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

[TomS]

Or it's a deliberately obfuscated or non-representative shape that they can safely use in advertising.

 

[X-39]

It's still the same concept shown since 2015, you can find a few more pictures looking for the Northrop keyword in this thread.

Sorry my friend, but i think there is enough evidence to conclude these are completely different planes:

1# Intake type and placement is different, DSI vs forward swept cowl. From being right behind the cockpit to moved 9ft back.
2# All ESAV models have a flat bottom, unlike these last renders
3# Raised neck cockpit vs flush
3# Size disparity between aircraft and overall planform alignment. Arrowhead shaped vs a more chiseled BoP LE. Besides, one of them appears not to be tailless. I don't think you took into account the absurd discrepancy of those comically small inlets and canopy relatives to the dimensions of the aircraft, because that thing is MASSIVE, it's footprint would be x2 of the one featured in the hangar. In other words, if you overlayed these two, the exhaust of the 2nd would barely reach the midsection of the 1st, aligning with one of the airbrakes/access hatches

So IMHO:

=/=
&

As you can see, it's not "wingless" but it has a cranked-arrow wing.
The CGI model is just too big to fit into the camera angle in the shot shown in the advert you linked above, but in the second picture you posted of it, you can see hints of where (look at the extreme left of the image) the wing starts to change its sweep:

Yes, except the "wing" is placed way, way, WAY back towards the aft, you could fit. It might be a perspective issue, but there doesn't seem to exist enough space that far back for a wing with a sizable area to fit in. (Eg, if you took out a big chunk of the wings from ESAV this is what the result looks like:

 

[CiTrus90]

Alright, it seems to me you're interested in seeing more than there really is here.
Which is something I appreciate, because it shows you're passionate about the topic, even though that doesn't really help when trying to research stuff, because more patience is needed in a field where results are often only seen after years.

The aircraft you see depicted in all these images are placeholder artworks.
Remember all the artworks of the B-21 released prior to its unveiling? Do you think, in hindsight, that they are a complete match to the real aircraft we've seen?

Normally, these artworks are created by either external advertising companies or dedicated internal PR departments of the manufacturers.
And, usually, the people working on them are given a brief about what the customer wants to see represented, like, for example, a flying wing bomber or a cranked-arrow fighter.
The people deputed to creating said artwork are then given some references, examples, etc. in order to create concepts that will satisfy the client.

The artworks are, clearly, not made to look like the final vehicles. They might get close to it, but they will not achieve a 100% match of the real thing. And that's because the people that make the artworks do not have access to that kind of information.

Just look at the first picture you posted in the last post: is it really credible that the ailerons and elevons would stand out of the trailing edge of the wings, and have such big gaps among them, or would that be a no-no in stealth designs?
Let's look at the afterburners' dimensions with regards to the rest of the aircraft: don't we think that they are several orders of magnitude smaller than they should be to be realistic?
Everyone of those artworks and concept shown in them can be picked apart.

Also, the aircraft depicted in the images I linked to is not the same exact aircraft in every single instance for a simple reason: it was made by different people, with different software, at different points in time.
Although, this still gives a broad idea of what the people at Northrop Grumman "publically" believe that a 6th generation fighter will look like, i.e. a big chonker, with cranked-arrow planform, single seater and top mounted inlets.
Which, incidentally, is reminiscent of studies conducted in prior years that were unclassified or declassified.

How many of these things might make it to the final aircraft is something we won't be able to tell until the ball drops and the NGAD is unveiled.

But they are still just placeholder images, useful only insomuch as they give a few insights into the direction a concept is taking.

 

[Sferrin]

Ah! right thanks Josh-TN, so the NGAD will be super cruising at altitude unlike the F-22. I can see the point now.

Uhm. . .the F-22 DOES supercruise at altitude.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

Alright, it seems to me you're interested in seeing more than there really is here.
Which is something I appreciate, because it shows you're passionate about the topic, even though that doesn't really help when trying to research stuff, because more patience is needed in a field where results are often only seen after years.

The aircraft you see depicted in all these images are placeholder artworks.
Remember all the artworks of the B-21 released prior to its unveiling? Do you think, in hindsight, that they are a complete match to the real aircraft we've seen?

Normally, these artworks are created by either external advertising companies or dedicated internal PR departments of the manufacturers.
And, usually, the people working on them are given a brief about what the customer wants to see represented, like, for example, a flying wing bomber or a cranked-arrow fighter.
The people deputed to creating said artwork are then given some references, examples, etc. in order to create concepts that will satisfy the client.

The artworks are, clearly, not made to look like the final vehicles. They might get close to it, but they will not achieve a 100% match of the real thing. And that's because the people that make the artworks do not have access to that kind of information.

Just look at the first picture you posted in the last post: is it really credible that the ailerons and elevons would stand out of the trailing edge of the wings, and have such big gaps among them, or would that be a no-no in stealth designs?
Let's look at the afterburners' dimensions with regards to the rest of the aircraft: don't we think that they are several orders of magnitude smaller than they should be to be realistic?
Everyone of those artworks and concept shown in them can be picked apart.

Also, the aircraft depicted in the images I linked to is not the same exact aircraft in every single instance for a simple reason: it was made by different people, with different software, at different points in time.
Although, this still gives a broad idea of what the people at Northrop Grumman "publically" believe that a 6th generation fighter will look like, i.e. a big chonker, with cranked-arrow planform, single seater and top mounted inlets.
Which, incidentally, is reminiscent of studies conducted in prior years that were unclassified or declassified.

How many of these things might make it to the final aircraft is something we won't be able to tell until the ball drops and the NGAD is unveiled.

But they are still just placeholder images, useful only insomuch as they give a few insights into the direction a concept is taking.

That is very much correct. Even officially-used concept art, such as the one featured in the 2019-2020 Department of the Air Force Acquisition Biennial Report (Which I used for my profile picture) ultimately does not reflect what the NGAD truly will be.

They could either be the former, wherein designers don't have any access to the designs, or could be deliberately made to both give a hint to what the NGAD might be, without revealing everything that is there to see in the design.

 

[Ainen]

Ah! right thanks Josh-TN, so the NGAD will be super cruising at altitude unlike the F-22. I can see the point now.

Uhm. . .the F-22 DOES supercruise at altitude.

I think it was irony.

But the question is probably a broader one - can a fighter be allowed to have such an optimization?

Like, RuAF occasionally uses non-maneuverable, high supersonic-optimized mig-31s for boring peacetime intercepts - but they're remarkably unsuitable for the most simple tasks around; it is recognized as a flaw.

A fighter ultimately shall be a usable for the whole mission set, not just pursue the dao of air duel.

F-22 cruises high&fast, too - but it can also do stupid air policing, safely escort subsonic asset - and is perfectly able to follow up/protect itself from this position. Losing unmaneuverable battlestar to peacetime misunderstanding with DPRK mig-17, or failing to follow a civilian airliner in clouds in an emergency situation will be stupid.

 

[Sferrin]

Ah! right thanks Josh-TN, so the NGAD will be super cruising at altitude unlike the F-22. I can see the point now.

Uhm. . .the F-22 DOES supercruise at altitude.

I think it was irony.

But the question is probably a broader one - can a fighter be allowed to have such an optimization?

Like, RuAF occasionally uses non-maneuverable, high supersonic-optimized mig-31s for boring peacetime intercepts - but they're remarkably unsuitable for the most simple tasks around; it is recognized as a flaw.

A fighter ultimately shall be a usable for the whole mission set, not just pursue the dao of air duel.

F-22 cruises high&fast, too - but it can also do stupid air policing, safely escort subsonic asset - and is perfectly able to follow up/protect itself from this position. Losing unmaneuverable battlestar to peacetime misunderstanding with DPRK mig-17, or failing to follow a civilian airliner in clouds in an emergency situation will be stupid.

Who says you have to lose maneuverability? But in the days of all-aspect, spherical engagement envelope, the dogfight is becoming suicide.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

Ah! right thanks Josh-TN, so the NGAD will be super cruising at altitude unlike the F-22. I can see the point now.

Uhm. . .the F-22 DOES supercruise at altitude.

I think it was irony.

But the question is probably a broader one - can a fighter be allowed to have such an optimization?

Like, RuAF occasionally uses non-maneuverable, high supersonic-optimized mig-31s for boring peacetime intercepts - but they're remarkably unsuitable for the most simple tasks around; it is recognized as a flaw.

A fighter ultimately shall be a usable for the whole mission set, not just pursue the dao of air duel.

F-22 cruises high&fast, too - but it can also do stupid air policing, safely escort subsonic asset - and is perfectly able to follow up/protect itself from this position. Losing unmaneuverable battlestar to peacetime misunderstanding with DPRK mig-17, or failing to follow a civilian airliner in clouds in an emergency situation will be stupid.

Who says you have to lose maneuverability? But in the days of all-aspect, spherical engagement envelope, the dogfight is becoming suicide.

