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

Status
Not open for further replies.
joshjosh said:
The problem is that if the DOD abandons the cutting edge in favor of systems they can produce quickly and cheaply, they will be ceding ground to the Chinese in one of the main advantages we have (the cutting edge). We aren't going to outproduce the CCP, so we need to stay ahead on the tech curve.
Click to expand...

I think a huge existential question being asked is if living on the leading edge of aerospace technology is still paying dividends in manned aircraft. Maybe all those fancy features are over priced or else more effective/less expensive in unmanned platforms. You have to add a decade of forward thinking to any manned program, because that’s how long it takes to generate one.
 
It's important to consider the fact that AI is advancing so rapidly now that all weapons and warfare in general are about to be revolutionized on a scale not seen since 18-30-1930 except that it will happen in 10-20 years instead of 100. Not a good time to sink ^10 dollars into a development program to build planes costing ^8 dollars each.
 
Airbus A340 said:
It's important to consider the fact that AI is advancing so rapidly now that all weapons and warfare in general are about to be revolutionized on a scale not seen since 18-30-1930 except that it will happen in 10-20 years instead of 100. Not a good time to sink ^10 dollars into a development program to build planes costing ^8 dollars each.
Click to expand...

I do agree with you. The 'need' simply hasn't been pressing until now, but that’s changing quickly as these issues start to compound after years of short-sightedness. Unfortunately, none of this comes as a surprise, since the warnings have been out there for a long time.
 
They're fighting over who controls the web and AI. Nothing will stop the fight as resources are running out and whoever develops AGI first and then controls the web has total control of the entire world.

Let's say that 10 years ago they started on an F-22 with F-35 coatings and avionics. Let's say they built 100-200. They could afford to wait for the AI stuff to pan out before proceeding on NGAD. Now, it's a real dilemma.
 
Airbus A340 said:
They're fighting over who controls the web and AI. Nothing will stop the fight as resources are running out and whoever develops AGI first and then controls the web has total control of the entire world.

Let's say that 10 years ago they started on an F-22 with F-35 coatings and avionics. Let's say they built 100-200. They could afford to wait for the AI stuff to pan out before proceeding on NGAD. Now, it's a real dilemma.
Click to expand...
AI is not a holy Grail look at the Alis AI on the F-35 a lot of problem on it.
 
Ainen said:
But F-22 was a thing, in two generation of coatings (including mirrors).
If you solve it, you solve it.

All 4(6, counting different f-35s separately) 5th generation fighters went through supersonic trials ultimately. We know that f-35c encountered problems, but the only way to do it would be to stay for extended time at supersonic speeds.
Click to expand...

The coatings have not been "solved". The F-22 and F-35 have significant issues with maintaining their coatings.
 
quellish said:
The coatings have not been "solved". The F-22 and F-35 have significant issues with maintaining their coatings.
Click to expand...
That's the nature and bane of all stealth coatings till now.
But still, it can be done off the shelf.
 
dark sidius said:

USAF, Navy Should Jointly Develop New Fighter, Key Senator Says | Aviation Week Network

The U.S. Air Force and Navy should more closely collaborate on variants of their next-generation fighters instead of further splitting apart as development continues, an influential senator argues.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Is there a change coming ?
Click to expand...

One senator does not amount to much. But if no one goes to bat for manned NGAD in the new administration, I could see FA-XX being the fallback position. The USN project seems far more defined.
 
Looks like a joint program could be happening sooner rather than later. Josh_TN.
 
dark sidius said:

USAF, Navy Should Jointly Develop New Fighter, Key Senator Says | Aviation Week Network

The U.S. Air Force and Navy should more closely collaborate on variants of their next-generation fighters instead of further splitting apart as development continues, an influential senator argues.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Is there a change coming ?
Click to expand...
That's a pretty good idea. The only thing that spoilt the F-35 a bit was trying to make a VSTOL version too. A Navy and USAF version shouldn't be a problem though.
 
