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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
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 ;)
 
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.
Older stay older in face of the new Chinese capacity, you can put a big computer or beautiful screen in a old plane it stay a old plane.
 
the more the high performance, stealth bomber, missile truck, tanker, transport the depictions look the better.
Money on NGAD the other can wait , Stealth tanker is a waste of money , USAF can use the NAvy MQ-25 for contested place.
 
The cancelation of the stealthy tanker means that NGAD will be that gigantic, expensive airframe the AF debated in length it should not be.
The FQ component will also need range, hence grow in weight.

Its simple logic
1. You can only afford a fighter or a tanker, not both
2. You can shape the battlefield to make an existing tanker survivable through disrupting enemy sensor platforms, increased monitoring of the location of enemy assets, and deterrence (making the asset too costly to attack).
3. You cant fight without fighters.
 
Its simple logic
1. You can only afford a fighter or a tanker, not both
2. You can shape the battlefield to make an existing tanker survivable through disrupting enemy sensor platforms, increased monitoring of the location of enemy assets, and deterrence (making the asset too costly to attack).
3. You cant fight without fighters.
Wouldn't that not be more costly at the end? See:
- attrition
- larger mission package
- lower sorties rate
- immobilize few opponents Defence to be countered.

On the opposite, a NGAS sustained mission require less aircraft, can generate more missions (less participating aircraft that required less offloaded fuel) and are very tough to be countered while requiring a large number of a/c to do so.
 
Last edited:
The cancelation of the stealthy tanker means that NGAD will be that gigantic, expensive airframe the AF debated in length it should not be.
The FQ component will also need range, hence grow in weight.

Huh? NGAS was not tied to NGAD or CCA directly. It was intended to refuel everybody, the majority of which are legacy aircraft. The cancellation of NGAS has no effect on NGAD requirements.

The idea behind NGAS was that adversaries are fielding long range AA weapons that could put support aircraft like tankers at more risk (or require more fighter support). A reduced observables tanker was pursued as one way to counter that potential threat.
 
Remember when he proposed a B-21 unmanned companion, then reversing course year later?

No, I do not remember that, because it did not happen.
 
Its simple logic
1. You can only afford a fighter or a tanker, not both
2. You can shape the battlefield to make an existing tanker survivable through disrupting enemy sensor platforms, increased monitoring of the location of enemy assets, and deterrence (making the asset too costly to attack).
3. You cant fight without fighters.
That is under the huge assumption that tankers can be reasonably survivable without procuring new airframes. otherwise you are locking 1763 fifth-gen fighters out of the fight in favor of ~300 sixth gen fighters.

Another issue is that the alternative is not "fight without fighters", there are fighters currently in the US inventory...
 
Last edited:
MQ-25 does not even use boom for refueling... And the entire Navy's MQ-25 (72) can only support a fraction of the Air Force sorties (144 F-35 sorties, max)
Where I think the MQ-25, or more likely some derivative form of, could play a role is in refueling the CCAs. While the USAF may have to hold its nose in doing so probe refueling for the CCAs make a whole lot more sense than boom. The USAF is going to want CCAs to be able to orbit for long durations in holding patterns either stand in or close to and it needs some form of tanker to be able to do that. As much as the manned NGAD will need persistence in the battlespace if manned NGAD loses the unmanned portion because the CCAs cannot be present when required then the concept fails.

In the above context some form of unmanned tanker like the MQ-25 makes a lot of sense. It likely also reduces runway dependence for the CCAs, which still have to take off and land somewhere, and the USAF could have more platforms airborne for longer. Per the plan for 1000 CCA accompanying 200 manned NGAD and 300 F-35 those 1500 airframes have to be based somewhere and the YFQ-42 and YFQ-44 aren't so small that they can squeeze all those airframes into a few pacific bases so persistence of the assets is key.
 
Last edited:

Lockheed out of Navy’s F/A-XX future fighter program


Interesting news. Does this point to LM only bidding an evolved F-35 and the USN deciding it didn't meet requirements?
 
Interesting news. Does this point to LM only bidding an evolved F-35 and the USN deciding it didn't meet requirements?
This does point to nothing because you just don't have [yet] information on what contenders did offer and what decisions were based on.
 
This does point to nothing because you just don't have [yet] information on what contenders did offer and what decisions were based on.

The article says the bid didn't meet the tendered contract specification, so it wasn't down selecting the least performing option of three passing bids, the LM bid didn't even meet the minimum performance requirement of a generational improvement. The fact LM didn't contest is also indicative that the company themselves thought they weren't close and they accepted the decision.

But yes as to what they bid and at what price point it doesn't tell us anything. It might have been something cheap based on existing platforms with only a marginal price tag that could be out the door in only five years, or it might have been something that was wildly optimistic and technologically risky with an appropriately sizeable development cost estimate that would take decades to deliver.
 
Last edited:
The article says the bid didn't meet the tendered contract specification, so it wasn't down selecting the least performing option of three passing bids, the LM bid didn't even meet the minimum performance requirement of a generational improvement. The fact LM didn't contest is also indicative that the company themselves thought they weren't close and they accepted the decision.
Looks that way to me.
But yes as to what they bid and at what price point it doesn't tell us anything. It might have been something cheap based on existing platforms with only a marginal price tag that could be out the door in only five years, or it might have been something that was wildly optimistic and technologically risky with an appropriately sizeable development cost estimate that would take decades to deliver.
LM is certainly capable of submitting an advanced design but my analysis of the bid for F/A-XX compared to USAF Manned NGAD is it would be difficult to run two tender programs of this size and expect both to be successful. In that context which would LM value more and see more chance of success? IMO that is the USAF NGAD route. So that leaves what is almost an underbid by LM on F/A-XX, an evolved in service design that keeps the other two vendors honest on pricing and in an uncertain budget climate might end up being the value option. Looks like that didn't play out.
 
Last edited:
The article says the bid didn't meet the tendered contract specification, so it wasn't down selecting the least performing option of three passing bids, the LM bid didn't even meet the minimum performance requirement of a generational improvement.
Kelly Johnson reaching from beyond the grave and making them submit a modification of the Starfighter.

"I'm tellin' ya, what they really want is climb rate and mach 2!"
 
Looks that way to me.

LM is certainly capable of submitting an advanced design but my analysis of the bid for F/A-XX compared to USAF Manned NGAD is it would be difficult to run two tender programs of this size and expect both to be successful. In that context which would LM value more and see more chance of success? IMO that is the USAF NGAD route. So that leaves what is almost an underbid by LM on F/A-XX, an evolved in service design that keeps the other two vendors honest on pricing and in an uncertain budget climate might end up being the value option. Looks like that didn't play out.

If that was the thinking it was a risky strategy with NGAD being frozen and target delivery date continually being put back, the recent review reversed the decision but axed the stealth tanker from development something LM had also pitched for.
 
If that was the thinking it was a risky strategy with NGAD being frozen and target delivery date continually being put back, the recent review reversed the decision but axed the stealth tanker from development something LM had also pitched for.
Sure but Manned NGAD only went into hiatus in mid 24. Up to that point all vendors would have felt assured that the system would be funded and fielded as expected. Don't forget as well that the USN gutted F/A-XX funding across the same period and had messaged little future funding before that.
 
Don't forget as well that the USN gutted F/A-XX funding across the same period and had messaged little future funding before that.

Nearly all of the reporting on FA-XX funding is predicated on the assumption that FA-XX is part of the LINK PLUMERIA special access program.

If that was the case I sure hope they award a contract soon - LINK PLUMERIA has consumed billions of dollars across more than 30 years!
 
Huh? NGAS was not tied to NGAD or CCA directly. It was intended to refuel everybody, the majority of which are legacy aircraft. The cancellation of NGAS has no effect on NGAD requirements.
Quellish, everybody saw the same thing. It's not just me. :)
 
Placeholder NGAD concept via TWZ (or sneak peek into the real thing?):
cmmt-swarm.jpg

View: https://youtu.be/cc_HdnZoR4o?si=NnmhSORB2i-maeUL

(See also in the missile forum)
 
Last edited:
Sure, when was the last time LM fluffed a bid like that?
Less than 3 years ago. 2022.

FLRAA - Lockheed Martin (Sikorsky) with their SB>1 Defiant bid was deemed ineligible for award due to not sufficiently breaking down and disclosing key elements of their system design in the proposal, as was required by the terms of the RFP.

Technicalities like this absolutely can and do trip bidders up - and SB>1 had Lockheed AND Boeing, the big two.
 
Sure, when was the last time LM fluffed a bid like that?
A clear recent example is Sikorsky's FLRAA bid where they appeared to be trying to get around the MOSA compliance requirement and hence give DOD much fewer rights than called for

Talking about an F-35 based bid is easy, but in today's climate DOD wants much more rights than they have on F-35. I don't see LM easily giving that up.
 
Less than 3 years ago. 2022.

FLRAA - Lockheed Martin (Sikorsky) with their SB>1 Defiant bid was deemed ineligible for award due to not sufficiently breaking down and disclosing key elements of their system design in the proposal, as was required by the terms of the RFP.

Technicalities like this absolutely can and do trip bidders up - and SB>1 had Lockheed AND Boeing, the big two.
A clear recent example is Sikorsky's FLRAA bid where they appeared to be trying to get around the MOSA compliance requirement and hence give DOD much fewer rights than called for

Talking about an F-35 based bid is easy, but in today's climate DOD wants much more rights than they have on F-35. I don't see LM easily giving that up.
Off topic but having been involved in both submissions and evaluations and having read the GAO ruling on Sikorsky's protest I don't think it was a mistake as much as a conscious decision, clearly one made poorly in hindsight.

While I doubt we will ever get specifics it would be be good to close the loop and know at least big hands what LM did bid for F/A-XX.
 
So with Lockheed bowing out of the F/A-XX competition does that mean we are close to a contract being awarded?
I don't think so. NG and Boing bids haven't been discussed much.

I should note that I still think that NG is going to win FAXX and Boeing will take NGAD. NG because they've focused on the FAXX requirements for a while, and Boeing because of politics. LockMart is tied up building F-35s, NG dropped out of the NGAD contest entirely, and Boeing has spare production capacity (Super Hornet line).

Navy does need to hurry up, but there's no way we'd see the FAXX before 2035, and maybe not even before 2040.
 
I don't think so. NG and Boing bids haven't been discussed much.

I should note that I still think that NG is going to win FAXX and Boeing will take NGAD. NG because they've focused on the FAXX requirements for a while, and Boeing because of politics. LockMart is tied up building F-35s, NG dropped out of the NGAD contest entirely, and Boeing has spare production capacity (Super Hornet line).

Navy does need to hurry up, but there's no way we'd see the FAXX before 2035, and maybe not even before 2040.
twenty years to build a plane is much too long when Chinese do it in five years.
 
twenty years to build a plane is much too long when Chinese do it in five years.
FAXX in my opinion isn't as important as NGAD, the Chinese needs to get J-50/XS on their expanding carrier fleet ASAP due to the fact that it'll be the only way for them to project air power globally in the near future, but the US could just cheat with NGAD stationed at airbases worldwide. *That* is assuming NGAD doesn't get canned or gutted in funding/timeline.
 
Where are those 2035 or 2040 timelines coming from? Navy program details or just made up?
 
If the past is any indicator they're just made up...by the USN.

Well, it would be nice if someone actually asked the Navy program what its timeline was to field a Super Hornet replacement. I suppose they will have to announce that later in the year once they make their source selection.

In 2040 the Super Hornet will fall in pieces , they start to be very old planes.
The Navy has not stopped buying new combat aircraft. Both Block 4 F-35C, and the MQ-25 are being fielded this decade. Both will either directly or indirectly provide more advanced capability over Block 2/3 Super Hornet, or offload missions from it to preserve airframe life. If the F/A-XX, does end up taking more time than planned, the Navy could always increase the number of F-35C's it and USMC fields, field a more attack oriented variant of MQ-25, increase the throughput or planned numbers from/of the F-18 E/F service life extension effort or a combination of any of those options.
 
Last edited:

Lockheed out of Navy’s F/A-XX future fighter program

Here's my speculation, informed by what I'm hearing:

USN F/A-XX
1. NG and Boeing are providing system solutions that directly respond to the Navy's cost-conscious set of requirements.
2. LM has been insistent on offering a higher-end technological solution, one that the Navy is not comfortable with operationally and/or clearly knows it can not afford.
3. LM and the carrier-based Navy haven't had a close relationship since the S-3A program. LM's tone-deaf marketing approach may be attributed to either (a) protecting its F-35B/C franchise; or (b) reluctance to engage due to Kelly Johnson's unwritten 15th rule for the Skunk Works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Johnson_(engineer)

USAF NGAD-PCA
1. Boeing was tentatively selected for the award, prior to Kendall or OSD calling for a time out.
2. Boeing's poor performance on numerous past and ongoing programs may have contributed to Kendall/OSD's cold feet.
3. Meanwhile LM's performance on the DARPA-led flight demonstration program(s) suffered from significant schedule slip and cost overrun. "Past Performance" is often a heavily-weighted criterion in major acquisition source selections.
4. NG decision to not compete for NGAD-PCA is likely tied to protecting or growing its B-21 franchise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom