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

Sounds a lot like avoiding Chinese SAMs around the Spratly islands for strike missions than an F-22 successor. But that's a lot to read into a name.
 
red admiral said:
dark sidius said:
A lot of words but not real information on the futur system :(
Click to expand...

We can wait to see what's in Parts III and IV...

And how they've come up with the "penetrating counter air" label instead of "6th generation fighter" and whether these are actually different
Click to expand...

IIRC, (and I feel confident of being corrected if haven't ;) ) it's been reported that "X generation" implies transformational technology shifts. "Penetrating counter air" is expected to continue the B-21 example of de-coupling technology development from the aircraft program. F-35 is an example of the difficulties encountered when technology leaps are attempted.

For example, B-21 contract signed 2017 w/IoC expected by 2025. Penetrating counter air IoC expected by late 2020's and the AoA is finished. F-35 has taken, what, 20 years?
 
Platform agnosticism also has its benefits for industry where the weapons/sensors etc can be exported, updated and upgraded without giving away the secret sauce of the platform. Unless you're part of unit 61398, in which case you get all the secret source you want.
 
https://warontherocks.com/2017/01/the-future-of-air-superiority-part-ii-the-2030-problem/

https://warontherocks.com/2017/01/the-future-of-air-superiority-part-iii-defeating-a2ad/
 
https://warontherocks.com/2017/01/the-future-of-air-superiority-part-iv-autonomy-survivability-and-getting-to-2030/
 
Yes , the time to go for a next generation is here , great news , I m very curious what a PCA will look like. 7.6 billions its a good amount of money no ?
 
Next Generation Thermal, Power, and Controls (NGT-PAC)


This special notice is for planning purposes only. No white papers, proposals, or responses are requested at this time. In the next 60 days the Air Force Research Lab anticipates issuing a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) for research and development on the subject of Next Generation Thermal, Power, and Controls (NGT-PAC) on FedBizOpps.gov (https://www.fbo.gov/). A draft of the BAA (subject to change) is provided for planning purposes.
Added: Jan 05, 2017 9:05 am
Next generation fighter aircraft are likely to require an unprecedented level of advanced capabilities in order to ensure air superiority in contested environments. These capabilities, which include advanced electronic attack, high-power laser, and future low-observability features, are expected to require as much as 10x higher power levels than current tactical systems.


These power system demands requirements present multifaceted electrical and thermal challenges in an integrated flight worthy system. Modern vehicle design factors including composite aircraft skins, higher efficiency engines, and highly embedded vehicle systems compound these challenges. This solicitation seeks research in order to better understand the challenges and opportunities of, and advance the state of the art in, next generation aircraft thermal, power, and controls.
Click to expand...

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=7c7cf9d7df90f22c079ec65024f108a3&tab=core&_cview=1
 
bobbymike said:
dark sidius said:
;D Great news the change is coming ...
Click to expand...
$7.6 billion over five years that prototype money no?
Click to expand...

Great question. Parallel technical development w/prototypes of the tech maybe? Same concept as B-21?

Timeline is right. Expectation is that PCA would be run out of RCO with an IOC between 2025 and 2030 integrating new engines that should be available in early 2020's. Perhaps the previous administration was "slow walking" the tech dev with inadequate funding. It's hard to tell where all the pieces are today.
 
Lincoln Labs in their 2015 AR had a multi purpose radar test bed that they were working at putting to use by 2016. Has anyone come across any additional information on it and whether this has been put to use or not?

A multipurpose radar test bed is being developed to advance techniques for the next-generation of airborne radars. The test bed will become operational in 2016 and will initially be used to study the performance of arbitrarily flexible waveforms.
Click to expand...
 
Air Force Leader Wants More Aggressive Push for ‘Sixth-Gen’ Capabilities

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2425
 
bring_it_on said:
Lincoln Labs in their 2015 AR had a multi purpose radar test bed that they were working at putting to use by 2016. Has anyone come across any additional information on it and whether this has been put to use or not?

A multipurpose radar test bed is being developed to advance techniques for the next-generation of airborne radars. The test bed will become operational in 2016 and will initially be used to study the performance of arbitrarily flexible waveforms.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

https://www.macom.com/blog/achieving-better-buying-power-wi

I'd had that bookmarked for a wee while. Interesting capabilities coming through.
 
Penetrating Electronic Attack May Come Before Counter-Air Platform

—John A. Tirpak 2/27/2017

​Gen. Hawk Carlisle thinks the Air Force’s nascent Penetrating Electronic Attack aircraft may actually go operational before the Penetrating Counter-Air platform that will notionally succeed or complement the F-22 and F-35 in the air superiority role. The Air Combat Command chief, speaking with defense reporters on Friday, said the PEA, which he described as a “partnership platform” with the F-22, F-35, and B-21 bomber, could be “autonomous or semi-autonomous” and escort strike aircraft going into the most heavily defended enemy airspace as a stand-in jammer. The Navy, he reiterated, has a need to do a different kind of electronic warfare, and USAF and the Navy are working out who will do what with regards to electronic warfare through the Joint Air Dominance Organization, set up to apportion such roles and missions. Carlisle said he’d like both the PCA and PEA programs to “move to the left,” meaning appear in service earlier than now planned. “Sooner would be better,” he added, noting the electronic combat environment is getting “intense.”
 
bobbymike said:
Penetrating Electronic Attack May Come Before Counter-Air Platform

—John A. Tirpak 2/27/2017

​Gen. Hawk Carlisle thinks the Air Force’s nascent Penetrating Electronic Attack aircraft may actually go operational before the Penetrating Counter-Air platform that will notionally succeed or complement the F-22 and F-35 in the air superiority role. The Air Combat Command chief, speaking with defense reporters on Friday, said the PEA, which he described as a “partnership platform” with the F-22, F-35, and B-21 bomber, could be “autonomous or semi-autonomous” and escort strike aircraft going into the most heavily defended enemy airspace as a stand-in jammer. The Navy, he reiterated, has a need to do a different kind of electronic warfare, and USAF and the Navy are working out who will do what with regards to electronic warfare through the Joint Air Dominance Organization, set up to apportion such roles and missions. Carlisle said he’d like both the PCA and PEA programs to “move to the left,” meaning appear in service earlier than now planned. “Sooner would be better,” he added, noting the electronic combat environment is getting “intense.”
Click to expand...

The B-21 escort part sure sounds like this PCA/PEA is going to be a large A/C, maybe like an F-111 or an A-5, and possibly have a backseater for the PEA.
 
Futur look beautiful for the USAF a new B-21 , F-35 , PEA and PCA and with the increase of defense spending its a better chance to see it happen sooner with the new administration.
 
dark sidius said:
Futur look beautiful for the USAF a new B-21 , F-35 , PEA and PCA and with the increase of defense spending its a better chance to see it happen sooner with the new administration.
Click to expand...

There is little money to go crazy ambitious with new programs without cutting on existing ones or having another round of BRAC. Even though the media highlights point to a double digit budget growth, reality is that Obama proposed a$584 Billion budget for FY18 while Trump is proposing $603 Billion, a 3 percent increase. Also note that this is opening proposal and there needs to be a bi-partisian consensus or at least a handful of democrats need to support it so there will be some give and take.

As a reference , the McCain plan floated a couple of weeks ago that called for moving the PCA to the left, proposed $640 Billion as the FY18 budget.
 
I think in fact that the F-35 number will be cut in favor of the PCA and PEA who will be the B-21 long range companion , the F-35 suffer to be a short range fighter and for the Pacific theater a long range fighter will be needed.
 
Cutting acquisition funding meant to recapitalize legacy fighters inventory for Research and Development is never a good idea. It would be akin to clipping the F-22's from replacing the F-15C's completely while funding a decade+ JSF program instead. The F-35A needs to be procured in numbers so that it can replace the F-16 fleet at the right time and in the right amount. The PCA is an add on capability but one that will require a long time to develop. The two portfolios must be kept funded, and not pitted against each other. Once the PCA is production ready, sometime in the early to mid 2030's you can then look at an appropriate mix going forward. That is long way off.

On the Budget front, I would not be surprised if the compromised FY18 defense budget is somewhere in the $590 - $600 Billion mark which won't be very different from what Obama had proposed for FY18 and still tens of Billions off from the Gates FY18 projection which the defense hawks want and something that would allow you significantly more flexibility in investing in future technologies while at the same time, also modernizing your legacy equipment. $580-600 Billion for FY18 seems to represent the limits in terms of what the Congress will pass given the 60 vote threshold in the Senate and this was as true for Obama as it is for Trump. Within that budget, you are not going to be significantly increasing funding for the PCA or a PEA compared to what the previous administration had planned.

I mean honestly, we could end up with a 1-2% increase over Obama's FY18 levels and the media calling it the great military build up :)
 
bring_it_on said:
the Congress will pass given the 60 vote threshold in the Senate and this was as true for Obama as it is for Trump.
Click to expand...
I believe budget bills need only 51 votes IIRC.
 
bobbymike said:
bring_it_on said:
the Congress will pass given the 60 vote threshold in the Senate and this was as true for Obama as it is for Trump.
Click to expand...
I believe budget bills need only 51 votes IIRC.
Click to expand...

That would be true if you stay within the BCA cap which for FY18 is at $549 Billion. To go beyond the caps you need the 60 vote threshold. The Trump campaign at one point like most of the GOP candidates in the field wanted to repeal the budget control act. Then this transitioned to repealing elements that capped defense spending. I don't know when exactly that lost favor within the administration but the the D-OMB could have played a role.

As things stand with Trump's budget he is doing exactly what Obama did when it came to defense spending i.e going past the budget caps and asking the Congress to approve. As a negotiating position his first proposal is a mere 3% higher than Obama's and once the dust settles that is likely going to be the extent of the "military spending hike" in FY18. A far cry from what is required to go where he has indicated he wants to go in his rhetoric. With Mulvaney at OMB, the OCO route does not look as secure either as it did in the years past.
 
I think 600 F-35 A will be the good number for air force , and after this number jumping in the PCA and PEA program will be the response to the futur threat. 150/200 PCA with the new B-21 the F-35A and the F-22 will stay the most powerfull Air Force in the world. It will make one thousand of stealth combat plane and a rest of 4th gen fighter+ F-18 SH for Navy for sure its a great force.
 
dark sidius said:
I think 600 F-35 A will be the good number for air force , and after this number jumping in the PCA and PEA program will be the response to the futur threat. 150/200 PCA with the new B-21 the F-35A and the F-22 will stay the most powerfull Air Force in the world. It will make one thousand of stealth combat plane and a rest of 4th gen fighter+ F-18 SH for Navy for sure its a great force.
Click to expand...

How do you ensure the USAF force levels if you cut more than 1000 F-35's from its recapitalization plan? Is this just an opinion or a thought out analysis based on demand for fighter aircraft now and the expected demand from the COCOMs in the future?

It will make one thousand of stealth combat plane and a rest of 4th gen fighter+ F-18 SH for Navy for sure its a great force.
Click to expand...

PCA is a 2030's capability. Despite 'talk' there is no way you'll be able to get into production in a BCA environment before then. So essentially, your foce will be relying on hundreds of 4th generation aircraft into the 2040's since you are slicing 1100 F-35's but only adding a few hundred PCA's. And the PCA is an unknown entity..no one knows how it will turn out, and what cost it will come at. It may not be as affordable if it is going to be engineered for the type of capability they are talking about at the moment.

This will be the same pattern we have seen before. Truncate F-22 production and invest in JSF --- Cut JSF production and invest in PCA ----- Cut PCA production and invest in PCA++..and in that endless loop the size of the USAF force continuous to shrink.
 
Yes, you are right the 600 F-35 is just my opinion, but when you look the number of F-35 in command each year at a level of 45 / 75 F-35 by year it will take a minimum of 10 years to having a force of 600 F-35 and ten years push us in 2028. At this time surely the PCA will be in developpement if USAF want it in the 2030 s years, so it will face a choice between continue to buy the F-35 or jumping in the PCA.

""This will be the same pattern we have seen before. Truncate F-22 production and invest in JSF --- Cut JSF production and invest in PCA ----- Cut PCA production and invest in PCA++..and in that endless loop the size of the USAF force continuous to shrink."" For sure there is a great chance to live the same story. The problem is still the same THE BUDGET.
 
bring_it_on said:
bobbymike said:
bring_it_on said:
the Congress will pass given the 60 vote threshold in the Senate and this was as true for Obama as it is for Trump.
Click to expand...
I believe budget bills need only 51 votes IIRC.
Click to expand...

That would be true if you stay within the BCA cap which for FY18 is at $549 Billion. To go beyond the caps you need the 60 vote threshold. The Trump campaign at one point like most of the GOP candidates in the field wanted to repeal the budget control act. Then this transitioned to repealing elements that capped defense spending. I don't know when exactly that lost favor within the administration but the the D-OMB could have played a role.

As things stand with Trump's budget he is doing exactly what Obama did when it came to defense spending i.e going past the budget caps and asking the Congress to approve. As a negotiating position his first proposal is a mere 3% higher than Obama's and once the dust settles that is likely going to be the extent of the "military spending hike" in FY18. A far cry from what is required to go where he has indicated he wants to go in his rhetoric. With Mulvaney at OMB, the OCO route does not look as secure either as it did in the years past.
Click to expand...

All the articles I read don't mention the 60 votes which they usually add as in "It will be tough to pass because they need democrats to vote" I'm pretty sure any budget matter is 51 votes.
 
Wonder how long the PCA will last as an all out air dominance fighter before someone in the military suggests putting air to ground ordinance on it? That is what happened to the F-22.
 
I don't think anyone's ever suggested that it would be exclusively an air-to-air jet; the PCA, like the PEA, is meant to help the B-2, B-21, etc take out strategic targets; that implies they would have to be able to perform SEAD (though then again, that's also what the thousands of F-35s are for as well).
 
bobbymike said:
All the articles I read don't mention the 60 votes which they usually add as in "It will be tough to pass because they need democrats to vote" I'm pretty sure any budget matter is 51 votes.
Click to expand...

A majority would get you appropriations that do not conflict with the budget control act of 2011 and the caps it sets. As per the BCA, the defense caps for FY18 are set at $549 Billion. In order to exceed them you would require 60 votes in the Senate as previously mentioned.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2421

This was the same problem that existed during the previous administration. Republicans wanted a defense only exception to the BCA while the President and the Democrats wanted budget exceed on the defense side (relative to the budget caps) be matched by an equal exceed on the domestic spending side. As long as the Democrats (or republicans in future administrations) could make sure that th 60 vote threshold is not met in the Senate, they could dictate the domestic spending unless the Republicans were willing to compromise on defense and approve or ask for budgets within the budget caps.

Pay close attention to the base budget and OCO funding. While Trump has floated a slight increase over Obama's FY18 proposal the OCO account is something that his D-OMB has long gunned for and will fight against. The net result could very well be essentially Obama level defense funding that is quite a distance away from the rhetoric of both the campaign and post-campaign transition.
 
bring_it_on said:
As long as the Democrats (or republicans in future administrations) could make sure that th 60 vote threshold is not met in the Senate, they could dictate the domestic spending unless the Republicans were willing to compromise on defense and approve or ask for budgets within the budget caps.
Click to expand...

The other option, of course, is more revenue through a tax increase.

I crack myself up.
 
George Allegrezza said:
bring_it_on said:
As long as the Democrats (or republicans in future administrations) could make sure that th 60 vote threshold is not met in the Senate, they could dictate the domestic spending unless the Republicans were willing to compromise on defense and approve or ask for budgets within the budget caps.
Click to expand...

The other option, of course, is more revenue through a tax increase.

I crack myself up.
Click to expand...

Neither the donkeys or the elephants are interested in a balanced budget and none, including the fiscal conservatives are willing to adhere to their principles once they have power and authority to influence decisions. So yeah, it will be a spending fest driven by the political reality (cannot exclusively raise defense spending for example) of getting a budget passed paid for obviously by tax cuts. Trump should get his $603 Billion budget, he'll just have to roll back some of his domestic spending cuts and pay them with higher deficits. But as things stand, for someone who constantly butchered (and in some cases rightly so) the previous administration for playing havoc with defense preparedness he is only seeking, and will only get a nominal defense increase that is grossly inadequate for the type of rhetoric that still continues to persist in his administration with regards to the direction of the defense budget and modernization.
 
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2017/April%202017/Saving-Air-Superiority.aspx . Very good article about air superiority of the futur.
 
Air Force seeks immediate, sharp FY-17 funding increase for sixth-generation fighter


The Air Force is seeking an immediate and dramatic increase in funding for its Next-Generation Air Dominance program, suggesting plans for a new penetrating counterair capability -- also referred to as a sixth-generation fighter -- are poised to accelerate if Congress can provide an additional $147 million in fiscal year 2017 above the $20 million the service originally requested.

The service is seeking the new funds to support work on a follow-on to the F-22A Raptor as part of the Pentagon's amended FY-17 budget request -- the Trump administration's gambit to add $30 billion to military coffers, a proposal that faces a number of potential political roadblocks in Congress.

Still, the Air Force -- in budget documents supporting the additional FY-17 spending proposal -- disclosed a previously unknown need for $167.5 million for the Next Generation Air Dominance project, a 735 percent increase compared to the service's original $20.5 million request for the project submitted to Congress in February 2016.

With the exception of an unnamed, classified project, the additional funding for Next-Generation Air Dominance is the single-largest increase in the research and development accounts in the proposed $30 billion hike in FY-17 military spending.

At press time, an Air Force spokesman did not respond to a request for an explanation for the increased spending.

The Air Force planned in FY-17 for a major milestone review for the Next-Generation Air Dominance project -- a materiel development decision -- during which the service would to seek permission to proceed with an analysis of alternatives. The plan was to get an MDD decision during the second quarter of FY-17, between January and March.

In lieu of traditional weapon system acquisition milestones, the Air Force schedule -- beginning in FY-17 -- calls for an annual presentation of "strategic planning choices."

As part of the preparation for the material solutions analysis phase of the project, the Air Force planned to identify "candidate technologies early in the analysis process," the service told Congress last year.

The Air Force's original FY-17 budget request forecast a need for $12.8 million in both FY-18 and FY-19. That forecast now appears to be overcome by events.

Mark Gunzinger, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, said the change in the funding profile implies the Air Force is seeking money for more than just the AOA, perhaps looking to finance some technology development in an effort to speed things along.

"Some initial money that might help accelerate the penetrating counterair effort," Gunzinger said. "If that is their intent, I would applaud them."

The Air Force has been building the case to launch a new air dominance capability for years, following approval in 2011 by the Pentagon's top brass of a requirement for a follow-on capability to the F-22A.

"Sir, we started that long ago," Maj. Gen. Jerry Harris, deputy chief of staff for strategic plans, programs, and requirements, told the House Armed Services Committee Feb. 16 when asked when the service should start working on a sixth-generation fighter.

Last year, the Air Force published a new blueprint for how it plans to ensure air superiority that called for a "penetrating counterair capability" -- which service officials said would be the focus of the Next-Generation Air Dominance analysis of alternatives. As part of the AOA, the service is expected to explore platform, sensor and weapon combinations that optimize operational range, payload, survivability and affordability, including experimentation on concepts like arsenal planes, loyal wingmen and others.

That blueprint concluded the service "must reject thinking focused on 'next-generation' platforms" because such focus can create "a desire to push technology limits with the confines of a formal program." Such objectives drive risk and can lead to cost growth and schedule delays.

As an alternative, the document advocates leveraging experimentation and prototyping "to more rapidly infuse advanced technologies into the force," an acquisition approach Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work has encouraged as part of his campaign to orchestrate a hunt for a so-called Third Offset Strategy that would identify new capabilities to bolster conventional deterrence.
Click to expand...
 
Ian33 said:
Unnamed classified project? That'll be Boeings Penetrating Electronic Attack airframe.
Click to expand...

How do you know it's Boeing's?

Also, the increased funding, would that be for the new fighter demonstrator that DARPA was reportedly pushing?
 
FighterJock said:
Wonder how long the PCA will last as an all out air dominance fighter before someone in the military suggests putting air to ground ordinance on it? That is what happened to the F-22.
Click to expand...

How has the capability the F-22 has to lob 1000lb JDAMs or SDBs hindered it? If anything, one would some kind of A2G capability built in from the start in a super stealthy supercruising long ranged platform.
 
The PEA and PCA, assuming they shared a common airframe would probably be suitable for an F-15E replacement given its likely size and payload capacity and possible two-seat PEA operation.
 
Sundog said:
Ian33 said:
Unnamed classified project? That'll be Boeings Penetrating Electronic Attack airframe.
Click to expand...

How do you know it's Boeing's?

Also, the increased funding, would that be for the new fighter demonstrator that DARPA was reportedly pushing?
Click to expand...
Those details aren't available publicly yet, all we have so far is that the request jumped up and that the previous leadership was pushing technology demonstrators.
 
bring_it_on said:
The Air Force is seeking an immediate and dramatic increase in funding for its Next-Generation Air Dominance program, suggesting plans for a new penetrating counterair capability -- also referred to as a sixth-generation fighter -- are poised to accelerate if Congress can provide an additional $147 million in fiscal year 2017 above the $20 million the service originally requested.
bring_it_on said:
With the exception of an unnamed, classified project, the additional funding for Next-Generation Air Dominance is the single-largest increase in the research and development accounts in the proposed $30 billion hike in FY-17 military spending.
Click to expand...

This article is a flawed analysis of the March 2017 amendment to the FY17 RDTE budget request and as such is misleading.

The "unnamed classified project" is actually the "bucket" for all classified USAF RDTE programs. There is no single program requesting more money than 0207110F NGAD.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom