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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The F-35 would keep Lockmart busy through another decade or two. I question whether they get any CCA action; the favorites for those are mostly non traditional, newer companies.
 
FighterJock said:
So what will happen to Lockheed now that Boeing is the preferred bidder? Concentrate on the Black World? That is the only thing that will keep the Skunk Works going. Then of course there is always the SR-72 which either exists or dosn't according to some of the sites that I have read online.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily assume that LM offering a lower tech alternative would mean it's more likely to lose. For Northrop Grumman during the LRS-B competition, that similiarity to existing offerings was considered a plus, and that was a choice also made Kendall and his cohort. More recently, the Air Force was excited by the idea of an AETP-powered F-35, but decided to stick to the EEP/ECU instead, again with the same people choosing.

Likewise, during the ATF competition, LM started out insisting on Blackbirdish things, but then listened to the customer more and more, until it ended up with the more conservative offering vs the YF-23, and that resulted in victory too. I don't mean to imply that conservatism entails victory or anything, but I wouldn't assume it implies defeat.
 
One thing that might work to Boeing's advantage is that LM might feel like the win on NGAD is not worth surrendering whatever proprietary rights it has over F-35 systems IP and sustainment.

Whether that would lead to LM submitting all clean-sheet designs, or a bid that tries to legally firewall F-35 rights off from NGAD rights for the same systems, or what, is a pretty interesting question. And a huge potential friction point between LM and Air Force, in the event LM isn't submitting utterly new items in all respects.
 
books said:
One thing that might work to Boeing's advantage is that LM might feel like the win on NGAD is not worth surrendering whatever proprietary rights it has over F-35 systems IP and sustainment.

Whether that would lead to LM submitting all clean-sheet designs, or a bid that tries to legally firewall F-35 rights off from NGAD rights for the same systems, or what, is a pretty interesting question. And a huge potential friction point between LM and Air Force, in the event LM isn't submitting utterly new items in all respects.
Click to expand...
Considering that LM got their entire FLRAA bid rejected by the Army over trying to keep their systems proprietary, I doubt they'd try something on the NGAD bid.
 
FighterJock said:
I would not like to say for sure dark sidius, but if it is a sign that Boeing has indeed got the NGAD contract then why is the USAF taking so long to reveal it? It is like watching paint dry.
Click to expand...
Seriously, I think Top Gun 2 was enough wait for aviation enthusiasts. But once again, that definitely eludes to a hopeful winner.
 
I know the defense side of Boeing tends to be better than the commercial side, but I really don't trust them with such an important project and item of national defense. While the F22 has been a silent beast for most of its life, given the current and forecasted geopolitical situation its more than likely that NGAD will see combat.
 
Tool_Shed_Toker said:
I know the defense side of Boeing tends to be better than the commercial side, but I really don't trust them with such an important project and item of national defense. While the F22 has been a silent beast for most of its life, given the current and forecasted geopolitical situation its more than likely that NGAD will see combat.
Click to expand...
Not sure, when I think Boeing, I think X-32, SLS and Starliner.
 
Honestly I think the CCAs will end up being the more important program, given the potential for much higher production rates and lower costs.
 
I have the feeling that the choice has been made , it is not public but by now the demonstrator are working since 4 years and I m sure that the USAF know the winner, I don't see Boeing spend a lot of millions in factory for nothing....
 
dark sidius said:
I have the feeling that the choice has been made , it is not public but by now the demonstrator are working since 4 years and I m sure that the USAF know the winner, I don't see Boeing spend a lot of millions in factory for nothing....
Click to expand...
I just want to see what this thing looks like at this point, come on!
 
Desertfox said:
Counterpoint, T-7A, MQ-25, MQ-28, F-15EX, F/A-18E/F
Click to expand...
mq-25 delayed, f-15ex delayed, f/a-18e/f had problem with weapon carriage that led to them being carried slanted. t-7a delayed. no indication mq-28 is anything but tech demonstrator at this stage.

Not to mention in the past - Boeing GBI is fraught with failures. Ground combat systems - biggest army failure in a generation. The E-7 for australia was delayed and now fully mature design still delayed for USA.
 
I think F-35 delays alone roughly put Lockmart in the same basket. I do not have a favorite, but modern fighter design is hard. J-20s are just getting the engines designed for them and Su-57s exist in numbers you can count on your toes and feet. I suspect anyone who wins the NGAD manned component contract fucks it up.
 
That is so true Josh_TN, modern fighter design is way more complicated than it was even a few years ago, and it will be even more complicated during the production of the NGAD.
 
donnage99 said:
f/a-18e/f had problem with weapon carriage that led to them being carried slanted.
Click to expand...
No, Boeing's computer model had issues that led them to put the pylons on slanted.

Boeing tested their model again using Legacy Hornet data and it suggested the same issue, that some stores combinations could result in bombs striking the airframe. Which has never been observed in 40 years of flying the Hornets.

Boeing reported this to the USN and offered to redo the pylons straight. USN said don't worry about it (probably to avoid re-clearing all the weapons).
 
Scott Kenny said:
No, Boeing's computer model had issues that led them to put the pylons on slanted.

Boeing tested their model again using Legacy Hornet data and it suggested the same issue, that some stores combinations could result in bombs striking the airframe. Which has never been observed in 40 years of flying the Hornets.

Boeing reported this to the USN and offered to redo the pylons straight. USN said don't worry about it (probably to avoid re-clearing all the weapons).
Click to expand...
I know the backstory. I don't see how it changed my point. Their computer model was flawed which resulted in an unnecessary physical fix that caused unnecessary drags. Significant enough was the drags that a legacy hornet with the same large tanks that super hornet carries, the range is basically the same except for specific ground strike mode.
 
donnage99 said:
I know the backstory. I don't see how it changed my point. Their computer model was flawed which resulted in an unnecessary physical fix that caused unnecessary drags. Significant enough was the drags that a legacy hornet with the same large tanks that super hornet carries, the range is basically the same except for specific ground strike mode.
Click to expand...
While I'm not sure why Boeing Military (or MacAir, whoever) didn't verify their computer model with physical models or flights, it's an important difference.

Boeing had their model, identified a problem via that model, and implemented it on the Super Bugs. That's doing the right thing.

The important detail is that when Boeing did physically check their model they reported the model error to the customer and offered to fix it. That the USN chose to fly with the original design is not Boeing's fault!

What is Boeing's fault is not physically verifying their model before installing pylons for weapons tests.
 
dark sidius said:

Boeing Reveals New Air Dominance Engineering Site | Aviation Week Network

The announcement comes as Boeing’s air dominance unit competes for the U.S. Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance contract, plus builds fighters and UAS.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
A sign ?
Click to expand...
Could be, Northrop Grumman has their B-21 facility in Melbourne and the proposed Daytona Beach location isn't too far from there. If Boeing has won or will win and is partnering with NG on NGAD it makes a lot of sense to build their new facility near a major team players location.
 
FighterJock said:
It makes a lot of sense for Boeing to partner with Northrop over the NGAD program since Northrop has a lot of experience with stealth technology especially so since the Tacit Blue program.
Click to expand...

Boeings stealth group is/was very, very good.
 
breakingdefense.com

Next-gen doubts? Air Force Chief of Staff won’t commit to fielding NGAD - Breaking Defense

In what would be a stark reversal for a high-profile program, Gen. David Allvin appeared to include the Next Generation Air Dominance fighter among "choices" the service is still making amid budget constraints.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
What are they meaning ? If they delayed the NGAD the war is over , China and Russia will win the sky , there is no capacity for the F-35 to dominate above futur China and Russia fighter, I can't understand what they are doing in term of strategy ? You don't win the sky with poor slow UAV too....
 
Last edited:
dark sidius said:
breakingdefense.com

Next-gen doubts? Air Force Chief of Staff won’t commit to fielding NGAD - Breaking Defense

In what would be a stark reversal for a high-profile program, Gen. David Allvin appeared to include the Next Generation Air Dominance fighter among "choices" the service is still making amid budget constraints.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
What are they meaning ? If they delayed the NGAD the war is over , China and Russia will win the sky , there is no capacity for the F-35 to dominate above futur China and Russia fighter, I can't understand what they are doing in term of strategy ? You don't win the sky with poor slow UAV too....
Click to expand...
Three, not necessarily exclusive, interpretations.

To Boeing and Lockheed: don't you dare try price gouging, you'd risk the whole programme.

To other programmes: if NGAD isn't safe, you certainly aren't. Keep your costs in check.

To Congress: we need more money!
 
Rhinocrates said:
Three, not necessarily exclusive, interpretations.

To Boeing and Lockheed: don't you dare try price gouging, you'd risk the whole programme.

To other programmes: if NGAD isn't safe, you certainly aren't. Keep your costs in check.

To Congress: we need more money!
Click to expand...
Yes pure posturing a general ultimately would have zero influence over a decision of this magnitude.
 
dark sidius said:
breakingdefense.com

Next-gen doubts? Air Force Chief of Staff won’t commit to fielding NGAD - Breaking Defense

In what would be a stark reversal for a high-profile program, Gen. David Allvin appeared to include the Next Generation Air Dominance fighter among "choices" the service is still making amid budget constraints.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
What are they meaning ? If they delayed the NGAD the war is over , China and Russia will win the sky , there is no capacity for the F-35 to dominate above futur China and Russia fighter, I can't understand what they are doing in term of strategy ? You don't win the sky with poor slow UAV too....
Click to expand...
Warning Congress to lay off the fiscal ceilings and indiscriminate cuts.
 
donnage99 said:
mq-25 delayed, f-15ex delayed, f/a-18e/f had problem with weapon carriage that led to them being carried slanted. t-7a delayed. no indication mq-28 is anything but tech demonstrator at this stage.

Not to mention in the past - Boeing GBI is fraught with failures. Ground combat systems - biggest army failure in a generation. The E-7 for australia was delayed and now fully mature design still delayed for USA.
Click to expand...
KC-46, Starliner. . .
 
dark sidius said:
breakingdefense.com

Next-gen doubts? Air Force Chief of Staff won’t commit to fielding NGAD - Breaking Defense

In what would be a stark reversal for a high-profile program, Gen. David Allvin appeared to include the Next Generation Air Dominance fighter among "choices" the service is still making amid budget constraints.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
What are they meaning ? If they delayed the NGAD the war is over , China and Russia will win the sky , there is no capacity for the F-35 to dominate above futur China and Russia fighter, I can't understand what they are doing in term of strategy ? You don't win the sky with poor slow UAV too....
Click to expand...

There is always a lot of politics attached to such projects and statements. I would not read into it too much.

That said, it seems pretty clear CCA has taken on a life of its own and will deliver aircraft long before NGAD manned. It might be the case that UCAVs are simply a much more viable alternative if NGAD ends up having an F-35 level protracted development.
 
dark sidius said:
breakingdefense.com

Next-gen doubts? Air Force Chief of Staff won’t commit to fielding NGAD - Breaking Defense

In what would be a stark reversal for a high-profile program, Gen. David Allvin appeared to include the Next Generation Air Dominance fighter among "choices" the service is still making amid budget constraints.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
What are they meaning ? If they delayed the NGAD the war is over , China and Russia will win the sky , there is no capacity for the F-35 to dominate above futur China and Russia fighter, I can't understand what they are doing in term of strategy ? You don't win the sky with poor slow UAV too....
Click to expand...
Russia is not an issue. F-35 + F-15EX can handle them easily. NGAD is specifically for dealing with China.
 
Could be smoke and mirrors deception tactics to throw off adversaries by putting more emphasis on CCA, NGAD 6th gen has been the works for a long while, I'll probably get heat for this comment but think about it. Look at what other nations are trying to develop in regards to newer gen platforms. Keep our 6th gen efforts low-key.
 
Scott Kenny said:
While I'm not sure why Boeing Military (or MacAir, whoever) didn't verify their computer model with physical models or flights, it's an important difference.

Boeing had their model, identified a problem via that model, and implemented it on the Super Bugs. That's doing the right thing.

The important detail is that when Boeing did physically check their model they reported the model error to the customer and offered to fix it. That the USN chose to fly with the original design is not Boeing's fault!

What is Boeing's fault is not physically verifying their model before installing pylons for weapons tests.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree if you're just providing context. Though in that same spirit, I believe (if I remember correctly) that the navy would have to pay for additional expense of re-clearing weapons since the navy chose the option to cant the weapons initially when Boeing approached them with the computer modeling.

Boeing essentially said we could leave as is, which means 2 pylons will permanently only carry tanks which would be embarrassing for navy since the pro super hornet faction has always touted the flexible load of the "improved" hornet, or expensive redesign (again, embarrassing since the program was supposed to be fast, smooth, low risk) or cant the weapons. navy chose this option in which Boeing later came back and said oops we were wrong but it was your decision so you should pay for re-clearing weapons.
 
Honestly, my definition of a true 6th gen fighter is simple - a jet that has overwhelming advantage in air combat against a 5th gen, trading with them in combat with ratios in excess of 10 to 1. If we consider the opponent an F-22 upgraded with state of the art electronics, the only you could build such a plane would be:
  • Some basic science breakthrough (like stealth was)
  • Some radically novel technological approach
  • A completely new doctrine (like drone swarms)
I'm not sure the technology to do that exists yet and if it does, it's so secret that speculating on it would be useless as we'd be unlikely to get it right.
 
Josh_TN said:
There is always a lot of politics attached to such projects and statements. I would not read into it too much.

That said, it seems pretty clear CCA has taken on a life of its own and will deliver aircraft long before NGAD manned. It might be the case that UCAVs are simply a much more viable alternative if NGAD ends up having an F-35 level protracted development.
Click to expand...
CCA are not a superiority capacity , it is slow, subsonic speed, so unabble to intercept or fight a high en fighter, it is just a reusable cruise missile.
 
Desertfox said:
Russia is not an issue. F-35 + F-15EX can handle them easily. NGAD is specifically for dealing with China.
Click to expand...
F-15 EX is a 80s fighter , it have zero stealth capacity to penetrate a high end theater, the F-35 have no supercruise and a poor top speed of 1.6 and a 50000 ft ceillingcapacity not realy enough to match a SU-57 or a J-20 in air-air fight, the F22 is the right plane but there is just 120 of them and need to be retrofit. NGAD is realy the capacity needed for the near futur, China is running realy fast and with this strategy the first 6th gen will be Chinese. Another capacity in danger in USA is the hypersonic too for instance Russia and China match the US capacity, so it is time to wake up USAF if you want to be the first force in the air.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom