Register here

Author Topic: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA  (Read 722096 times)

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1655
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2535 on: April 21, 2018, 06:40:57 am »
Fighter Roadmap Coming Soon, Along With Air Dominance AOA

Quote
An Analysis of Alternatives begun last year to decide the next steps in air superiority is almost finished and “should [be] complete sometime this year,” Holmes said. Despite “new ideas” from the new administration, “we’re convinced the nation will continue to depend on the Air Force to control the air so we can exploit it as a joint force,” he asserted. The AOA will provide “options” for senior leaders as to how best to provide for air superiority, and what form the PCA will take.

However it shapes up, “we know it has to operate as part of a family of systems, we know there are multiple approaches to what we’re talking about,” Holmes reported. The AOA will come with recommendations, “and then we’ll advocate for that.”
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2012
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2536 on: April 21, 2018, 02:36:00 pm »
From "FY19 Air Force President’s Budget Request Science and Technology Overview"
Mr. Jeff H. Stanley @ The 19th Annual Science & Engineering Technology Conference


Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1655
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2537 on: May 07, 2018, 08:02:46 am »
I went through the FY19 RDTE budget and came up with these small efforts littered around under various programs to support weapons, and technology development in support of NG weapons for 5th and 6th generation fighters -

Quote
•   Continue to develop airframe and control technologies that enable innovative air-to-air engagements.
•   Initiate software development kit for Open Seeker Architecture to enable rapid technology insertion into software defined, multi-function seekers.
•   Continue to explore terminal seeker technologies that enable innovative air-to-air engagements for fifth-generation aircraft and beyond.
•   Continue development and early testing of small, air-to-air, self-defense munitions seeker technology including initial captive flight testing and hardware in the loop testing.
•   Initiate a weapon demonstration concept and showing an increase of load-out by double.
•   Continue ground testing of advanced guidance laws and actuators that enable innovative air-to-air engagements and hyper agility including hit-to-kill.
•   Continue conducting flight innovative air-to-air high off-bore sight missile maneuverability and hit-to kill agility.
•   Continue conducting ground tests of rocket motor component technologies to evaluate their ability to increase weapon range and
        reduce size and weight.
•   Initiate small, air-to-air, self-defense munitions research effort.
•   Continue to develop air-to-air missile warhead concepts for the air targets in near-peer engagement scenarios.
•   Continue to conduct wind-tunnel and limited flight experiments to characterize air-to-air maneuverability, range, and guidance and
         control for sixth generation weapon concept. Continue to conduct ground and arena tests of advanced weapons experimental-
         carriages for sixth generation weapon concept and prepare for flight worthiness testing.
•   Continue to test prototype propulsion systems to demonstrate attributes to meet next-generation air-to-air weapon requirements.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8346
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2538 on: May 26, 2018, 04:53:31 pm »
https://www.defensenews.com/interviews/2018/05/17/interview-mitchell-institute-head-has-advice-for-the-future-us-air-force-fighter-fleet/

Quote

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force is in the process of laying out a fighter jet road map that will help decide the makeup of its future tactical aircraft fleet. The plan won’t be finalized until later this year, but Dave Deptula, a retired Air Force lieutenant general and current dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, shared with Defense News his thoughts about where the service should go.

One of the big questions regarding the fighter road map is the fate of fourth-generation fighters. What should the Air Force be considering as it makes those decisions?

For far too long, the budgets that have been issued to the Air Force have been what has driven its force size, not strategy. So the national security strategy is what needs to drive our military’s force structure, to include the Air Force. If you look to the new national security strategy … one begins to see a picture where what one needs to be able to do is to fight and win major regional contingencies at the high end of the conflict spectrum, as well as to still be engaged in kind of the proverbial conflicts that have been continuing but that occur inside a permissive airspace.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8346
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2539 on: July 20, 2018, 06:27:32 am »
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/farnborough/2018/07/16/whats-going-on-with-americas-next-fighter-designs/

Quote

WASHINGTON ― America is developing a pair of two new high-tech fighter aircraft, and you probably haven’t heard much about them.

Under the leadership of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, the Pentagon has clamped down on talking about cutting-edge capabilities in development, citing concerns about giving potential foes too much information.

Nevertheless, some details have emerged about the ongoing programs, one each from the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy. And in light of European plans for new fighter designs, it is worth revisiting what is, and isn’t, known about the American efforts.

In 2016, the U.S. Air Force unveiled its “Air Superiority 2030” study, which posited that although the service would need a new air superiority fighter jet — called Penetrating Counter Air — as soon as the 2030s, it would be just as important that the new plane fit into a "family of systems” of space, cyber, electronic warfare and other enabling technologies.

The service then initiated an analysis of alternatives in 2017 to further drill down on Penetrating Counter Air concepts and to refine its requirements, but the service’s top uniformed officer sounds interested in a disaggregated mission aproach.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline TomcatViP

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 317
  • Hellcat
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2540 on: July 21, 2018, 05:31:25 pm »
An interesting read. It will be good to see how various nations and services come to solve the question of the future air warfare. For sure, airframe type could be by the many thanks to the lower cost of design (in overall). Interestingly most nation have the same terminology (although we still don't know how original that is for some).
Interesting time indeed.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8346
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2541 on: August 09, 2018, 05:44:44 am »
Papers from 2018 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop

Estimating Future Air Dominance
David E. Stem, AFCAA Aircraft & Weapons Division Chief

Proactive estimating: an analysis of sixth generation aircraft
Dale Shermon, QinetiQ


« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 12:52:48 pm by flateric »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1419
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2542 on: August 09, 2018, 01:44:26 pm »
USAF analyst suggests ways to avoid cost overruns on 6th-gen fighter

Quote
The Aircraft and Weapons division chief with the US Air Force Cost Analysis Agency has made a series of suggestions in a research paper for keeping the price of a sixth generation fighter down after analysing a myriad of cost-overruns by the B-2, F-22 and F-35 programmes.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-analyst-suggests-ways-to-avoid-cost-overruns-on-451032/

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2012
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2543 on: August 09, 2018, 09:04:30 pm »
Contains earth-shattering suggestions like: use multi-year procurement.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10624
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2544 on: August 10, 2018, 04:46:47 am »
Contains earth-shattering suggestions like: use multi-year procurement.

MYP?  Can't do that.  Everybody in the GAO and a POGO would have a coronary. IIRC they were against buying an additional SSN ( don't recall which FY it was to be bought it but it would have save money overall) and MYP of the Ford class as well.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2018, 04:48:37 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 796
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2545 on: August 10, 2018, 07:49:55 am »
I don't recall GAO or POGO ever being against all block buys or MYP as tools of procurement. Both have at times been heavily critical of block buys or MYPs that were authorized before the programs in question had reached a level of maturity and cost stability they believed was appropriate to warrant such, and both have pressed the DoD to support its calculated savings with hard data. As watchdogs, that's their job. I doubt either would read that report and say "no block buys!"

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1162
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2546 on: August 10, 2018, 03:48:13 pm »
Perhaps you can name a program (any major weapon system) where they support MYP?   If you think of all the major weapon systems developed and fielded over the past 40 years, which of them did they support let alone advocate MYP?  Off hand, whenever I see GAO Report or POGO, I automatically know what to expect.  Given who makes up their staff, it would be heresy for them to do otherwise.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2002
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2547 on: August 11, 2018, 05:42:11 am »
Neither can I recall GAO or POGO (or indeed any actors) being opposed on principle to MYP. They do go along with the maturity criteria for MYP, which are logical.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10624
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2548 on: August 11, 2018, 05:52:11 am »
"Acquisition Insanity: USS Ford Block-Buy Proposal"

http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/defense-budget/2018/acquisition-insanity-uss-ford-block-buy-proposal.html


"F-35 Chief Struggles to Justify Block Buy"

http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/congress/2016/f-35-chief-explains-block-buy.html

and a year later:

http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2017/pogo-statement-f-35-economic-order-quantity-legislative-proposal.html

In both instances POGO is being deliberately deceptive.  Both the Ford class and the F-35 are going to be bought.  They're not getting cancelled tomorrow.  But in both cases POGO gins up a lot of spurious nonsense in an effort to keep the dream of cancellation alive.  (Because, you know, if they're only buying year-to-year there's still a chance. . .)

And the F-22

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/verbatim/4/71696/testimony-slams-us-air-force%27s-plans-for-f_22-funding.html

Here's a fine example of POGO's integrity:

"Stable Requirements Over the years, the number of requested F-22 aircraft has plummeted from 750 in 1986 to the most recent plan of only 183 – clearly demonstrating the lack of stability in production rate requirements – in large part because the cost per aircraft has tripled."

Through either stupidity or malice they claim a "tripled" price is the reason for the cut in numbers purchased rather than putting the real blame on the increased unit cost where it belongs - on the cutting of the numbers purchased.  Of course this kind of dishonestly is the bread and butter of POGO. 
« Last Edit: August 11, 2018, 05:58:35 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 840
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA
« Reply #2549 on: August 11, 2018, 06:33:07 am »
Contains earth-shattering suggestions like: use multi-year procurement.

MYP?  Can't do that.  Everybody in the GAO and a POGO would have a coronary. IIRC they were against buying an additional SSN ( don't recall which FY it was to be bought it but it would have save money overall) and MYP of the Ford class as well.

The paper recommends MYP in 'production' systems but it contains a great deal more than that. It's worth the read.   

If I've understood the thrust of GAO's objection to MYP it's been because the data shows that MYP doesn't always result in the savings projected in the justification.  The myriad reasons usually end with, "so they needed to spend more."  There are times when specifications are lowered and the MYP budgets are still fully appropriated.  Virginia class, today, seems to be a MYP poster child.

I can't bash the GAO for fulfilling their mandate.  They hold programs accountable for what the programs say they're going to deliver.  If SpaceX were a government "program" GAO would immolate them having over sold and under delivered.  And we would all reply, "and what they've delivered is spectacular so we'll let it slide."

The issue hasn't been scrutiny.  It's a Congress that mandates $1 worth of security, allocates the professionals $.47, leaves that funding flat for 25 years while requiring the professionals to prosecute war for 18 years.  And the worst of it is they've convinced the professionals that the problem is not lack of funds but funding stability.   This wont change until Congress (and those that elect them) appropriate, annually and on time, the base cost to execute the mandated national defense strategy, or change the requirements.

But perhaps there's reason for optimism.  Tech maturation, stable requirements, RCO, contract flexibility (e.g KC-46 $4.9B fixed EMD contract), leveraging interoperable open architectures and upgrade ability into new platforms are all positive steps.  If we could only guarantee stable funding.