USAF/US NAVY 6G Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS news

[Dragon029]

I don't suppose you have handy those translations of the European magazines wherein a couple of pilots were talking about dogfighting F-16s?

Do you perhaps mean this (see attachment)?



(Original article: http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/04/20/moderne-luftkamp-the-right-stuff-top-gun-eller-noe-helt-annet/ )

There's other articles by that MoD blog too:

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/06/30/dogfight-og-f-35/

http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2016/03/01/f-35-i-naerkamp-hva-har-jeg-laert-sa-langt-the-f-35-in-a-dogfight-what-have-i-learned-so-far/

 

[GeorgeA]

As alluded to in the quote, the F136 was also tested to above 50,000 lbf, actually 53K IIRC.

I haven't heard that one, source? The article I quoted said the F136 reached 15% above spec, aka ~49.5Klbf.

It was a milestone late in the program as part of the effort to head off cancellation. It was quoted in Aviation Week -- I'll try to find the exact reference in the archive.

 

[Airplane]

As alluded to in the quote, the F136 was also tested to above 50,000 lbf, actually 53K IIRC.

That's old news. Fuel consumption was never spoken of, however.

 

[Dragon029]

There's some interesting data out there mind you:

 

[sferrin]

Can you state the source? I would love to adapt/correct my views/analysis

"Superior in dogfights
They elaborate on the experience after one and a half hour of dogfight-training, one on one over White Tank Mountains, the training are west of the base.
The roar of the engines is unmistakable as they return. It's the most powerful engine in any fighter ever and will be noticed well when stationed at Ørland in Norway. “Tintin” is sweating after the maneuvers, and his helmet-hair gets damper when he comes out of the plane into 35 degrees C desert air.
So far the plane is cleared for up to 7g. When the next software update comes alog it will be 9g like the F-16. Even now the F-35 has maneuvering capabilities that makes “Tintin” and “Dolby” rewrite the manual for dogfights. Traditionally, the one with the highest speed has the advantage in dogfights. The F-35 gives the pilots the possibility to maneuver with much higher AOA. In comparison to the F-16 it has much better nose pointing capabilities.
-The ability to point towards my opponent makes me able to deliver a weapon sooner than I'm used to. It forces my opponent to react more defensive and gives me the ability to slow down fast, Hanche says. -Since I can slow down fast I can point my plane at my enemy for longer before the roles are reversed. The backside is that you loose energy, but it's not really a problem. The plane has so much engine power and low drag that the acceleration is awesome. With a F-16 I would have had to dive to gain as much speed after a hard turn.
Hanche has earlier put words to his experience of flying the F-35 in several post on “The combat aircraft blog” Here he describes how the aggressive F-35 gives him the ability to stick to an opponent and keep him in his sights:

“To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent.
In the defensive role the same characteristics are valuable. I can «whip» the airplane around in a reactive maneuver while slowing down. The F-35 can actually slow down quicker than you´d be able to emergency brake your car. This is important because my opponent has to react to me «stopping, or risk ending up in a role-reversal where he flies past me.”

Another trait of the F-35 emerges when in defensive situations. At high AOA the F-16 responds slow when moving the stick sideways to roll the plane. A bit like using the rudder on a large ship I think, not that I know what I'm talking about – I'm not a sailor. In the F-35 I can use the rudder-pedals to steer the nose sideways. At high AOA the F-35 still responds quick compared to the F-16. This gives me the opportunity to point the nose where I want and threaten my opponent. I can do this “pedalturning” impressively fast, even at low speeds. As a defensive capability I can neutralize a situation fast or even reverse the roles."

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=27253&hilit=nettsteder&start=72

 

[bobbymike]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/three-stream-engine-moves-new-phase?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20160622_AW-19_560&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=6274&utm_medium=email&elq2=13c462fc5fbc4d4fa050a7100cebeefa

http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-details-sixth-gen-combat-engine-research-plan?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20160622_AW-19_560&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=6274&utm_medium=email&elq2=13c462fc5fbc4d4fa050a7100cebeefa

 

[dark sidius]

http://www.w54.biz/showthread.php?52-Fighter-Development/page74 Interesting article.

