USAF/USN 6th Gen Fighters - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS News & Analysis [2008- 2025]

[sublight_]

I dont see what everybody is getting all excited about. NGAD is not a fighter program. The Navy version of NGAD is also not a fighter program.

 

[rooster]

I dont see what everybody is getting all excited about NGAD is not a fighter program. The Navy version of NGAD is also not a fighter program.

Navair ain't what it used to be, for sure. I would be thankful for a super super hornet at this point with more powerful engines. The usaf ngad at least involves a manned component.

I don't know why everyone is jumping on the drones idea for air superiority: there isn't one example anyplace demonstrating drones are feasible for a2a. What happens when the command and control center is neutralized and your drones are useless? To me drones are a risky variable easily improved by keeping a human in the cockpit. Eliminating life support is a miniscule cost saving with dubious results.

 

[quellish]

Does this mean, the USAF has chosen a design and awarded the contract to build a true prototype after the demonstrator(s) has/have been tested.

Not a design as much a process for creating a capability.

 

[Sferrin]

Does this mean, the USAF has chosen a design and awarded the contract to build a true prototype after the demonstrator(s) has/have been tested.

Not a design as much a process for creating a capability.

"Well we got the 3D printer figured out. Now we need to figure out what to print." That sounds like a hell of a long ways from having anything real.

 

[siegecrossbow]

What if NGAD is not one plane, but a system or network of different aircraft?

 

[MrSlayburyStreet]

What if NGAD is not one plane, but a system or network of different aircraft?

That’s what the Air Force and Navy have been saying, iirc. A “family of systems”. Something like an optionally manned fighter as the main component acting as a quarterback and a bunch of purely unmanned little dudes flying around with internal bays that are holding precision bangbangs or loitering munitions. Take this with some salt as I’m just a novice in this arena

I can’t help thinking of a “Russian Nesting Doll” concept with UCAVs lmao.

 

[paralay]

,

 

[Sferrin]

I am sure that these are at least two types of aircraft: - double with internal weapons compartment, take-off weight of about 40 tons - single / unmanned with one engine and take-off weight of 20 tons

I'd hope there would be one 40- 50 tons, lots of range and payload for the Pacific.

 

[TomcatViP]

Don't forget that modern airframe are significantly lighter (and then nimbler) than classical airframe. The significance of lightweight, highly resistant and economically acceptable CRFP materials used in structural applications as well as digital design push the total mass down to a new paradigm: wet surfaces are somewhat decolerated from the total mass and the latter from range.

 

[Sferrin]

Don't forget that modern airframe are significantly lighter (and then nimbler) than classical airframe. The significance of lightweight, highly resistant and economically acceptable CRFP materials used in structural applications as well as digital design push the total mass down to a new paradigm: wet surfaces are somewhat decolerated from the total mass and the latter from range.

Have you seen the F-35?

 

[Sundog]

I am sure that these are at least two types of aircraft: - double with internal weapons compartment, take-off weight of about 40 tons - single / unmanned with one engine and take-off weight of 20 tons

I'm sure it will be designed to work with various unmanned systems. Also, don't forget there will be two versions of the manned aircraft component of the NGAD system; one for the European theater and one for the Pacific Theater (Larger with more fuel. Fuselage plug? Fuselage plug with large wing gloves so the increased weight is met with an increase in wing size?).

 

[TomcatViP]

Don't forget that modern airframe are significantly lighter (and then nimbler) than classical airframe. The significance of lightweight, highly resistant and economically acceptable CRFP materials used in structural applications as well as digital design push the total mass down to a new paradigm: wet surfaces are somewhat decolerated from the total mass and the latter from range.

Have you seen the F-35?

An F-35 built 20 years before would have probably been 15ft longer with a larger wing and would have needed a doublet engines... In fact, something b/w an F-111 and an F-101 would be a good candidate to start with. See how the J-20 that doesn't benefit from all mentioned improvements is significantly bigger for example for a comparable mission.
It's a miracle that so much could have been stuffed in such a tiny airframe* with it fullfiling so many missions but the postal service.

 

[Josh_TN]

I am sure that these are at least two types of aircraft: - double with internal weapons compartment, take-off weight of about 40 tons - single / unmanned with one engine and take-off weight of 20 tons

I'm sure it will be designed to work with various unmanned systems. Also, don't forget there will be two versions of the manned aircraft component of the NGAD system; one for the European theater and one for the Pacific Theater (Larger with more fuel. Fuselage plug? Fuselage plug with large wing gloves so the increased weight is met with an increase in wing size?).

