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

RadicalDisconnect said:
One part about CCAs that doesn't make sense though, the Anduril YFQ-44 carries weapons externally, which will make it unstealthy. So how is it to operate with stealth aircraft like the F-22 or NGAD? Even if they fly at more standoff distances they still more vulnerable to getting picked off. The General Atomics YFQ-42 does have internal weapons bays so that might not be as much of concern.
Click to expand...

I thought that’s only phase one? If you want to get serious about requirements they won’t even have onboard radars…
 
It’s unclear to me if either CCA model has internal bays for BVR AAMs. It is a little challenging to have a 12’+ aperture on a 30’ airframe. The XQ-67A does not appear to have such to my eyes but perhaps the CCA version does. Fury’s CCA may or may not as well.

I think it is important to remember that these aircraft will not serve as wingmen in a traditional sense of the word and likely would be quite a distance from the controller. And as unmanned aircraft, their signature reduction matters less.
 
FQ-44 with external stores can be used for DCA, CAP and escort applications to name a few roles that are less LO sensitive; heck they’d be perfect for enforcing no fly zones, be they in the Middle East or Eastern Europe! Alternately, if GA can roster as least two AAMs in the -42s IWB, a heterodimer (sorry to use the protein engineer term) of a FQ-42 shooter coupled with a FQ-44 spotter as a two ship hunter/killer concept, seems very doable in the very near term. I think this concept is “ok” with AMRAAM, but could get quite spicy with JATM. Further CCA increments with long-loiter time and larger IWB capacity might help create an effector “cloud”. Like in certain parts of the world, no target is more than 100 miles away from at least one “remote effector node” that you can order timely AAM tasking from. That would be something nice to have if DAF can get its air and space based sensor network and transport layers built up for real time, theater wide A/GMTI.

Edit: thanks for pointing out my fqup nmaude!
 
Last edited:
Training_Dummy said:
Qf-44 with external stores can be used for DCA, CAP and escort applications to name a few roles that are less LO sensitive; heck they’d be perfect for enforcing no fly zones, be they in the Middle East or Eastern Europe! Alternately, if GA can roster as least two AAMs in the -42s IWB, a heterodimer (sorry to use the protein engineer term) of a QF-42 shooter coupled with a QF-44 spotter as a two ship hunter/killer
Click to expand...

FQ-42 and FQ-44 as these are drone-fighters not drone conversion of fighter jets.
 
It should also be noted that this is just the first iteration of these craft, and that they are probably for testing as much as operational use.

External carriage of a pair of AAMs on pylons only rated for ~500 pounds probably does not make a huge radar target if they are shaped correctly. Most any non 5th gen fighter would have a larger return than either FQ.
 
As we are now seeing what seems to be Chinese next Gen. prototypes in flight.
More of a curiosity (after 245 pages) After all this time, Is there any actual evidence the US. has built or flown manned demonstrators of the '6th Gen.' proposals ? (other than hinted UAV. configuration demonstrators ?) or are we still talking design studies at this stage ?
 
Last edited:
Training_Dummy said:
FQ-44 with external stores can be used for DCA, CAP and escort applications to name a few roles that are less LO sensitive; heck they’d be perfect for enforcing no fly zones, be they in the Middle East or Eastern Europe! Alternately, if GA can roster as least two AAMs in the -42s IWB, a heterodimer (sorry to use the protein engineer term) of a FQ-42 shooter coupled with a FQ-44 spotter as a two ship hunter/killer concept, seems very doable in the very near term. I think this concept is “ok” with AMRAAM, but could get quite spicy with JATM. Further CCA increments with long-loiter time and larger IWB capacity might help create an effector “cloud”. Like in certain parts of the world, no target is more than 100 miles away from at least one “remote effector node” that you can order timely AAM tasking from. That would be something nice to have if DAF can get its air and space based sensor network and transport layers built up for real time, theater wide A/GMTI.

Edit: thanks for pointing out my fqup nmaude!
Click to expand...
What is the sweet spot for the loyal wingman role for OCA? If the FQ-44 cannot carry at least two AMRAAM sized weapons internally for a reduced signature then I am not sure if that is not great value at $25-30 million. Not sure if you want Increment 1 at the front of the spear if you do not have it in high numbers. Does the Air Force consider that a little better than attritable? The other options are to go more exquisite with a low observable platform approaching half the cost of an F-35 or cheaper?

As costs go up the better value is just to buy F-35s. Larger weapons load, man in the loop, better mission systems with greater reach. You need to recapitalize the manned fighter fleet anyway - F-16s, F-15C/Es, and A-10s.

The other option is to go with a lower cost option that can be bought in higher numbers that is attritable. Kratos said it could produce the XQ-58 at between $2-4 million a piece several years ago. They were working on a block 2 version which could carry two AMRAAMs externally. Adding passive sensor might push size and cost up a little. In wargam Mitchell ran they found value in attritable CCAs in the initially phases of the conflict when air superiority was contested. I wonder what the trades were between Increment 1 and a less expensive system?
 
Not saying that this is necessarily how the FQ-44 will do it, but one way to greatly mitigate the effects of external weapons is to carry them conformally. Of course, you’d be locked in to that approximate form factor, but with the AIM-260 having the same envelope as the AIM-120, that may not be too big of a concern. It probably won’t get you to VLO levels of RCS reduction, but for a lower cost, more minimalist aircraft design, it may work.
 
Given the projected costs and level of uncertainty with the manned component of NGAD, I think it would be wise for the DOD to take their time with it. Compensate the primes for any infrastructure investments and re-evaluate.

In the meantime, pump & integrate CCA because that's a sure deal for the future.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
That does not mean it will happen.
Click to expand...

True up to a point but at some stage the US will have to bite the bullet and spend serious money replacing these airframes not only are they getting old they're obsolescing too.
 
NMaude said:
True up to a point but at some stage the US will have to bite the bullet and spend serious money replacing these airframes not only are they getting old they're obsolescing too.
Click to expand...

They could easily just build more CCAs and F-35s; another manned platform for either service is not a given.
 
I'm hearing that Hegseth was briefed very recently on NGAD-PCA and F/A-XX by Gen Allvin and Adm Kilby, respectively. Hegseth was very supportive, but said he won't/can't make the call -- "it's up to Trump and Musk". Hegseth added, that if asked by the boss, he would tell him he's fully onboard with the USAF and USN acquisition plans and source selections.

I'm getting the impression that the same aircraft company has been selected (independently) by both services, althought they are distinct programs and designs. Announcement(s) are pending Trump's go-ahead. TBD if Trump will object to having one winner take on both major contracts, but apparently OSD and the services think that's a manageable risk.

No word on the choice for NGAD's propulsion system contractor. A derivative of GE's F110 remains the likely choice for F/A-XX.
 
joewee said:
I'm hearing that Hegseth was briefed very recently on NGAD-PCA and F/A-XX by Gen Allvin and Adm Kilby, respectively. Hegseth was very supportive, but said he won't/can't make the call -- "it's up to Trump and Musk". Hegseth added, that if asked by the boss, he would tell him he's fully onboard with the USAF and USN acquisition plans and source selections.

I'm getting the impression that the same aircraft company has been selected (independently) by both services, althought they are distinct programs and designs. Announcement(s) are pending Trump's go-ahead. TBD if Trump will object to having one winner take on both major contracts, but apparently OSD and the services think that's a manageable risk.

No word on the choice for NGAD's propulsion system contractor. A derivative of GE's F110 remains the likely choice for F/A-XX.
Click to expand...


phantomworks-310x215.jpeg
 
NMaude said:
Both the USAF and USN are long overdue for a recapitalisation of their respective tactical aircraft fleets as the average IIRC is pushing 50.
Click to expand...
Not sure where that stat came from?

In 2022 the USAF average fighter fleet age was 28 years,
Today, the average fighter aircraft in the service is about 28 years old.
Click to expand...
www.defensenews.com

US Air Force warns of aging fighters, poor purchasing efforts

Amid a high global demand for air power, as well as domestic hurdles in Congress and the White House, the service is racing to rebuild its fighter fleet.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

and the USN average fighter fleet age is much less given it now operates only SH.
 
ca.news.yahoo.com

Pentagon set to award US Air Force's next-generation fighter jet contract, sources say

The Pentagon is set to announce its decision on a next-generation fighter jet contract initially worth more than $20 billion as soon as Friday, despite earlier concerns about budget constraints and shifting priorities, sources briefed on the plan said. The Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)...
ca.news.yahoo.com ca.news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon is set to announce its decision on a next-generation fighter jet contract initially worth more than $20 billion as soon as Friday, despite earlier concerns about budget constraints and shifting priorities, sources briefed on the plan said.
Click to expand...
 
On the subject of Boeing, i couldn’t help thinking of the LRS-B bidders jockeying to arrange new manufacturing plans to support their bids.

That is, at least if I recall correctly, the infrastructure was an attempt to cause a program victory, rather than a result of it.