 

[bring_it_on]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua9UzJeXvdk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKp5W9RO2dw

 

[bring_it_on]

Navy, Air Force in sync with follow-on fighter analysis for 2030 as JSF requirement reviewed - June 23, 2016 InsideDefense


A number of new developments in May indicate the Pentagon's long-term fighter aircraft plans may be ripening for revision.

The Navy and Air Force, after false starts and extended internal reviews, have clarified plans for pursuing new air-dominance capabilities -- potentially new fighter aircraft -- needed around 2030, an occurrence that comes as the Pentagon for the first time formally raised the prospect of new scenarios for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, including a potentially smaller fleet.

Last month, the Pentagon's acquisition executive cleared the Navy to explore a next-generation fighter aircraft program; the Air Force re-booted its F-22A follow-on development effort as a "penetrating counterair" capability in an effort to de-emphasize expectations of a "next-generation" system; and the Pentagon's No. 2 civilian signaled a less-than-firm commitment to the current F-35 acquisition objective, leaving open options for both a smaller -- as well as a larger -- Joint Strike Fighter buy.

On May 16, Pentagon acquisition executive Frank Kendall signed a memorandum approving a material development decision allowing the Navy to begin an analysis of alternatives (AOA) for its Next Generation Air Dominance Family of Systems, a capability the service is seeking to replace the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G.

The Navy is now conducting an AOA slated to wrap up in November 2017 that "will consider the widest possible range of potential materiel options to balance capability, capacity, survivability, cost, schedule, supportability, and risk across a potential family of systems," according to Navy spokesman Ensign Marc Rockwellpate.

The Navy team leading this assessment "is currently exploring current and emerging technologies with industry counterparts and the developmental science community . . . to identify the best candidates to invest in to fill the gaps created by the retirement of the F/A-18E/F and the E/A-18G in the 2030s," he added.

The assessment -- which will draw on work by government entities including the Office of Naval Research, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and other service labs -- will consider areas that include "next generation power and propulsion systems, advanced datalinks, communications, weapons, manned and unmanned pairing," according to the spokesman. "Stealth will be one of many attributes taken into consideration, but will not necessarily be the driving factor in determining the best solution set," he added.

The Navy effort has lagged behind the Air Force's push to launch a program for a new fighter aircraft.

In February 2013, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council approved the Air Force's new fighter requirement and, according to an Air Force spokeswoman, directed the service to conduct a joint analysis of alternatives with the Navy once the council approved the Navy's Next-Generation Air Dominance Family of Systems initial capabilities document.

At the time, the Air Force expected the Navy to sort out its requirement by early 2014. However, the Navy did not advance its requirement for a next-generation fighter until last summer, securing JROC approval on Aug. 15, 2015.

Meanwhile, the Air Force during the summer of 2014 formally stood up a sixth-generation fighter aircraft program office and began its AOA. At this point, the services plan to collaborate on their respective AOAs, but not conduct a joint assessment.

"Our teams openly share perspectives in order to functionalize interoperability, improve efficiency, and effectively leverage the knowledge base of both services," said Rockwellpate. "This includes the joint execution of modeling and simulation scenarios using common threat baselines that emphasize interoperability," he added.

Soon after the Air Force launched its sixth-generation fighter AOA in August 2014, top brass directed a holistic review of air superiority requirements by an enterprise capability collaboration team -- an undertaking that put the AOA in a holding pattern until the team completed its work and published a new blueprint last month.

The service -- which since 2013 has branded the project to identify a follow-on to the F-22A fighter aircraft "Next-Generation Air Dominance" -- is looking to reframe the project as a "penetrating counterair" capability, in a bid to dial back expectations of any particular leap-ahead technology advancement.

"As part of this effort, the Air Force will proceed with a formal analysis of alternatives for an offensive counterair capability in 2017," Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said earlier this month. "Consistent with the agile acquisition mindset designed to deliver capability sooner, our focus is less on generational leaps and more on options to leverage rapid development and prototyping in order to keep ahead of the threat."

As these two new projects begin in earnest, Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work reported to Congress that while the Pentagon's F-35 requirement remains a total of 2,443 aircraft, that figure could change. In a two-page, May 25 letter to lawmakers, Work said the near-term goal is to buy as many of the aircraft as the Pentagon can afford while balancing other needs, allowing for circumstances that could both trim the size of the fleet compared to current plans or increase it.

Work noted the Pentagon "is undertaking multiple efforts to re-evaluate the F-35 warfighting requirements given the changing environment and the strategic inflection point represent[ed] by the FY-17 budget submission."

The Defense Department, according to a March Pentagon report, currently plans to buy 754 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft -- 30 percent of its planned F-35 fleet -- between 2030 and 2038.

Lastly, the Pentagon is eyeing a provision of the Senate-passed FY-17 defense authorization bill that would require an "independent" review of the U.S. military's future aircraft needs and recommend by next year an "optimized mix" of short- and long-range strike aircraft as well as the best combination of manned and unmanned platforms.

This sweeping study could be a fundamental re-evaluation of a portfolio that accounts for about $50 billion in unclassified annual modernization spending.

The Senate version of the bill would require the defense secretary to commission an "independent" entity to prepare by next April a "Report to Congress on Independent Study of Future Mix of Aircraft Platforms for the Armed Forces."

 

[bring_it_on]

Report recommends near-term upgrades to F-22, F-35, promotes 'agile acquisition'

The Air Force's yearlong developmental planning effort exploring future air superiority is recommending upgrades to F-22 and F-35 aircraft and will also inform ongoing plans for a future air refueling capability beyond the KC-46 tanker.

The effort, referred to as "Air Superiority 2030" and led by the service's first-ever enterprise capability collaboration team, was designed to project the 2030 environment and then consider what kind of force the service may need in order to maintain control in friendly and adversary airspace in that future context. The team wrapped up the process earlier this month after spending more than a year developing a slate of capability options.

Col. Alex Grynkewich, the service's chief of strategic planning integration and the air superiority team lead, told Inside the Air Force in a June 16 interview that along with considering potential new platforms or capabilities, part of the process involved analyzing what upgrades might need to be made to today's systems, including fifth-generation aircraft like the F-22 and F-35.

"From a modernization perspective, modernization helps you get to 2030 in some cases and modernization also provides you some pieces of the pie that you'll need in 2030 -- but not all of it," Grynkewich said.

Both platforms already have -- or are developing -- modernization plans, but the ECCT team helped inform a classified roadmap for upgrades.

"Many of the details get to higher classification levels but in terms of the content of those, that's what we helped shape and said, 'Here's what we need these things to be able to do'" Grynkewich explained. "A lot of that, frankly, already existed. The Air Force and the programs were already thinking ahead."

Along with recommending capabilities and improvements to improve strike and standoff capabilities, the team considered the makeup of the infrastructure meant to support those capabilities. Because the team found that standoff and range would be key to operating in a 2030 threat environment, it identified advanced aerial refueling as an important enabler. The Air Force has been working to narrow its options for a future tanker, beyond the KC-46, and Grynkewich said there is an emphasis on making sure the time lines of the PCA and the next-generation tanker, or "KC-Y," are running in parallel.

In fact, he said, the team working on the PCA analysis and the team doing early developmental planning for KC-Y are both located at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH.

"So they're sharing information and knowledge," Grynkewich said. "When you can look at it holistically, there's a lot of trade space there. . . . So that's the advantage. It gives you a little bit broader perspective to optimize your force structure."

Aligning development and acquisition time lines across platforms is an important tenet of the agile acquisition concepts the team calls for in its 2030 vision. The document notes that the Air Force must "implement acquisition approaches that enable the maturation, demonstration, and integration of advanced technologies into weapon systems on time lines that match the tempo of key underlying technology development cycles." The report also focuses on maturing technologies outside of a program of record and delivering capability in "deliberate increments," which it says should mean that it can produce new systems more quickly.

"The key thing to this agile acquisition is that you have this parallel development of technologies," Grynkewich said.

So along with aerial refueling, the service is looking to leverage ongoing advanced engine research, aerodynamic technologies, and sensor and weapon development. If it can "buy down" the risk in those areas now, Grynkewich said, when it is time to integrate them onto a platform, the technical risk is much lower.

The team highlighted a need for a "more pervasive" cultural acceptance of agile acquisition tenets, Grynkewich said -- a mindset driven largely by operational urgency and an understanding that the threat will continue to change and require ongoing adaptation.

"There are all sorts of reasons to have good rapid acquisition practices to get things in the field quickly," he said. "There is also, in my mind, an operational imperative."

He noted that while the report's cost and threat assumptions are set in the 2030s, the team found that, ideally, the service should begin fielding early capabilities by 2025. He said that time line will be challenged by the service's modernization bow wave set to hit in the early 2020s.

"I think you likely are looking a little bit later in the decade," he said. "But if I was going to throw something out, I'd probably say by the late 2020s, you want to at least have the first pieces of this start to show up."

Those "first pieces" will likely be PCA and electronic-attack capabilities, which will also need to align with supporting technology development. He said the idea is to sequence the delivery so that, over time, the arrival of new capabilities are synchronized.

 

[GJ33]

"Superior in dogfights

“To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent.
In the defensive role the same characteristics are valuable. I can «whip» the airplane around in a reactive maneuver while slowing down. The F-35 can actually slow down quicker than you´d be able to emergency brake your car. This is important because my opponent has to react to me «stopping, or risk ending up in a role-reversal where he flies past me.”

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=27253&hilit=nettsteder&start=72

The F-35 can actually slow down quicker than you´d be able to emergency brake your car.

There is no airbrake in the F-35 or F22. How do they brake? With the vertical stabelizers? Else?

GJ

 

[Arjen]

By bleeding all energy in pulling up the nose. Trouble is, if the opposition second guesses that - you're dead in the sky.

 

[GJ33]

Hmm is that all?
How brake for landing than?

 

[Maki]

I read somewhere that it uses the rudders to brake.

 

[malipa]

An F-16 has pretty small airbrakes, where the F-35 deflects it's flaperons upwards, its vertical stabilizers outwards and its tail slightly down so the entire fuselage get's angled as well... Now that is some serious braking. It's not more than the Harrier though I guess

 

[Sundog]

The YF-23 did this. Then they applied it to the F-22 and the Superhornet as well. It not only makes for good aero-braking it simplifies systems and saves weight and volume by not having to have dedicated airbrake(s).

 

[bobbymike]

In the end personal opinions wont matter. Autonomous UAV platforms that sit in a warehouse waiting for kill orders will be cheaper than manned platforms. They'll also operate inside of any human decision loop. Tomorrow is here whether anyone likes it or not.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/artificial-intelligence-beats-human.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

 

[Airplane]

In the end personal opinions wont matter. Autonomous UAV platforms that sit in a warehouse waiting for kill orders will be cheaper than manned platforms. They'll also operate inside of any human decision loop. Tomorrow is here whether anyone likes it or not.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/artificial-intelligence-beats-human.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

By definition, tomorrow is not here.

If or when gen 6 appears it will have a human on board, albeit less of a pilot and more of a decision maker. I would not doubt if the f35 is the first fighter to automate a2a with the pilot merely providing a "shoot" "no shoot" input.

Ucavs sitting in storage like tomahawks on a submarine is a quaint idea, but who will scramble to intercept Russian and Chinese (one day) bombers off the coast of big sur California?

 

[sublight_]

Tomorrow is here.