IMO, it seems exceedingly hard to believe there is a "European" NGAD. The USAF can already match the Russian air force one for one 5th generation to 4th generation; I can't imagine in the current budget climate in the US and capability climate in Russia that anyone is going to invest money in a separate development of a platform where there is complete overmatch already.

 

[F-2]

I am sure that these are at least two types of aircraft: - double with internal weapons compartment, take-off weight of about 40 tons - single / unmanned with one engine and take-off weight of 20 tons

I'm sure it will be designed to work with various unmanned systems. Also, don't forget there will be two versions of the manned aircraft component of the NGAD system; one for the European theater and one for the Pacific Theater (Larger with more fuel. Fuselage plug? Fuselage plug with large wing gloves so the increased weight is met with an increase in wing size?).

IMO, it seems exceedingly hard to believe there is a "European" NGAD. The USAF can already match the Russian air force one for one 5th generation to 4th generation; I can't imagine in the current budget climate in the US and capability climate in Russia that anyone is going to invest money in a separate development of a platform where there is complete overmatch already.

I’ve heard European NGAD is an upgraded F-22.

 

[NeilChapman]

I dont see what everybody is getting all excited about NGAD is not a fighter program. The Navy version of NGAD is also not a fighter program.

Navair ain't what it used to be, for sure. I would be thankful for a super super hornet at this point with more powerful engines. The usaf ngad at least involves a manned component.

I don't know why everyone is jumping on the drones idea for air superiority: there isn't one example anyplace demonstrating drones are feasible for a2a. What happens when the command and control center is neutralized and your drones are useless? To me drones are a risky variable easily improved by keeping a human in the cockpit. Eliminating life support is a miniscule cost saving with dubious results.

Are you assuming the drones are not autonomous? I would expect they are and therefore C&C would be from the NGAD platform.

 

[NeilChapman]

I am sure that these are at least two types of aircraft: - double with internal weapons compartment, take-off weight of about 40 tons - single / unmanned with one engine and take-off weight of 20 tons

I'm sure it will be designed to work with various unmanned systems. Also, don't forget there will be two versions of the manned aircraft component of the NGAD system; one for the European theater and one for the Pacific Theater (Larger with more fuel. Fuselage plug? Fuselage plug with large wing gloves so the increased weight is met with an increase in wing size?).

IMO, it seems exceedingly hard to believe there is a "European" NGAD. The USAF can already match the Russian air force one for one 5th generation to 4th generation; I can't imagine in the current budget climate in the US and capability climate in Russia that anyone is going to invest money in a separate development of a platform where there is complete overmatch already.

From what we've witnessed in Ukraine, it's hard to believe the Russians have fielded anything capable of engaging F-16's let alone F-35. It's no wonder the EU have dismissed them for 30 years. The PLAAF on the other hand have numbers, location, and unknown tech on their side.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I am sure that these are at least two types of aircraft: - double with internal weapons compartment, take-off weight of about 40 tons - single / unmanned with one engine and take-off weight of 20 tons

I'm sure it will be designed to work with various unmanned systems. Also, don't forget there will be two versions of the manned aircraft component of the NGAD system; one for the European theater and one for the Pacific Theater (Larger with more fuel. Fuselage plug? Fuselage plug with large wing gloves so the increased weight is met with an increase in wing size?).

IMO, it seems exceedingly hard to believe there is a "European" NGAD. The USAF can already match the Russian air force one for one 5th generation to 4th generation; I can't imagine in the current budget climate in the US and capability climate in Russia that anyone is going to invest money in a separate development of a platform where there is complete overmatch already.

I’ve heard European NGAD is an upgraded F-22.

Isn’t that or for the course for European development? When the US was developing 5th gen they were developing Typhoons and Rafale.

 

[rooster]

I dont see what everybody is getting all excited about NGAD is not a fighter program. The Navy version of NGAD is also not a fighter program.

Navair ain't what it used to be, for sure. I would be thankful for a super super hornet at this point with more powerful engines. The usaf ngad at least involves a manned component.

I don't know why everyone is jumping on the drones idea for air superiority: there isn't one example anyplace demonstrating drones are feasible for a2a. What happens when the command and control center is neutralized and your drones are useless? To me drones are a risky variable easily improved by keeping a human in the cockpit. Eliminating life support is a miniscule cost saving with dubious results.