At this point, fast and maneuverable fighters designed for dogfights going up against fighters with highly advanced sensors and BVR missiles will be like that one swordsman going up against Indiana Jones: They will be destroyed before they even get in range.

Of course, that's not to say dogfights won't be a thing, but they will be rarer and rarer as time comes. And they are already very rare in this time.

 

[Ainen]

Of course, that's not to say dogfights won't be a thing, but they will be rarer and rarer as time comes. And they are already very rare in this time.

Thanks to a certain world power, filling up the world fighter fleet with a certain LO fighter, which can't really be stealthy and carry WVR missiles at the same time - I guess we'll get to see more of them than we otherwise should've expected to.
And those will be dogfights of the most traditional kind at that. On pointy metal sticksstreams.

 

[Sferrin]

Of course, that's not to say dogfights won't be a thing, but they will be rarer and rarer as time comes. And they are already very rare in this time.

Thanks to a certain world power, filling up the world fighter fleet with a certain LO fighter, which can't really be stealthy and carry WVR missiles at the same time - I guess we'll get to see more of them than we otherwise should've expected to.
And those will be dogfights of the most traditional kind at that. On pointy metal sticksstreams.

Good luck with that.

 

[Ainen]

Of course, that's not to say dogfights won't be a thing, but they will be rarer and rarer as time comes. And they are already very rare in this time.

Thanks to a certain world power, filling up the world fighter fleet with a certain LO fighter, which can't really be stealthy and carry WVR missiles at the same time - I guess we'll get to see more of them than we otherwise should've expected to.
And those will be dogfights of the most traditional kind at that. On pointy metal sticksstreams.

Good luck with that.

Ooh, almost sure'll see it sooner or later.
The number of nations who're going to use it as their default fighter is just too high. That's a guarantee of lots of weird situations.

 

[Josh_TN]

How many times have F-16s gotten into dogfights?

 

[Ainen]

How many times have F-16s gotten into dogfights?

IIRC, in all major air wars it participated, dozens fights/hundeds a/c involved. Same with F-15.
There was none significant since 1991 - but there were no significant air superiority campaigns since then neither.

But it's beyond the point - that era was almost unavoidably BVR-intensive(but was missile-intensive first, gun - remote second), with BVR being a natural continuation of SARH WVR.
Massive F-35 fleet, on the other hand, is kinda forcing it by forcing survivability/sidewinder dilemma. But since F-35 fleet is so massive that it's generation-defining, it doesn't matter. Guns will brrrt in decades to come, unless this whole fleet will somehow grow outdated prematurely.

 

[waynekole]

Not a dogfight F16 shoots down slow OV-10 Bronco. Or maybe OV-10 Bronco was like a Ford Bronco overheated and burst into flames.

 

[Josh_TN]

How many times have F-16s gotten into dogfights?

IIRC, in all major air wars it participated, dozens fights/hundeds a/c involved. Same with F-15.
There was none significant since 1991 - but there were no significant air superiority campaigns since then neither.

But it's beyond the point - that era was almost unavoidably BVR-intensive(but was missile-intensive first, gun - remote second), with BVR being a natural continuation of SARH WVR.
Massive F-35 fleet, on the other hand, is kinda forcing it by forcing survivability/sidewinder dilemma. But since F-35 fleet is so massive that it's generation-defining, it doesn't matter. Guns will brrrt in decades to come, unless this whole fleet will somehow grow outdated prematurely.

I honestly can't think of any non US F-16s with any combat experience outside maybe a couple from Pakistan. And in terms of air to air US engagements, I think there was Iraq, Iraq 2, the Iraq No Fly Zone, and Serbia. There were air to air engagements, but I'm not specifically aware of AIM-9 usage. I assume it happened at some point but most of what I personally recall was AIM-120. The only canon fire accounts I can think of came from F-16CJs doing air to ground.

The F-15s on the other hand obviously had a lot more work in this area, particularly the IAF's.

 

[Sferrin]

How many times have F-16s gotten into dogfights?

IIRC, in all major air wars it participated, dozens fights/hundeds a/c involved. Same with F-15.
There was none significant since 1991 - but there were no significant air superiority campaigns since then neither.

But it's beyond the point - that era was almost unavoidably BVR-intensive(but was missile-intensive first, gun - remote second), with BVR being a natural continuation of SARH WVR.
Massive F-35 fleet, on the other hand, is kinda forcing it by forcing survivability/sidewinder dilemma. But since F-35 fleet is so massive that it's generation-defining, it doesn't matter. Guns will brrrt in decades to come, unless this whole fleet will somehow grow outdated prematurely.

When's the last time a Western fighter scored a gun kill on another fighter?

 

[Avimimus]

Also, NGAD is not meant to be a long lasting, B-52 like platform. It's not an airframe built with 10000 of flight hours, hence less material margin, less system endurance... And less mandatory stocks.

If I remember from Binkov's video, it may be designed to last 15 years or less so that its successor can easily take over its roles, and possess any advancements in all types of technology that the preceding NGAD doesn't have. Given how our technology is advancing at an increasingly rapid rate, and will only accelerate from there, a short airframe duration is necessary in these times.

On the other hand, the combined efforts of Europeans will struggle to produce more than a handful of Gen 6 (or even Gen 5+) aircraft. Russia is unlikely to be able to in any reasonable timeframe or numbers. So the only other country capable of fielding a sixth generation aircraft in numbers will be China... so it is possible that we could be looking at a century in which NGAD remains able to dominate every other airforce (except China)... which is plenty of reason for tech stagnation and having a 70 year old airframe be viable. That said, there could be a break-through asymmetric technology that largely renders existing stealthy designs useless... but I doubt that we'll see a situation where the NGAD wouldn't be a threat to most airforces even a half century from now.

 

[TomcatViP]

I already posted this, probably in this same thread, but a reminder seems appropriate.

“Someone was going to die within the next two minutes,” he noted, “and it wasn’t going to be me or my wingman.”
With one Iraqi fighter in sight, North was able to confirm the aircraft as a Soviet-built, Iraqi MiG-25, which was armed with AA-6 Acrid radar-guided missiles. Directing his wingman to employ his electronic jamming pod, North requested permission to fire, and was eventually given the order: “CLEARED TO KILL, CLEARED TO KILL, HE’S A BANDIT, BANDIT!”

At a distance of approximately three nautical miles, at fifteen degrees nose high and fifteen degrees right bank, North targeted the MiG-25 and launched one of his...

View: https://youtu.be/UKZjWT-i_Hk


In my book, 3nm is WVR.

You can read it all (and way too more), here:

First AIM-120 AMRAAM And U.S. F-16 Kill Happened 30 Years Ago

A USAF F-16D downed an Iraqi MiG-25 Foxbat over Iraq three decades ago, ushering in a new era in air-to-air combat.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Ainen]

When's the last time a Western fighter scored a gun kill on another fighter?

The same answer probably, 1991.
After that - not that many kills in the first place, no big fights - and no f-35 a2a fights yet at all.

 

[TomcatViP]

Netherland F-16 shot down Mig-29 in 1999

F-16 Aircraft Database - F-16s Mission and Kill markings in Operation - F-16.net

www.f-16.net

And a refresh if needed:

The Balkans:Dutch MiG kill | planken.org

planken.org

Found this also. Doesn't know what's the reliability but give good insight in a quick manner:

https://migflug.com/jetflights/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/03/THE-COMBAT-STATISTICS-FOR-ALL-THE-AIRCRAFT-CURRENTLY-IN-USE-Air-to-air-kills-%E2%80%93-Air-to-air-losses-%E2%80%93-Losses-to-ground-fire.png

 

[Josh_TN]

I already posted this, probably in this same thread, but a reminder seems appropriate.

“Someone was going to die within the next two minutes,” he noted, “and it wasn’t going to be me or my wingman.”
With one Iraqi fighter in sight, North was able to confirm the aircraft as a Soviet-built, Iraqi MiG-25, which was armed with AA-6 Acrid radar-guided missiles. Directing his wingman to employ his electronic jamming pod, North requested permission to fire, and was eventually given the order: “CLEARED TO KILL, CLEARED TO KILL, HE’S A BANDIT, BANDIT!”

At a distance of approximately three nautical miles, at fifteen degrees nose high and fifteen degrees right bank, North targeted the MiG-25 and launched one of his...

View: https://youtu.be/UKZjWT-i_Hk


In my book, 3nm is WVR.

You can read it all (and way too more), here:

First AIM-120 AMRAAM And U.S. F-16 Kill Happened 30 Years Ago

A USAF F-16D downed an Iraqi MiG-25 Foxbat over Iraq three decades ago, ushering in a new era in air-to-air combat.

www.thedrive.com

Well if AIM-120 can pitbull at 3nm, the lack of AIM-9 internal carriage doesn’t seem like a big handicap.

 

[TomcatViP]

Yes. Especially in unslaved mode (Amraam own sensor used for targeting).

 

[Ainen]

Well if AIM-120 can pitbull at 3nm, the lack of AIM-9 internal carriage doesn’t seem like a big handicap.

It certainly works, but overall aim-120 as a close-quarters weapon is a significant downstep from a modern heatseeker.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

Ok, I think we're getting kinda off-topic with talk about dogfights and stuff.

Anyways Ainen, the fact remains that dogfights are getting rarer and rarer in this day and age, and will only continue to do so from there. Again, that's not to say that dogfights will be fully gone very soon, but the number of such incidents have gotten so low to the point that future aircraft have much fewer cannon or gun rounds in their armaments than they do in previous generations. Perhaps starting with the Sixth-Generation, guns will be entirely phased out on the main fighter component, and perhaps relegated to the UCAV wingmen units, as an emergency measure.

At this point, an engagement distance of 10 miles or more, might already be considered "Close" as missile ranges increase from there. Sensors will also be greatly optimized to easily detect aircraft at much farther ranges, and with the help of IRSTS and other innovative sensors, even stealth aircraft from previous generations will be easily detected. So one would be lucky to even encounter the enemy in visual contact, as most will be struck down hundreds of miles away from the attacker by that point.

In short, Yesterday's Fighters are commandos, Today's Fighters are long-ranged marksmen, and Tomorrow's Fighters will be very long-range snipers.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

On the other hand, the combined efforts of Europeans will struggle to produce more than a handful of Gen 6 (or even Gen 5+) aircraft. Russia is unlikely to be able to in any reasonable timeframe or numbers. So the only other country capable of fielding a sixth generation aircraft in numbers will be China... so it is possible that we could be looking at a century in which NGAD remains able to dominate every other airforce (except China)... which is plenty of reason for tech stagnation and having a 70 year old airframe be viable. That said, there could be a break-through asymmetric technology that largely renders existing stealthy designs useless... but I doubt that we'll see a situation where the NGAD wouldn't be a threat to most airforces even a half century from now.

Hence why it may be viable to have a short airframe duration, so that they wouldn't keep using the same old units throughout the far future. If they have a short airframe duration for the first generations of NGAD starting in the 2030s, they may have at least 2 or 3 more advanced generations of NGAD further down the line, and 1 even more advanced future generation on its way by the time 2070 hits.

If the USAF would be prudent enough to do such a thing, they will also be saving lots of money by retiring those units and focusing their money on future technological development instead of refurbishing older airframes with newer tech, which obviously takes time and money off the USAF's budget. Also the fact that newer airframes will be built and optimized for the new technologies coming in also means that there would be no need or even not make sense to reuse an older airframe and place new technologies on it, and to do so will just again, take up more time and money than it would be to do the same to a new and up to date airframe.

However, it will also be up to the USAF on whether that would be a good direction for them. It may also depend on Congress as well, and I can only hope that they will make good decisions for such programs moving forward, and learn from the mistakes of other prior programs as well.

 

[Josh_TN]

I suspect redesigning a manned airframe every 10-15 years isn't an achievable goal.

I suspect redesigning an unmanned airframe every 10-15 years is practically already achieved. Given a common core software, it seems like new production from multiple sources en mass wouldn't be difficult. A small company like Kratos claims to be able to produce over a hundred airframes a year if they were funded, way before we get to the big houses that handled manned a/c.

 

[Avimimus]

On the other hand, the combined efforts of Europeans will struggle to produce more than a handful of Gen 6 (or even Gen 5+) aircraft. Russia is unlikely to be able to in any reasonable timeframe or numbers. So the only other country capable of fielding a sixth generation aircraft in numbers will be China... so it is possible that we could be looking at a century in which NGAD remains able to dominate every other airforce (except China)... which is plenty of reason for tech stagnation and having a 70 year old airframe be viable. That said, there could be a break-through asymmetric technology that largely renders existing stealthy designs useless... but I doubt that we'll see a situation where the NGAD wouldn't be a threat to most airforces even a half century from now.

Hence why it may be viable to have a short airframe duration, so that they wouldn't keep using the same old units throughout the far future. If they have a short airframe duration for the first generations of NGAD starting in the 2030s, they may have at least 2 or 3 more advanced generations of NGAD further down the line, and 1 even more advanced future generation on its way by the time 2070 hits.

If the USAF would be prudent enough to do such a thing, they will also be saving lots of money by retiring those units and focusing their money on future technological development instead of refurbishing older airframes with newer tech, which obviously takes time and money off the USAF's budget. Also the fact that newer airframes will be built and optimized for the new technologies coming in also means that there would be no need or even not make sense to reuse an older airframe and place new technologies on it, and to do so will just again, take up more time and money than it would be to do the same to a new and up to date airframe.

However, it will also be up to the USAF on whether that would be a good direction for them. It may also depend on Congress as well, and I can only hope that they will make good decisions for such programs moving forward, and learn from the mistakes of other prior programs as well.

My point was more or less the opposite of that though - with the exception of a few possible asymmetric technologies - the NGAD will likely represent the pinnacle design and be unrivalled (except perhaps in China)... and technology might as well stagnate so far as most of the world is concerned. It is hard to have an arms race when you've won it by a mile.

 

[X-39]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhB_q5ZTe-A

Ward Carroll interview with Pako Benitez. First, he starts by a giving a very brief review of fighter generations then moves to the main topic. An interesting remark is the confirmation of well known 3 characteristics that will define 6th Gen Fighters:

-Advanced Aerodynamics, but also ability to retain high maneuverability without traditional vertical stabilizers(eg: Pelikan tail/Tailless)
-Next Generation powerplants
-Designed to be Modular/Upgradeable from the start

 

[TomcatViP]

@X-39 : dogfight is not dead or getting rarer. There will always be RoE that force aircraft to start shooting only at close range.

In fact, the last USN kill was during one of such event:

After the Su-22 released its ordnance near the U.S.-backed forces on the ground, Tremel fired an AIM-9X Sidewinder at the aircraft in line with the rules of engagement, only to have the advanced missile drawn away by the Sukhoi’s own flares. The AIM-120 AMRAAM, however, did the trick, striking the aircraft. The pilot ejected and the burning aircraft quickly plummeted toward the ground.

“I know I was just operating on brainstem power,” Tremel recalled during the Tailhook symposium before adding that, despite achieving the first U.S. air-to-air kill in nearly two decades, his CO immediately reminded him of his responsibilities of air-wing duty safety officer that day: “The show goes on.”

The F/A-18 Super Hornet that pulled off the US's first air-to-air kill in 18 years still has the war paint to prove it

Well deserved!

taskandpurpose.com

 

[bobbymike]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TqPziiCBInc

 

[X-39]

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/usaf-us-navy-6g-fighter-programs-f-a-xx-f-x-ngad-pca-asfs-news.3536/post-417790

Another angle of that old NG F/A-XX concept:

 

[flateric]

LM

 

[X-39]

BWAhAhaHaHaHAHAhaHAa!... ...So that's what the "Spacetime Modification Weapon" was all about. Enabling inter-dimensional military interventions into Alternate/Sci-Fi Universes, or either the artist commissioned at LM Art Dept has been playing too much EVE Online!:

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

LM

Where did that specifically come from? Lockheed Martin's own website? I'd want to take a look into that one

 

[flateric]

LM

Where did that specifically come from? Lockheed Martin's own website?

Yes, from there

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

2 Articles about NGAD from 1945:

NGAD: The U.S. Military's Plan for a Powerful 6th Generation Fighter

Incorporating NGAD fighters and CCAs will undoubtedly give U.S. pilots the edge needed if such a conflict arises.

www.19fortyfive.com

NGAD: Does America Really Need a 'Manned' 6th Generation Fighter?

New technology raises the somewhat pressing and easily overlooked question of whether a manned NGAD 6th-generation fighter is actually necessary.

www.19fortyfive.com

 

[bobbymike]

Since I started following miltech in the early 80’s I would have to store on a separate hard drive all the papers, studies and reports that include “Does America Really Need X….”

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

Since I started following miltech in the early 80’s I would have to store on a separate hard drive all the papers, studies and reports that include “Does America Really Need X….”

Are you willing to share that with all of us here? Or are some of the stuff too classified to share it? Just curious

 

[TomcatViP]

?!?

 

[Sferrin]

Since I started following miltech in the early 80’s I would have to store on a separate hard drive all the papers, studies and reports that include “Does America Really Need X….”

Are you willing to share that with all of us here? Or are some of the stuff too classified to share it? Just curious

He's saying there's a lot of, "Does America need weapon X" articles over the years. Usually written by someone who knows little about the subject looking to attract eyeballs. Sometimes written by a competitor or even just someone who thinks the US has too many weapons (wouldn't be at all surprised to see if some, if not many, of these articles were funded by the USSR/Russia/PRC).