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

[Scott Kenny]

The cancelation of the stealthy tanker means that NGAD will be that gigantic, expensive airframe the AF debated in length it should not be.

You mean that the USAF debated at length that Congress would balk at paying for.

The FQ component will also need range, hence grow in weight.

Sure, for Increments 2 and beyond.

 

[B2Blain]

As long as the USAF is stuck in "pick one" budgets, I understand why. But a fight with China will see tankers blown out of the sky in a big hurry.

It seems that NGAS is another one of Frank Kendall's failed trial balloons. Remember when he proposed a B-21 unmanned companion, then reversing course year later? We can't afford NGAD at $300 million a pop, but we are going to develop a stealthy tanker that is bigger than NGAD but smaller than KC-46.

It was dumb on two accounts. The "oldest, smallest, and least ready" Air Force is in the middle of recapitalizing almost everything - trainers, tankers, AWACS, fighter, the F-22, ICBMs, etc. It was also going to add a very expensive stealth tanker which would also be technically very challenging? How do you ensure the boom is low observable? And what about the CONOPS? Would there be enough fuel to offload which would be tactically meaningful? Last, how was all this going to be paid for?

It would seem that it would be much more cost efficient to build range into NGAD and the F-35 through an adaptive engine than spend billions on a stealth tanker. Improve active and passive air defenses at bases in the region and stockpile munitions and fuel to support a stand in force. With adequate air defenses and CCA escorts for HVAs, tankers should be able to top off US fighters from sanctuaries in the Western Pacific before entering contested airspace.

Once NGAD and CCAs are fielded, the AF can revisit a low observable tanker platform. Perhaps it will be unmanned and similar in size to a MQ-25?

 

[TomcatViP]

This illogical on many senses.
First you question the feasibility of NGAS and then suggest the MQ-25.
Then you suggest that the priority should go on NGAD-giant when all account weights on an integrated battle force. The force needs to be coherent to pack a lethal punch, timely and dynamically.
And last you suggests encroaching a strategic assets to the efficiency of CCA in DCA and escort roles, something that hasn't even been demonstrated.

That's a lot of risks.

My take:
The late reconfiguration of the Airforce comes with a new administration that has been long in their planning. We can see that an alignment with Russia is one of the surprising outcome.
I say their intend is to turn upside down the island chain paragdym, bringing a new partner at the chess board.
I have joked long ago that to sideline the need to have NGAD made a giant, the US should invade preemptively Taiwan.
Well, it seems there is a more outwardly solution

 

[DWG]

Two thirds of the Air Force inventory of aircraft are at least 50 years old.

Only if you're thinking of external shape/original design date. Their internals are considerably more modern, and the airframes are newer, if still on the ageing side in many cases.