 

[jsport]

Yes but the F-XX if it ever happens and the B-21 will be so expensive that flying them unmanned (although there is persistence requirement) remains risky.

 

[sferrin]

Yes but the F-XX if it ever happens and the B-21 will be so expensive that flying them unmanned (although there is persistence requirement) remains risky.

Last thing we'd need is an F-XX landing in Iran. (Or China more likely.)

 

[sublight_]

Yes but the F-XX if it ever happens and the B-21 will be so expensive that flying them unmanned (although there is persistence requirement) remains risky.

Last thing we'd need is an F-XX landing in Iran. (Or China more likely.)

That wont be a problem. If the safety interlock is not de-activated upon landing, the thermite cores will ignite, turning the whole platform into a smoking sticky blob.

 

[sferrin]

Yes but the F-XX if it ever happens and the B-21 will be so expensive that flying them unmanned (although there is persistence requirement) remains risky.

Last thing we'd need is an F-XX landing in Iran. (Or China more likely.)

That wont be a problem. If the safety interlock is not de-activated upon landing, the thermite cores will ignite, turning the whole platform into a smoking sticky blob.

Didn't work on the RQ-170.

 

[sublight_]

Yes but the F-XX if it ever happens and the B-21 will be so expensive that flying them unmanned (although there is persistence requirement) remains risky.

Last thing we'd need is an F-XX landing in Iran. (Or China more likely.)

That wont be a problem. If the safety interlock is not de-activated upon landing, the thermite cores will ignite, turning the whole platform into a smoking sticky blob.

Didn't work on the RQ-170.

They disabled it after a crash in California.

Funny, nobody seems to be worried an ACTUV will steam into a hostile foreign harbor

 

[Colonial-Marine]

For the RQ-170s flying over the continental US that makes sense but why the hell would they deactivate that feature for the RQ-170s flying in the Middle East?

 

[marauder2048]

AETP just got a bit more real: (dod contracts for 6/30/2016)

General Electric Company GE Aviation, Cincinnati, Ohio, has been awarded a $919,470,655 cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for designing, fabricating, integrating, and testing multiple complete, flight-weight centerline, 45,000 lbs. thrust turbofan adaptive engines. The total value of this contract including a priced option is $1,010,000,000. The Adaptive Engine Transition Program is maturing fuel efficient adaptive engine component technologies and reducing associated risk in preparation for next-generation propulsion system development for multiple combat aircraft applications. Work will be performed at Cincinnati, Ohio, and Arnold Engineering and Development Complex, Tennessee, and is expected to be complete by Sep. 30, 2021. This award is the result of a noncompetitive acquisition. Fiscal year 2016 research and development funds in the amount of $39,100,000.00 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio is the contracting activity (FA8626-16-2138).



United Technologies Corp., Pratt and Whitney, East Hartford, Connecticut, has been awarded a $873,174,143 cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for designing, fabricating, integrating, and testing multiple complete, flight-weight centerline, 45,000 lbs. thrust turbofan adaptive engines. The total value of this contract including a priced option is $1,010,000,000. The Adaptive Engine Transition Program is maturing fuel efficient adaptive engine component technologies and reducing associated risk in preparation for next-generation propulsion system development for multiple combat aircraft applications. Work will be performed at Hartford, Connecticut, West Palm Beach, Florida, Arnold Engineering and Development Complex, Tennessee, and is expected to be complete by Sep. 30, 2021. This award is the result of a noncompetitive acquisition. Fiscal year 2016 research and development funds in the amount of $36,000,000 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio is the contracting activity (FA8626-16-2139).

 

[NeilChapman]

Great news about AETP!

My understanding is that this award includes the two vendors working with aircraft manufactures on how these engines will be used. Wish I could find what I originally read. Seems like it include putting engines in concept aircraft.

Does anyone have additional details about this part of the program? Does it include flight testing engines or just coordination on design?

 

[sferrin]

AETP just got a bit more real: (dod contracts for 6/30/2016)

General Electric Company GE Aviation, Cincinnati, Ohio, has been awarded a $919,470,655 cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for designing, fabricating, integrating, and testing multiple complete, flight-weight centerline, 45,000 lbs. thrust turbofan adaptive engines. The total value of this contract including a priced option is $1,010,000,000. The Adaptive Engine Transition Program is maturing fuel efficient adaptive engine component technologies and reducing associated risk in preparation for next-generation propulsion system development for multiple combat aircraft applications. Work will be performed at Cincinnati, Ohio, and Arnold Engineering and Development Complex, Tennessee, and is expected to be complete by Sep. 30, 2021. This award is the result of a noncompetitive acquisition. Fiscal year 2016 research and development funds in the amount of $39,100,000.00 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio is the contracting activity (FA8626-16-2138).



United Technologies Corp., Pratt and Whitney, East Hartford, Connecticut, has been awarded a $873,174,143 cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for designing, fabricating, integrating, and testing multiple complete, flight-weight centerline, 45,000 lbs. thrust turbofan adaptive engines. The total value of this contract including a priced option is $1,010,000,000. The Adaptive Engine Transition Program is maturing fuel efficient adaptive engine component technologies and reducing associated risk in preparation for next-generation propulsion system development for multiple combat aircraft applications. Work will be performed at Hartford, Connecticut, West Palm Beach, Florida, Arnold Engineering and Development Complex, Tennessee, and is expected to be complete by Sep. 30, 2021. This award is the result of a noncompetitive acquisition. Fiscal year 2016 research and development funds in the amount of $36,000,000 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio is the contracting activity (FA8626-16-2139).

This is the kind of commitment and investment it takes to make real progress. When they start throwing this kind of coin at hypersonics I'll believe they're serious. Until then. . .

 

[Moose]

More from Flight global here.

 

[bring_it_on]

More from GE

 

[marauder2048]

This is the kind of commitment and investment it takes to make real progress. When they start throwing this kind of coin at hypersonics I'll believe they're serious. Until then. . .

No reason an AETP derived engine couldn't be the "T" in TBCC.

 

[sferrin]

This is the kind of commitment and investment it takes to make real progress. When they start throwing this kind of coin at hypersonics I'll believe they're serious. Until then. . .

No reason an AETP derived engine couldn't be the "T" in TBCC.

I'd think you'd want something more like an F119.

 

[marauder2048]

Stumbled across this from a 2014 AIAA SciTech paper from Lockheed Martin

"Deployment of Particle Image Velocimetry into the Lockheed Martin High Speed Wind Tunnel" by Beresh et al.

 

[bring_it_on]

Thans for the reference. The interceptor could be related to the MH2K, EAPS.

 

[bring_it_on]

Pentagon seeks cash infusion to support FY-17 milestone for sixth-gen fighter program


The Air Force needs an immediate cash infusion to support plans to initiate an F-22A follow-on acquisition project in fiscal year 2017. The funds would be used to support analysis needed to proceed with identifying potential technologies for a new fighter aircraft program -- or a package of new air superiority capabilities -- to ensure U.S. control of the skies in 2030 and beyond.

On June 30, the Pentagon asked Congress' permission to boost fiscal year 2016 spending on the notional fighter aircraft program by $23.9 million -- a 280 percent increase -- by reprogramming funds from other Air Force projects to the Next Generation Air Dominance research and development account. The shift, if approved by lawmakers, would lift advanced component development and prototype spending on the new project from $8.5 million in FY-16 to $32.5 million.

"Funds are required to mitigate critical capability gaps identified in the March 2011 Air Force Next Generation Tactical Air Capabilities Based Assessment," the request -- included as part of a $2.6 billion omnibus reprogramming action -- states.

"Specifically, funds are required to keep the Next Generation Air Dominance on schedule to support an FY-17 material development decision by identifying and/or eliminating candidate technologies early in the analysis process to ensure more effective use of planned air superiority investment, and to ensure the Analysis of Alternatives incorporates an accurate capability picture," the document states.

The Air Force warns that if Congress denies the reprogramming request, "NGAD activities will not be able to remain on schedule to support the FY-17 MDD."

The NGAD project is divided into three efforts. The first is concept development, which consists of operational analyses, threat studies and technology candidate assessments that aims to figure out ways to improve persistence, survivability, lethality, connectivity, interoperability and affordability in 2030 and beyond, according to the Air Force's FY-17 budget request submitted in February.

A second project involves air dominance studies that are refining system concepts and operational architectures to include family of systems and system of systems, according to the budget. Lastly, the new project is conducting technical risk reduction with the defense industry to "refine technological integration and system design trade space" in conjunction with the operational analysis, the FY-17 budget justification states.

For the last two years, the Air Force has set a goal of beginning an analysis of alternatives for the Next Generation Air Dominance project during the second quarter of FY-17. The service launched the program in the summer of 2014 with $18.2 million in FY-15 research and development funding. The service's FY-16 request last year dipped to $8.8 million with no future year estimate, a move that came as service leaders in early 2015 commissioned a holistic review of the service's future air superiority requirements.

In late May, the Air Force published the results of that requirements review in the "Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan," a six-page unclassified summary of an 18-month assessment that identifies a "penetrating counterair" capability the service will explore as part of the analysis of alternatives the service wants to begin in FY-17 with Next-Generation Air Dominance project funding.

The new "flight plan" makes no explicit reference to the Next-Generation Air Dominance program; a service official, however, confirmed the "penetrating counterair" effort is a new moniker that sidesteps the "next-generation" label in order to avoid the implied promise of leap-ahead technological advancement.

The new Air Force blueprint, prepared by a wide-range of service experts, concluded the service "must reject thinking focused on 'next-generation' platforms" because such focus can create "a desire to push technology limits within the confines of a formal program." Such objectives drive risk and can lead to cost growth and schedule delays.

The service's FY-17 budget request seeks $20.5 million for the Next-Generation Air Dominance project and forecasts future budgets of $12.8 million in both FY-18 and FY-19, amounts that may be budget "place holders" and could change depending on insights emerging from the planned 18-month analysis of alternatives, according to the FY-17 budget request.

The House Armed Services Committee plans to hold a hearing on next-generation fighter aircraft next week.

 

[NeilChapman]

Pentagon seeks cash infusion to support FY-17 milestone for sixth-gen fighter program


...

The new Air Force blueprint, prepared by a wide-range of service experts, concluded the service "must reject thinking focused on 'next-generation' platforms" because such focus can create "a desire to push technology limits within the confines of a formal program." Such objectives drive risk and can lead to cost growth and schedule delays.

The service's FY-17 budget request seeks $20.5 million for the Next-Generation Air Dominance project and forecasts future budgets of $12.8 million in both FY-18 and FY-19, amounts that may be budget "place holders" and could change depending on insights emerging from the planned 18-month analysis of alternatives, according to the FY-17 budget request.

The House Armed Services Committee plans to hold a hearing on next-generation fighter aircraft next week.

Looks like a "minimizing any invention, maximizing capabilities" program - Amen.

Hearing is titled:
AIR DOMINANCE AND THE CRITICAL ROLE OF FIFTH GENERATION FIGHTERS
and is next Wednesday (7/13) at 2pm.

Witness is General Herbert J. Carlisle, USAF
Commander, Air Combat Command

Should be interesting to watch!

 

[bring_it_on]

Should be interesting to watch!

Absolutely.If the 5th generation aircraft hearing is any indication the 6th generation aircraft hearing will probably also be a throwback to old recorded VHS tapes, given that they want to minimize invention and all that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXp6kAAfqK8

 

[bring_it_on]

The FB-21?

Farnborough, UK—The Air Force is "looking at" employing the B-21 stealth bomber as a missileer, shooting volleys of air-to-air missiles at targets designated by F-22s and F-35s, Air Combat Command chief Gen. Hawk Carlisle told Air Force Magazine Monday. Carlisle, asked about the Air Superiority 2030 program, said "we have to build another platform," to augment the F-22 and F-35, but one that's not necessarily a sixth-gen fighter. This "PCA," for Penetrating Counter-Air, would have to be "big. Range and payload is a part of it," Carlisle said, noting it would have to be "a broad-spectrum" aircraft with stealth and the ability to fuse and "integrate avionics." The B-21 "may very well be part of it, that is one of our developmental plans," he said. To put distance between this concept and simply another fighter, USAF has dropped calling it "F-X" and the unfortunate "NGADS," for Next Generation Air Dominance System. USAF will also look at equipping older bombers for standoff missileer duties, "with the ability to fling stuff into the theater, with guidance from stuff that's forward." The PCA, "I believe, … will be a new platform, it will have range and payload, an ability to rapidly and incrementally add new technology" and efficient engines from the AETP project.

 

[Airplane]

The FB-21?

Farnborough, UK—The Air Force is "looking at" employing the B-21 stealth bomber as a missileer, shooting volleys of air-to-air missiles at targets designated by F-22s and F-35s, Air Combat Command chief Gen. Hawk Carlisle told Air Force Magazine Monday. Carlisle, asked about the Air Superiority 2030 program, said "we have to build another platform," to augment the F-22 and F-35, but one that's not necessarily a sixth-gen fighter. This "PCA," for Penetrating Counter-Air, would have to be "big. Range and payload is a part of it," Carlisle said, noting it would have to be "a broad-spectrum" aircraft with stealth and the ability to fuse and "integrate avionics." The B-21 "may very well be part of it, that is one of our developmental plans," he said. To put distance between this concept and simply another fighter, USAF has dropped calling it "F-X" and the unfortunate "NGADS," for Next Generation Air Dominance System. USAF will also look at equipping older bombers for standoff missileer duties, "with the ability to fling stuff into the theater, with guidance from stuff that's forward." The PCA, "I believe, … will be a new platform, it will have range and payload, an ability to rapidly and incrementally add new technology" and efficient engines from the AETP project.

So, the USAF is going to get a new AAM as well? Do AMRAAMs have the legs to be launched by a B-21 that is trailing the targeting airplane... to throw out a hypothetical number, 20nm or thereabouts? This is great if it will help justify building >100 21s.

 

[DrRansom]

The FB-21?

Farnborough, UK—The Air Force is "looking at" employing the B-21 stealth bomber as a missileer, shooting volleys of air-to-air missiles at targets designated by F-22s and F-35s, Air Combat Command chief Gen. Hawk Carlisle told Air Force Magazine Monday. Carlisle, asked about the Air Superiority 2030 program, said "we have to build another platform," to augment the F-22 and F-35, but one that's not necessarily a sixth-gen fighter. This "PCA," for Penetrating Counter-Air, would have to be "big. Range and payload is a part of it," Carlisle said, noting it would have to be "a broad-spectrum" aircraft with stealth and the ability to fuse and "integrate avionics." The B-21 "may very well be part of it, that is one of our developmental plans," he said. To put distance between this concept and simply another fighter, USAF has dropped calling it "F-X" and the unfortunate "NGADS," for Next Generation Air Dominance System. USAF will also look at equipping older bombers for standoff missileer duties, "with the ability to fling stuff into the theater, with guidance from stuff that's forward." The PCA, "I believe, … will be a new platform, it will have range and payload, an ability to rapidly and incrementally add new technology" and efficient engines from the AETP project.

So, the USAF is going to get a new AAM as well? Do AMRAAMs have the legs to be launched by a B-21 that is trailing the targeting airplane... to throw out a hypothetical number, 20nm or thereabouts? This is great if it will help justify building >100 21s.

Given that IRSTs will be able to detect missile launch, I'd expect that the USAF would need a missile with a range > 150 - 200nm. It'd definitely have to be longer range than the PL-15 or R-37.