Are you assuming the drones are not autonomous? I would expect they are and therefore C&C would be from the NGAD platform.

I'm assuming nothing more than drones have demonstrated zero capability in A2A and that there is no human in a cockpit with all the inherent benefits of the human brain.

you can take away GPS and radios and all communications and I can still fly my piper from Detroit to St Louis with just a little effort. I can't say that of any flying computer today or tomorrow.

 

[TomcatViP]

Don't forget that even some cruise missiles have terrain recognition software that can accurately work their navigation without much external help (or external lights).
On the other hand, most GA pilot launched in the middle of the night would probably have a hard time doing chart navigation past their home airfield

 

[Josh_TN]

The USAF has already tested an AI that can out dogfight a human pilot. That said I suspect the primary role of wingmen type UAVs is to act as forward sensor and stand in EW platforms, and in a pinch, decoys, to make the parent aircraft more survivable. I suspect a MADL type data link is all that they would need to pass data one way and receive orders and relative positional data from the manned aircraft in the other. The escort drone doesn’t need to know exactly where in the world it is; it just needs to know where it is in relation to the controller.

 

[TomcatViP]

At least while it doesn't have a2g weapons!

 

[sublight_]

That said I suspect the primary role of wingmen type UAVs is to act as forward sensor and stand in EW platforms, and in a pinch, decoys, to make the parent aircraft more survivable.

No, plasma projection is the going forward technology for decoys.

 

[Dreamflyer]

With the info of the last few years in mind, I don´t find it very surprising we´re (already) entering EMD times.

 

[Firefinder]

That said I suspect the primary role of wingmen type UAVs is to act as forward sensor and stand in EW platforms, and in a pinch, decoys, to make the parent aircraft more survivable.

No, plasma projection is the going forward technology for decoys.

Why cant you have the UAVs using plasma projections to make even more decoys?

 

[Josh_TN]

If nothing else, nothing decoys as well as an actual physical aircraft with a complete signature. If you have the ability to project false targets, great, but worst case a loyal wingman type drone is a real aircraft that would still register as a legitimate target to most any SAM or AAM.

 

[sublight_]

If nothing else, nothing decoys as well as an actual physical aircraft with a complete signature. If you have the ability to project false targets, great, but worst case a loyal wingman type drone is a real aircraft that would still register as a legitimate target to most any SAM or AAM.

It may extend beyond just decoys. There has been a lot of research into using plasma as electromagnetic reflectors. Imagine actively projecting a large oblique "radar shield" between you and the targeting radar. The Navy has been projecting large plasma objects over the decks of carriers for 4 hours straight, and playing tic tac with F-18s for nearly 20 years.

 

[lantinian]

Those early RFI ATF designs from Lockheed that were like stealthy SR-71 battlecruisers suddenly seam like an NGAD solution ahead of its time. Granted, they were not that stealthy but did they have range and speed.

I am comvinced the NGAD will not have closely spaced engines like the F-22. That configuration make sustained supersonic speed for long periods of time a heat dissipation problem even if the fuel was not an issue.

I also think that the absence of the word “fighter” when discussing even the manned part of the NGAD is no accident.

 

[rooster]

Those early RFI ATF designs from Lockheed that were like stealthy SR-71 battlecruisers suddenly seam like an NGAD solution ahead of its time. Granted, they were not that stealthy but did they have range and speed.

I am comvinced the NGAD will not have closely spaced engines like the F-22. That configuration make sustained supersonic speed for long periods of time a heat dissipation problem even if the fuel was not an issue.

I also think that the absence of the word “fighter” when discussing even the manned part of the NGAD is no accident.

Kingfish had closely spaced engines.

 

[rooster]

If nothing else, nothing decoys as well as an actual physical aircraft with a complete signature. If you have the ability to project false targets, great, but worst case a loyal wingman type drone is a real aircraft that would still register as a legitimate target to most any SAM or AAM.

Radar is pretty good and aircraft can be discerned from signature returns. Along with ir imaging one can separate the drone from the manned aircraft. F14 was doing target id decades ago coupling radar with ir.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think NCTR of 5th gen fighters is probably very difficult - by definition they would lack a lot of the features and signal return of more traditional types. IR will make you eventually but generally at shorter range.

The other issue is that if the wingmen are armed, you can’t just ignore them anymore even if they are being intentionally used as decoys.

 

[elmer]

The Air Force's secret next-gen fighter has reached development phase - Breaking Defense

Moving to the development stage more than likely means that the Air Force has coalesced around a single fighter design made by a single prime contractor, said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with AeroDynamic Advisory.

breakingdefense.com

 

[FighterJock]

The Air Force's secret next-gen fighter has reached development phase - Breaking Defense

Moving to the development stage more than likely means that the Air Force has coalesced around a single fighter design made by a single prime contractor, said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with AeroDynamic Advisory.

breakingdefense.com

Good to see the NGAD has moved onto the next development phase, I cannot wait to see what the finished design will look like.

 

[dark sidius]

The Air Force's secret next-gen fighter has reached development phase - Breaking Defense

Moving to the development stage more than likely means that the Air Force has coalesced around a single fighter design made by a single prime contractor, said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with AeroDynamic Advisory.

breakingdefense.com

Good to see the NGAD has moved onto the next development phase, I cannot wait to see what the finished design will look like.

The same

 

[djfawcett]

Kingfish had closely spaced engines.

Do not be surprise of the "finished design" footprint is very similar in dimensions to the Convair Kingfish design, which has a length of 73.6 ft and a span of 60 ft. As a matter of fact, the most recent LM concept may "sort of" fall into this category.

 

[sublight_]

Do not be surprised if the design prioritizes aerospace innovations made in the last 40 years over stealth.

 

[FighterJock]

Do not be surprised if the design prioritizes aerospace innovations made in the last 40 years over stealth.

The final shape of the NGAD will quite possibly look a lot more different than the current generation of stealth fighters up to and including the F-35 due to the advancements in computer technology, look at what happened to the F-117 and B-2 for example.

 

[sublight_]

Do not be surprised if the design prioritizes aerospace innovations made in the last 40 years over stealth.

The final shape of the NGAD will quite possibly look a lot more different than the current generation of stealth fighters up to and including the F-35 due to the advancements in computer technology, look at what happened to the F-117 and B-2 for example.

There are no computer advancements that magically reduce the absolutely staggering engineering hours that passive stealth requires. How many aerospace advancements made over the years are "incompatible" with low observable engineering? The digital century series concept was not meant to work with a low observable platform, but one mostly devoid of low observable characteristics. Imagine the engineering possibilities when RCS does not constrain the design.

 

[Sferrin]

Do not be surprised if the design prioritizes aerospace innovations made in the last 40 years over stealth.

The final shape of the NGAD will quite possibly look a lot more different than the current generation of stealth fighters up to and including the F-35 due to the advancements in computer technology, look at what happened to the F-117 and B-2 for example.

There are no computer advancements that magically reduce the absolutely staggering engineering hours that passive stealth requires.

I'll bet they've developed a bunch of in-house tools to automate a lot of that.

 

[kaiserd]

Do not be surprised if the design prioritizes aerospace innovations made in the last 40 years over stealth.

The final shape of the NGAD will quite possibly look a lot more different than the current generation of stealth fighters up to and including the F-35 due to the advancements in computer technology, look at what happened to the F-117 and B-2 for example.

There are no computer advancements that magically reduce the absolutely staggering engineering hours that passive stealth requires. How many aerospace advancements made over the years are "incompatible" with low observable engineering? The digital century series concept was not meant to work with a low observable platform, but one mostly devoid of low observable characteristics. Imagine the engineering possibilities when RCS does not constrain the design.

Utter nonsense. There has been no passive stealth versus “active” stealth revolution nor any reliable indication that the “digital century series” concept involved any meaningful abandonment of the need for low observability in next generation fighters.

All USAF and US Navy 6th generation manned fighters are going to be designed for low observability characteristics to maximise their survivability while maximising their freedom of movement/ action; highly likely to be “stealthier” than their F-22 and F-35 predecessors but with the mix of other performance goals (say range/ endurance versus high G manoeuvring) likely to be different.

There is likely to be less trade-off for low observability characteristics (like the F-22 and then the F-35 had to sacrifice less than a F-117 for them) and they may well look different than current 5th generation designs.

Their loyal (unmanned) wingmen are also likely to look to minimise their observability characteristics but the cost/ benefit of the precise balance of such characteristics versus cost and other factors will be different than for the manned platforms.

 

[sublight_]

Utter nonsense. There has been no passive stealth versus “active” stealth revolution

If the Navy has been brazen enough to let their plasma technologies spill into the public eye, then I think a wider scope of its use is upon us. The digital century series is wildly unfeasible. When you take the RCS dependencies out of the picture it suddenly becomes quite doable. Is there another good reason for the heightened security around the NGAD program?