_Del_ said:
?
Click to expand...
Could this also means that ground stations were acting as comms nodes passing data between the XQ-58s and Amys? I'm reaching a bit here but quellish seems oddly specific in mentioning direct controls authority.
 
dark sidius said:

USAF, Navy Should Jointly Develop New Fighter, Key Senator Says | Aviation Week Network

The U.S. Air Force and Navy should more closely collaborate on variants of their next-generation fighters instead of further splitting apart as development continues, an influential senator argues.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Is there a change coming ?
Click to expand...
Senators always ruin stuff so not anything good. Some of our own had bad experience with types like Les Aspin.

If USAF and the Navy use a common airframe then it will be an F-4 situation: Navy's so good the USAF jocks have to swallow their pride and ride along.
 
Forest Green said:
That's a pretty good idea. The only thing that spoilt the F-35 a bit was trying to make a VSTOL version too. A Navy and USAF version shouldn't be a problem though.
Click to expand...
Quite the opposite: CALF was fine until certain types cast black magik and merge A/F-X in. But even then turning LM X-32 into a serviceable design doesn't appear easy - it was an X-plane not an XF, first and foremost.

Inter-service types always sound bad. F-111B for one. And the successful ones were always denavalised IOW they were originally pure Navy and was modified to meet USAF specs. Well, maybe some exception here and there but Phantom and SLUFF's respective build count explain why they are "exceptions" in the grand history of combat aviation.
 
The length requirement of F-35 was driven by the B model, and combined with the range requirement created a rather chubby airframe with a lot of drag. The larger control surfaces of the C version add more drag still, and the internal structure a lot more weight. But an aircraft with a lower stall speed/shorter runway requirements might actually better suit the USAFs ACE deployments.
 
Arjen said:
If one US armed service cannot be bothered to take action to protect another US armed service's assets, isn't it time the US Secretary of Defense starts bashing heads together?
Click to expand...

If a CVN cannot defend itself, it is better to keep it out of theater. USAF assets would not be well positioned provide support and would have a lot of their own missions to perform.
 
yeetmahboi said:
Could this also means that ground stations were acting as comms nodes passing data between the XQ-58s and Amys? I'm reaching a bit here but quellish seems oddly specific in mentioning direct controls authority.
Click to expand...
They transferred command and control between crewed aircraft and ground stations. The only crewed aircraft involved were the F-35's and the F-15EX. Conceivably, you could have a Marine aviator in the back of the F-35 with a control station, but I would guess not.

ETA, should say back of the Eagle, not F-35..
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
One senator does not amount to much. But if no one goes to bat for manned NGAD in the new administration, I could see FA-XX being the fallback position. The USN project seems far more defined.
Click to expand...
What a stupid idea. Leave it to a Senator to not have a clue. They could share avionics and sub systems possibly, but the airframe and powerplant choice should be optimized for the mission each service requires. These are not the same airplane, even though they will both be called "fighters."
 
Sundog said:
What a stupid idea. Leave it to a Senator to not have a clue. They could share avionics and sub systems possibly, but the airframe and powerplant choice should be optimized for the mission each service requires. These are not the same airplane, even though they will both be called "fighters."
Click to expand...
Considering the number of other high profile clueless opinions given out recently I'm surprised more senators aren't chiming in with bad ideas.

Airbus A340 said:
It's important to consider the fact that AI is advancing so rapidly now that all weapons and warfare in general are about to be revolutionized on a scale not seen since 18-30-1930 except that it will happen in 10-20 years instead of 100. Not a good time to sink ^10 dollars into a development program to build planes costing ^8 dollars each.
Click to expand...
I really don't see what AI is going to revolutionize here. I don't think they're going to figure out some sort of anti-gravity drive or something else that changes the fundamental physics here. But even if it were to happen you can't plan around some unforeseen technological breakthrough occurring like that.
 
yeetmahboi said:
Quite the opposite: CALF was fine until certain types cast black magik and merge A/F-X in. But even then turning LM X-32 into a serviceable design doesn't appear easy - it was an X-plane not an XF, first and foremost.
Click to expand...
On it's own, designing a STOVL fighter is fine, the problem is when you try make a CTOL/CATOBAR fighter also STOVL or vice-versa, that's what I was saying.
yeetmahboi said:
Inter-service types always sound bad. F-111B for one. And the successful ones were always denavalised IOW they were originally pure Navy and was modified to meet USAF specs. Well, maybe some exception here and there but Phantom and SLUFF's respective build count explain why they are "exceptions" in the grand history of combat aviation.
Click to expand...
The F-111 was a fighter bomber, trying to make an aircraft designed as a fighter bomber into an air-superiority/interceptor was always going to end badly (let alone a navalised one) but that isn't what we are talking about here. You could certainly design it as a Navy aircraft and then modify it to be a CTOL but other than that the Navy and Air Force probably want nearly the same thing for air superiority. heck you could even just use the CATOBAR version off land minus arrestor hook (or not).
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
On it's own, designing a STOVL fighter is fine, the problem is when you try make a CTOL/CATOBAR fighter also STOVL or vice-versa, that's what I was saying.

The F-111 was a fighter bomber, trying to make an aircraft designed as a fighter bomber into an air-superiority/interceptor was always going to end badly (let alone a navalised one) but that isn't what we are talking about here. You could certainly design it as a Navy aircraft and then modify it to be a CTOL but other than that the Navy and Air Force probably want nearly the same thing for air superiority.
Click to expand...
No, if anything the Navy wants their A/F-X back.

Remember, the FAXX is replacing Super Hornets, so it's going to need big weapons bays to hold air-to-ground ordnance. And also need a lot of MTOW for lots of air-to-ground ordnance. Packing 2x the F-22's weapon load is only like 5klbs. But I'm expecting FAXX to pack at least 12klbs internally, maybe more: 2x AMRAAM/AIM260s, 2x NSMs, and 2x AARGM-ERs for a fairly nominal load; but up to 10x 500lb bombs or 6x 1000lb bombs instead of the NSMs.
 
Scott Kenny said:
No, if anything the Navy wants their A/F-X back.

Remember, the FAXX is replacing Super Hornets, so it's going to need big weapons bays to hold air-to-ground ordnance. And also need a lot of MTOW for lots of air-to-ground ordnance. Packing 2x the F-22's weapon load is only like 5klbs. But I'm expecting FAXX to pack at least 12klbs internally, maybe more: 2x AMRAAM/AIM260s, 2x NSMs,
Click to expand...
You mean 2 JSM?
Scott Kenny said:
and 2x AARGM-ERs for a fairly nominal load; but up to 10x 500lb bombs or 6x 1000lb bombs instead of the NSMs.
Click to expand...
To be honest the AF NGAD (and especially the light / single fighter concept) needs to limit the internal armament for close "no pound air to ground". Yes anything that fits into the volume of air to air missiles like SDB sure but not more. Also a "limited" IWB between F-35 and F-22 with 6-8 missiles should be enough (without counting 2 WVRAAM's). Afterall WE got CCA to carry a crap load of AMRAAM's.
 
kqcke for you said:
You mean 2 JSM?
Click to expand...
Whatever it is that fits in F35 Weapons Bays.


kqcke for you said:
To be honest the AF NGAD (and especially the light / single fighter concept) needs to limit the internal armament for close "no pound air to ground". Yes anything that fits into the volume of air to air missiles like SDB sure but not more. Also a "limited" IWB between F-35 and F-22 with 6-8 missiles should be enough (without counting 2 WVRAAM's). Afterall WE got CCA to carry a crap load of AMRAAM's.
Click to expand...
Agreed for USAF about close to "not a pound for air to ground". Disagree about total AAM count, because the long time of flight to/from base means that you need each fighter package (of say 1x NGAD and 3x+ CCAs) to carry more weapons and ideally engage&destroy more planes per sortie than we'd expect out of the Eagle 2 or Raptor. Again, 12x BVRAAMs and 2x AIM9s only comes up to ~4000-5000lbs internal. Maybe 6500lbs if the AIM260s are closer to Sparrow weight than AMRAAM.

But I'm strictly talking USN in that post for the 12klbs+ of boom.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Whatever it is that fits in F35 Weapons Bays.
Click to expand...
Then JSM it is.
Scott Kenny said:
Agreed for USAF about close to "not a pound for air to ground". Disagree about total AAM count, because the long time of flight to/from base means that you need each fighter package (of say 1x NGAD and 3x+ CCAs) to carry more weapons and ideally engage&destroy more planes per sortie than we'd expect out of the Eagle 2 or Raptor. Again, 12x BVRAAMs and 2x AIM9s only comes up to ~4000-5000lbs internal. Maybe 6500lbs if the AIM260s are closer to Sparrow weight than AMRAAM.
Click to expand...
Yeah but remember lots of air to air missiles need a big amount of volume within the airframe and the we don't want a flying blue whale xD
 
Last edited:
kqcke for you said:
Then JSM it is.

Yeah but remember lots of air to air missiles need a big amount of volume within the airframe and the we don't want a flying blue whale xD
Click to expand...
@Scott Kenny
Your wish list of payload and fuel volume would require a huge airframe. Given what we know today this "NGAD once envisioned as a hyper-expensive, exquisite platform" is unlikely to happen. Repeating yourself doesn't make it more realistic.
 
Sundog said:
What a stupid idea. Leave it to a Senator to not have a clue. They could share avionics and sub systems possibly, but the airframe and powerplant choice should be optimized for the mission each service requires. These are not the same airplane, even though they will both be called "fighters."
Click to expand...

It is no longer remotely clear what the USAF requirement is. It might well be downgraded to something like FAXX. Certainly if NGADdoes not receive funding, the USN platform would be the only game in town.

I suspect however if NGAD got dropped the focus simply shift to CCA.
 
There is no indication that there is any serious effort underway to do the requirements over. This time with the intention that the requirements don't put the service in an endless loop or re-rescope because they don't endure through tech development and maturation. The current review explored whether to pursue NGAD as is or begin thinking about what else they need to do. I think the Trump administration would chose between those two options. If they lean on the latter, then we are going to have to go back and start several processes over adding time, money, risk and uncertainty. The arguments for doing that have to meet a pretty high bar.

Kendall also did not clarify whether all future programs would have requirements re-done at or before source selection. This would adversely impact most programs that can't field within 3-4 years and would certainly be one way to reduce lead times (cancel everything that would take longer than X years).

From Kendall and Hunter, we also did not get a very detailed picture from selective leaks and statements via friendly media and chosen few. Like what happened in the span on 12-18 months between RFP release and program pause. There's certainly a possibility that whatever internal arguments they made do not resonate at all with those who replace them and this whole thing simply dies out when the Kendall/Hunter duo leaves.
 
Last edited:
Colonial-Marine said:
Considering the number of other high profile clueless opinions given out recently I'm surprised more senators aren't chiming in with bad ideas.


I really don't see what AI is going to revolutionize here. I don't think they're going to figure out some sort of anti-gravity drive or something else that changes the fundamental physics here. But even if it were to happen you can't plan around some unforeseen technological breakthrough occurring like that.
Click to expand...
The idea that AI will figure out some physics is ridiculous. Maybe help with CFD for the engines. AI can control drones and make them able to swarm. Being able to flexibly mass and disperse faster than the enemy's OODA loop can respond would enable cheaper and cheaper drones to beat more capable drones.
 
Airbus A340 said:
The idea that AI will figure out some physics is ridiculous. Maybe help with CFD for the engines. AI can control drones and make them able to swarm. Being able to flexibly mass and disperse faster than the enemy's OODA loop can respond would enable cheaper and cheaper drones to beat more capable drones.
Click to expand...
Now possible to put a drone in a grid on the map and let it autonomously maneuver to respond to emerging threats, jam, etc without having to micromanage it. Unheard of until recently. The VISTA dogfight last year opened eyes. ABMS will eventually collect and sort all the data and assign fire missions to platforms best suited and positioned for an attack. Very soon we or the ABMS will be able to tell the "re-usable cruise missile" drones to strike X-target and they will plot their own ingress/egress routes in response to known threats, terrain, and the like.

Until the last ten years or so, the though of an unmanned "loyal wingman" would have mandated a guy (or gal) in the air or on the ground actually flying the drone. The fact it's possible to give vague instructions and have them carried out autonomously without further input or connection is "revolutionary". None of that would be possible without relatively recent improvements in machine learning/AI, and progress is speeding up, not slowing down.
 
VTOLicious said:
@Scott Kenny
Your wish list of payload and fuel volume would require a huge airframe. Given what we know today this "NGAD once envisioned as a hyper-expensive, exquisite platform" is unlikely to happen. Repeating yourself doesn't make it more realistic.
Click to expand...
A 3000+nmi combat radius alone requires a very large airframe. The missions-per-day that range creates (600knot cruise speed means 10+ hours flying, so only one mission per day) means that you need the maximum kills you can pack into the airframe and into the CCAs.

Unless the USAF has suddenly dropped the range requirements, NGAD is still going to be a really big beast. 105-125klbs, depending on how much if any air to ground capacity it gets.

USN, while not having the 3000+nmi range requirement, still had a 2000+nmi range requirement.


_Del_ said:
Now possible to put a drone in a grid on the map and let it autonomously maneuver to respond to emerging threats, jam, etc without having to micromanage it. Unheard of until recently. The VISTA dogfight last year opened eyes. ABMS will eventually collect and sort all the data and assign fire missions to platforms best suited and positioned for an attack. Very soon we or the ABMS will be able to tell the "re-usable cruise missile" drones to strike X-target and they will plot their own ingress/egress routes in response to known threats, terrain, and the like.

Until the last ten years or so, the though of an unmanned "loyal wingman" would have mandated a guy (or gal) in the air or on the ground actually flying the drone. The fact it's possible to give vague instructions and have them carried out autonomously without further input or connection is "revolutionary". None of that would be possible without relatively recent improvements in machine learning/AI, and progress is speeding up, not slowing down.
Click to expand...
Dude, LockMart did a flight test of that in 2005. 4 drones, not in any formation. The rough gist of what the drones were told is: "Your target is [here], with AA units [here] and [here]. Weapons Free, engage." The drones then chose which drone would attack the primary, which would engage each of the AA units, and which would play decoy and backup.
 
NMaude said:
Do you have a link to that?
Click to expand...
Was a LockMart press release I read while in the service, so maybe the wayback machine has it?

Edit: hrm... Google is spitting out something from the X-45 program in 2005 in a TWZ article (rather, an article from 2015 wondering where the UCAVs went), but X-45 was Boeing Phantom Works and I'm sure the thing I read was LockMart. Related to the Cormorant drone project?
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
A 3000+nmi combat radius alone requires a very large airframe. The missions-per-day that range creates (600knot cruise speed means 10+ hours flying, so only one mission per day) means that you need the maximum kills you can pack into the airframe and into the CCAs.

Unless the USAF has suddenly dropped the range requirements, NGAD is still going to be a really big beast. 105-125klbs, depending on how much if any air to ground capacity it gets.

USN, while not having the 3000+nmi range requirement, still had a 2000+nmi range requirement.
Click to expand...

Do we have any confirmation of those range requirements or is that a personal guess? My understanding is that none of the USAF/USN requirements were public and that we were working with tea leaves.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Was a LockMart press release I read while in the service, so maybe the wayback machine has it?

Edit: hrm... Google is spitting out something from the X-45 program in 2005 in a TWZ article (rather, an article from 2015 wondering where the UCAVs went), but X-45 was Boeing Phantom Works and I'm sure the thing I read was LockMart. Related to the Cormorant drone project?
Click to expand...

It was the X-45

web.archive.org

The Secret History of Boeing’s Killer Drone

When the pilotless, wing-shaped warplane lifted off a runway at California’s Edwards Air Force Base for the first time on the morning of April 27, it was like the resurrection of the dead. The Boeing Phantom Ray — one of the most advanced drones ever built — came close to never flying at all. In…
web.archive.org web.archive.org
 
It's been a fair while since I've heard about the X-45, that was a LONG time ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom