.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Ozair]

wow, thank you for sharing. Unmanned ASW didnt see that till now..

Not sure how advanced it is or even if it is being worked on...?

Seems in the end a FA-XX would be a " low density" asset ie not many. It is worth the development a new plane rather something F-35 based?

Agree, unless they broach 250 jets it may not be worth the investment.

 

[dark sidius]

Air Force triples funding for prototype sixth-gen fighter engine

The future of the NGAD sixth-generation fighter remains unclear, but billions in extra funding would keep work progressing on its prototype engine.

www.defensenews.com

I don't see why invest in new engine if they don't know for the futur of the NGAD fighter?

 

[bring_it_on]

Agree, unless they broach 250 jets it may not be worth the investment.

It will end up being a larger program than that if the Navy meets its design and program goals. At some point in the early to mid 2030s (once F/A-XX exits low rate production), the Navy would be looking to transition from buying F-35C's to buying F/A-XX so it will be the only game in town with hundreds of Super Hornets needing replacement between then and the early 2040s. Some of the ways this won't happen...

* Navy does not secure funding to pursue F/A-XX as originally intended
* Navy does not execute well on the program severely limiting it or leading to outright cancellation
* Navy gold plates the requirements and is unable to afford to produce it at reasonable annual rates or buy a substantial inventory
* There's a breakthrough in autonomous unmanned aircraft and/or other external pressures (budgets, CONOPS etc) which forces the Navy to substantially alter its manned / unmanned fleet mix
* The Navy dramatically reduces its future carrier fleet and air wings

I think the Navy is likely to pursue a 5+ generation concept for F/A-XX. Some elements of next generation technologies mixed in with large amounts relatively proven technology baseline that's already flying on the F/A-18E/F or F-35C. The hope here being to field something that is better than the F-35C in some ways (range, payload, Space/weight/power & thermals perhaps) while being similar in other (stealth and avionics perhaps).

This approach they would hope keeps unit cost to within reasonable levels (for a post 2030 fighter) and enables them to replace at least 1/2 to 2/3 of the Rhino fleet (remaining going the unmanned way) over time without breaking the bank. This is not too different from what its also doing on the DDG (X) effort where its looking to take the current state of the art in mission systems and field it on a larger, more optimized hull with plenty of power and thermal margin for future growth. A similar path makes sense on F/A-XX. While one could say that an F-35C with AETP could meet some of that demand for increased mission system performance, power and thermals it would still be approaching maxing out the potential of the platform. A clean sheet, larger F/A-XX could start at a baseline that is similar to or better than what ann F-35C with AETP could deliver in terms of power, cooling and mission system perofrmance with plenty of margin for future growth. That, along with greater range and larger payload would justify a $10-$15 Bn RDT&E expense vs spending $2-3 Bn to re-engine the F-35C.

 

[jsport]

Not sure how advanced it is or even if it is being worked on...?


Agree, unless they broach 250 jets it may not be worth the investment.

Not to add insult to injury. but no supercruise then of no use inthe Pacific, imho.

 

[Josh_TN]

Not to add insult to injury. but no supercruise then of no use inthe Pacific, imho.

Presumably the B-21 is similarly useless?

 

[dark sidius]

Presumably the B-21 is similarly useless?

B-21 is a bomber , the fighter missions are different and need more speed.

 

[bring_it_on]

B-21 is a bomber , the fighter missions are different and need more speed.

F/A-XX is a 'strike fighter'. Strike fighters have a range of performance attributes they are optimized around. Efficient supersonic cruise without reheat is cool but also a very expensive attribute to chase in terms of impact on cost and other attributes. To say, that a strike fighter that can't supercruise is of no use to the Navy in the Pacific is quite a bold statement especially since F/A-XX alternatives probably look something like an unmanned subsonic flying wing and more F-35C's which both won't supercruise or in the case of the UCAV even fly supersonic.

I think the Navy would be quite comfortable trading away supercruise and supersonic perf (high Mach flight) in general for more range and payload on F/A-XX. Going for all three, while still requiring at least F35 level LO would lead to a very expensive aircraft and thus be totally unaffordable as a Rhino replacement. If the Navy had high confidence or was more deeply invested in autonomous / semi-autonomous unmanned strike systems (like if it had X-47 /NUCAS in production) one could make a case for a higher performing more expensive F-XX to be purchased in smaller quantities. But that's not the case. USN appears to be taking a crawl - walk - run approach with unmanned (MQ-25 by 2030 followed by some ISR capability and then strike systems sometime after that) and thus probably sees F/A-XX as a platform that has to replace majority of SH's fielded at the moment. That imposes a very real cost ceiling.

 

[_Del_]

B-21 is a bomber , the fighter missions are different and need more speed.

If you have the endurance to get there and stay there, you don't need to speed anywhere. You just put pairs on station and draw circles of doom around them. Especially if we field T3 missiles quickly (and I think we are).

 

[jsport]

Both the counter-TEL missiles & missile firing planes themselves are best served w/speed in dealing with the vastness of the Asian landmass & Pacific Ocean..IMHO.

...would imagine the philosophy of NGAS & carrier unmanned tankers is to allow both endurance and speed. Time Critical Targeting (TCT) requires both.

 

[jsport]

Presumably the B-21 is similarly useless?

Therefore, have never stopped believing the Digital Twin of Bone was worthy idea, but any new build B-1 should to the B-1A speed standard ie high supersonic.

 

[Moose]

Seems to me if engine development is a go, what is likely the most expensive/high risk piece of manned NGAD is already being paid for?

It's not quite as certain as that, but this announcement keeps the propulsion program alive and moving forward. Both NGAP bidders had warned their programs were at risk without this move, so it's good to see. They could still ice PCA, or punt it down the line to a time when decision-making is in a less.....uncertain situation. But keeping NGAP alive is a good thing.

 

[Josh_TN]

If you have the endurance to get there and stay there, you don't need to speed anywhere. You just put pairs on station and draw circles of doom around them. Especially if we field T3 missiles quickly (and I think we are).

T3?

 

[Josh_TN]

Therefore, have never stopped believing the Digital Twin of Bone was worthy idea, but any new build B-1 should to the B-1A speed standard ie high supersonic.

The B-21 is the only game in town; full stop. The B-1A was only supersonic for sprints on reheat. As noted above, even super cruising sans afterburner is always going to come at a cost, and one of those costs is fuel efficiency.

 

[Sundog]

I don't see why invest in new engine if they don't know for the futur of the NGAD fighter?

Because the engine is the most difficult component to develop. That's why they start doing research on engine tech as soon as a new engine goes into service. There will be a new fighter. They can design the engine for the size they think the USAF will want. If they have to resize it due to changing requirements, that's not as big a deal as just developing the technology in the first place.

 

[_Del_]

T3?

Variable targeting capability for the same missile. AAM/ARM/ASM. I'm speaking broadly of the capability, not the specific T3 that was a DARPA program.

 

[jsport]

The B-21 is the only game in town; full stop.'

Sounds like agit propagandist..there is never only one card, that is how wars are lost betting on one card.
Cold war nuclear bomber tactics openly expressed how B-1s (speed) & B-2s (stealth) would complete complex attacks in order to infiltrate the Soviet Union. Attacks mixing drones & missiles & aerial attacks is what one sees in one current conflict.

The B-1A was only supersonic for sprints on reheat. As noted above, even super cruising sans afterburner is always going to come at a cost, and one of those costs is fuel efficiency.

In countering TCTs/TELs, sprints are enough and once again fuel for speed & endurance is why one needs penetrating tankers.
If ongoing engine development is combined w/ drastic weight reductions one can never count out the possibility of even a much faster B-21.. There has to be more of a positive outcome of smaller than B-2, B -21 than just better stealth.

 

[Josh_TN]

Sounds like agit propagandist..there is never only one card, that is how wars are lost betting on one card.
Cold war nuclear bomber tactics openly expressed how B-1s (speed) & B-2s (stealth) would complete complex attacks in order to infiltrate the Soviet Union. Attacks mixing drones & missiles & aerial attacks is what one sees in one current conflict.

In countering TCTs/TELs, sprints are enough and once again fuel for speed & endurance is why one needs penetrating tankers.
If ongoing engine development is combined w/ drastic weight reductions one can never count out the possibility of even a much faster B-21.. There has to be more of a positive outcome of smaller than B-2, B -21 than just better stealth.

I think you will be sorely disappointed. Right now it is not clear that even manned NGAD gets paid for. USAF has no plans for an additional bomber type until the 2040s; they have said quite explicitly they are downsizing to B-21/52.

 

[Ozair]

It will end up being a larger program than that if the Navy meets its design and program goals. At some point in the early to mid 2030s (once F/A-XX exits low rate production), the Navy would be looking to transition from buying F-35C's to buying F/A-XX so it will be the only game in town with hundreds of Super Hornets needing replacement between then and the early 2040s. Some of the ways this won't happen...

* Navy does not secure funding to pursue F/A-XX as originally intended
* Navy does not execute well on the program severely limiting it or leading to outright cancellation
* Navy gold plates the requirements and is unable to afford to produce it at reasonable annual rates or buy a substantial inventory
* There's a breakthrough in autonomous unmanned aircraft and/or other external pressures (budgets, CONOPS etc) which forces the Navy to substantially alter its manned / unmanned fleet mix
* The Navy dramatically reduces its future carrier fleet and air wings

The CSBA study I linked above, while a few years out of date now. doesn't paint a rosy picture of all SH being replaced by F/A-XX. The 2040 airwing suggestions point to F/A-XX generally being a single squadron on the boat and the delta covered by unmanned assets. They even suggested upgraded SH may be a consideration.

I think the Navy is likely to pursue a 5+ generation concept for F/A-XX. Some elements of next generation technologies mixed in with large amounts relatively proven technology baseline that's already flying on the F/A-18E/F or F-35C. The hope here being to field something that is better than the F-35C in some ways (range, payload, Space/weight/power & thermals perhaps) while being similar in other (stealth and avionics perhaps).

This approach they would hope keeps unit cost to within reasonable levels (for a post 2030 fighter) and enables them to replace at least 1/2 to 2/3 of the Rhino fleet (remaining going the unmanned way) over time without breaking the bank. This is not too different from what its also doing on the DDG (X) effort where its looking to take the current state of the art in mission systems and field it on a larger, more optimized hull with plenty of power and thermal margin for future growth. A similar path makes sense on F/A-XX. While one could say that an F-35C with AETP could meet some of that demand for increased mission system performance, power and thermals it would still be approaching maxing out the potential of the platform. A clean sheet, larger F/A-XX could start at a baseline that is similar to or better than what ann F-35C with AETP could deliver in terms of power, cooling and mission system perofrmance with plenty of margin for future growth. That, along with greater range and larger payload would justify a $10-$15 Bn RDT&E expense vs spending $2-3 Bn to re-engine the F-35C.

It is a hard decision point for the USN as at the moment the money isn't really available, given other priorities. I agree, and said as much in the other thread, that this platform is really a 5.5 gen aircraft.

Not to add insult to injury. but no supercruise then of no use inthe Pacific, imho.

As other have said, there is more to life than supercruise, especially if the CONOPS includes using CCA to bulk numbers.

 

[bring_it_on]

The CSBA study I linked above, while a few years out of date now. doesn't paint a rosy picture of all SH being replaced by F/A-XX. The 2040 airwing suggestions point to F/A-XX generally being a single squadron on the boat and the delta covered by unmanned assets. They even suggested upgraded SH may be a consideration.

That's great but its CSBA not the Navy (for good or bad). The Navy is pursuing a clean sheet design for FA-XX. At least that's their desire. They've stopped buying the SH now, and would have fielded 2/3 of intended F-35Cs by the turn of the decade. The only way I don't see them going all in on F/A-XX from the early-mid 2030s onwards is if the program fails to deliver (I mentioned a few where I think it can stumble) and/or there is a breakthrough in unmanned or overall cultural approach to it within the Navy. Short of that, Navy wants a fast jet program it owns..now that SH is exiting production. I actually like the approach of a 3000 nautical mile ranged subsonic strike UAS (son of X-47) fielded first followed by a next-gen counter air and fleet defense optimized F-X with higher end capability (and smaller fleet) as a better option. But the Navy wants to replace 1/2 to 2/3 of the SH fleet with a manned F/A-XX from what I can tell. That alone will influence how much capability it can design in w/o breaking the bank. If that's the goal, the decision to avoid adaptive engines, and probably generation leap in LO seems logical. This will be a 5/5+ gen weapon truck with morerange, power, space, and thermal management capabilty vs F-35C..

 

[jsport]

I think you will be sorely disappointed. Right now it is not clear that even manned NGAD gets paid for. USAF has no plans for an additional bomber type until the 2040s; they have said quite explicitly they are downsizing to B-21/52.

it is bizarre to say I will be disappointed, as if national security is my purview, I have no influence over congressional / contractor complex in the first place. Downsizing under the new administration seems less likely and the future is unwritten and full of continuous tumult.

 

[jsport]

That's great but its CSBA not the Navy (for good or bad). The Navy is pursuing a clean sheet design for FA-XX. At least that's their desire. They've stopped buying the SH now, and would have fielded 2/3 of intended F-35Cs by the turn of the decade. The only way I don't see them going all in on F/A-XX from the early-mid 2030s onwards is if the program fails to deliver (I mentioned a few where I think it can stumble) and/or there is a breakthrough in unmanned or overall cultural approach to it within the Navy. Short of that, Navy wants a fast jet program it owns..now that SH is exiting production. I actually like the approach of a 3000 nautical mile ranged subsonic strike UAS (son of X-47) fielded first followed by a next-gen counter air and fleet defense optimized F-X with higher end capability (and smaller fleet) as a better option. But the Navy wants to replace 1/2 to 2/3 of the SH fleet with a manned F/A-XX from what I can tell. That alone will influence how much capability it can design in w/o breaking the bank. If that's the goal, the decision to avoid adaptive engines, and probably generation leap in LO seems logical. This will be a 5/5+ gen weapon truck with morerange, power, space, and thermal management capabilty vs F-35C..

"I actually like the approach of a 3000 nautical mile ranged subsonic strike UAS (son of X-47) fielded first followed by a next-gen counter air and fleet defense optimized F-X with higher end capability (and smaller fleet) as a better option. "
would agree w/ that approach in dealing w/ widely dispersed defended tgts as well, but CVNs will again, look more like self-licking ice cream cones (carrier primarily carries their own defense) as the majority manned on board are craft would be tasked for counter air and fleet defense. What do these expensive manned F-Xs provide for joint area denial anti access effort and are they the best fleet defense against the hypersonic cruise & BM threat?
Unfortunately for the political relevance of the CVN expenditure, a larger craft w/ internal bays and the ability to mothership as close as possible to these 3000 nautical mile ranged subsonic strike UAS should remain a priority.