I personally always kind of thought Boeing would win F/A-XX, and LM would win NGAD-high, but Boeing NGAD-medium. Seems to me like Boeing’s confidence last year might have related to the growing budget issues following FRA ‘23 and the Sentinel crisis, while rumored USAF leanings toward the Boeing NGAD may have been leanings toward a smaller size well before the review kicked off.

That is, I’m proposing that the RFP may have allowed a range of size and capability offerings, with LM bidding in the battlecruiser/battlestar range and Boeing bidding a comparatively more F/A-XX sized aircraft. But then, according to this theory, the idea of the USAF picking the smaller one grew to include curiosity about the small F-35 replacement, helping inspire the study, alongside other factors we’ve been over a million times.
 
books said:
On the subject of Boeing, i couldn’t help thinking of the LRS-B bidders jockeying to arrange new manufacturing plans to support their bids.

That is, at least if I recall correctly, the infrastructure was an attempt to cause a program victory, rather than a result of it.
Click to expand...
Are you referencing Boeings new facility at St Louis as a example?
books said:
I personally always kind of thought Boeing would win F/A-XX, and LM would win NGAD-high, but Boeing NGAD-medium. Seems to me like Boeing’s confidence last year might have related to the growing budget issues following FRA ‘23 and the Sentinel crisis, while rumored USAF leanings toward the Boeing NGAD may have been leanings toward a smaller size well before the review kicked off.

That is, I’m proposing that the RFP may have allowed a range of size and capability offerings, with LM bidding in the battlecruiser/battlestar range and Boeing bidding a comparatively more F/A-XX sized aircraft. But then, according to this theory, the idea of the USAF picking the smaller one grew to include curiosity about the small F-35 replacement, helping inspire the study, alongside other factors we’ve been over a million times.
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if there was that much leniency in the requirements. I expect there would be some must meet specs that included ranges and range with specific payload. To award a vendor that didn't meet those specs based on a change of philosophy would result in an instant protest and likely GAO agreement.
 
Ozair said:
Are you referencing Boeings new facility at St Louis as a example?
Click to expand...

Yes, in reply to theories a page or two back that Boeing was building reactively after supposedly learning (or all but officially learning) that NGAD was theirs.

Ozair said:
I'd be surprised if there was that much leniency in the requirements. I expect there would be some must meet specs that included ranges and range with specific payload. To award a vendor that didn't meet those specs based on a change of philosophy would result in an instant protest and likely GAO agreement.
Click to expand...

I’m sure NGAD had minima written in stone, but I’m wondering if there was some flexibility in terms of price/performance nevertheless. Maybe I’m overly influenced by art & comparisons with other programs instead of being “confirmed facts only”, but it always seemed to me that Boeing leaned smaller, lower risk, closer to their F/A-XX art, closer to a competitor to F-35, etc.

In my defense, I’d point both to the ATF as allowing some different approaches, and JSF as having big technical differences too.
 
(paywalled)
WASHINGTON, March 20 (Reuters) - The Pentagon is set to announce its decision on a next-generation fighter jet contract initially worth more than $20 billion as soon as Friday, despite earlier concerns about budget constraints and shifting priorities, sources briefed on the plan said.
Click to expand...
Lockheed and Boeing are competing head to head for the winner-take-all engineering and manufacturing development phase contract worth more than $20 billion.
Click to expand...
Under President Donald Trump's administration, which took office in January, the program has moved forward after a period of uncertainty that cast doubt on the future of the next-generation fighter jet.
Click to expand...
Last year, the program faced potential delays or scaling back due to budget pressures and cost overruns in other Air Force programs. There were also discussions about reconsidering fundamental design elements or shifting resources to unmanned drone programs.
The anticipated announcement signals designs that were finalized last year will be chosen for NGAD.
Click to expand...
Boeing has suffered headwinds for both its commercial and defense businesses. A win would be a shot in the arm for its St. Louis, Missouri, fighter jet production businesses, while a loss would add to Boeing's woes.
Click to expand...

It would appear the speculation is over, and NGAD is a go. Exciting news.
 
Last edited:
books said:
I personally always kind of thought Boeing would win F/A-XX, and LM would win NGAD-high, but Boeing NGAD-medium. Seems to me like Boeing’s confidence last year might have related to the growing budget issues following FRA ‘23 and the Sentinel crisis, while rumored USAF leanings toward the Boeing NGAD may have been leanings toward a smaller size well before the review kicked off.
Click to expand...

 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom