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

If that is the case then why don't the US Navy leaders come up with a different name for the FA-XX? Something like the Senior suffix and make the FA-XX disappear into a cloak of secrecy.
 
FighterJock said:
If that is the case then why don't the US Navy leaders come up with a different name for the FA-XX? Something like the Senior suffix and make the FA-XX disappear into a cloak of secrecy.
Click to expand...

Probably because they don't want the "fact of" the program to disappear, just the details.
 
Ah! right thanks TomS. So we won't know the performance aspects of the FA-XX for many years, and quite right too.
 
bobbymike said:
Does that mean the article is wrong or they’ve recycled? We’ve all been told the importance of recycling.
Click to expand...

I have not seen the source information that is the basis of the article, so I cannot say wether it is incorrect or why. They mention some White House communication that links the two programs but I have not seen that document.
Program elements are not generally recycled. In this case LINK PLUMERIA was definitely not recycled or repurposed.

Perhaps though you meant the article(s) mentioned here were recycled?

LINK PLUMERIA has been active since at least the early 1990s, possibly earlier. Over the years the levels of funding have varied but have generally been low.

And, importantly, LINK PLUMERIA is not an aircraft program and never has been.


GeorgeA said:
Maybe it's the standard "let's hide the money here" R&D line item that emits a production program from time to time.
Click to expand...

The idea of a "slush fund" or black budget line item that actually funds some other activity is the thing of movies. When DoD asks for money for some purpose (and gets it), they have to spend that money for that purpose. If they want to use it for something else they have to get approval for a reprogramming action - moving money from one program to another. These reprogramming actions are public, even for classified programs.

For example, years ago the Navy was approved to reprogram funds from LINK PLUMERIA (and several other classified programs) into the X-47B demonstration. Their argument for doing so was that the X-47B was higher priority. In some cases a reprogramming may be done between related programs but this is not always the case (and was not the case in the example I just gave)

IF the Navy was using funds from LINK PLUMERIA for some other purpose without an approved reprogramming action there was a failure of the oversight and budgeting process. If they were caught it would result in a very nasty investigation and the Navy probably wouldn't get a new airplane, a new sub, etc.
 
robunos said:
(cough) F-4 Phantom II (cough) . . .
Also, the A-7 'SLUF' would like a word . . .

cheers,
Robin.
Click to expand...
The A-7 was not a multirole aircraft. The F-4 was a jack of all trades. Not something you want in an NGAD.
 
quellish said:
The idea of a "slush fund" or black budget line item that actually funds some other activity is the thing of movies. When DoD asks for money for some purpose (and gets it), they have to spend that money for that purpose. If they want to use it for something else they have to get approval for a reprogramming action - moving money from one program to another. These reprogramming actions are public, even for classified programs.

For example, years ago the Navy was approved to reprogram funds from LINK PLUMERIA (and several other classified programs) into the X-47B demonstration. Their argument for doing so was that the X-47B was higher priority. In some cases a reprogramming may be done between related programs but this is not always the case (and was not the case in the example I just gave)

IF the Navy was using funds from LINK PLUMERIA for some other purpose without an approved reprogramming action there was a failure of the oversight and budgeting process. If they were caught it would result in a very nasty investigation and the Navy probably wouldn't get a new airplane, a new sub, etc.
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting something nefarious. A 30-year-old program could conceivably be an ongoing funding mechanism for advanced aerospace vehicle research. When one of the research areas shows signs of success and needs to mature into a production program, it's spilt off into its own PE. That might account for varying funding levels within LP. Or it might not, but such an approach wouldn't be in contravention of the US Code or DoD funding regulations.
 
quellish said:
And, importantly, LINK PLUMERIA is not an aircraft program and never has been.
Click to expand...

I've looked it up in the FYDP structure document and it points to Op-980C for additional info. That's the OPNAV Aviation Branch's Carrier section. So, I would agree that LINK PLUMERIA isn't a specific aircraft, if only because of its longevity, but it sure seems to be related to carrier aviation in some way.

PS: I'd bet that the AvWeek "linkage" is simply this:

1689271390815.png
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
So, I would agree that LINK PLUMERIA isn't a specific aircraft, if only because of its longevity, but it sure seems to be related to carrier aviation in some way.
Click to expand...

Without going into the how's/why's, It is literally not an aircraft program. IE not a specific aircraft or (directly) aviation related.
 
sferrin said:
The A-7 was not a multirole aircraft. The F-4 was a jack of all trades. Not something you want in an NGAD.
Click to expand...
I was replying to Fighterjock's post above mine, in which he implied that when the Air Force and Navy adopted a common aircraft, the result was always poor. I was merely pointing out that in the case of the two aircraft i mentioned, they were successful.
However, I recognise that in both the cases I quoted, it was the Air Force adopting a Navy aircraft, whereas in the case of the F-111, it was the other way round . . .
As regards NGAD, it may have to happen (a common airframe), purely on budgetary grounds . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 
robunos said:
As regards NGAD, it may have to happen (a common airframe), purely on budgetary grounds . . .

cheers,
Robin.
Click to expand...

A saying comes to mind. "There's never time (money) to do it right but there's always time to do it over." (See F-111B/ F-14.)
 
quellish said:
Without going into the how's/why's, It is literally not an aircraft program. IE not a specific aircraft or (directly) aviation related.
Click to expand...

I'll take your word for it, but it would be nice to get a clue then why FA-XX has been added to the same PE.
 
quellish said:
Without going into the how's/why's, It is literally not an aircraft program. IE not a specific aircraft or (directly) aviation related.
Click to expand...
So why is OP-680, Naval Aviation Carrier Branch in charge of it? That strongly suggests that LINK PLUMERIA is either an aircraft or a carrier/system program.
 
Scott Kenny said:
So why is OP-680, Naval Aviation Carrier Branch in charge of it? That strongly suggests that LINK PLUMERIA is either an aircraft or a carrier/system program.
Click to expand...
Just realized that it could be fancy catapults, arresting gear, or an advanced optical landing system..


Forest Green said:
What are the F-X, PCA and ASFS?
Click to expand...
Isn't F-X the Korean program?
PCA was an old name for what became NGAD.
no clue about ASFS, sorry.
 
Hope they're going to put in a big order for spares with NGAD.

Sweet tech is the Bark, but manageable attrition is the Bite.
 
Q-nimbus said:
Somebody over at DLR noticed an interesting shape on the apron at Tonopah. While it’s impossible to asses what it is, it looks like it’s an unknown platform. It’s very similar to the X47A except that the X47A is much smaller.

Very interesting.

https://apps.sentinel-hub.com/eo-browser/?zoom=18&lat=37.80563&lng=-116.77784&themeId=DEFAULT-THEME&visualizationUrl=https://services.sentinel-hub.com/ogc/wms/bd86bcc0-f318-402b-a145-015f85b9427e&datasetId=S2L2A&fromTime=2023-07-12T00:00:00.000Z&toTime=2023-07-12T23:59:59.999Z&layerId=2_FALSE_COLOR&demSource3D="MAPZEN"
Click to expand...
Where are we looking?

1689523397016.png
 
Here
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230716_191113_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20230716_191113_Chrome.jpg
    612.2 KB · Views: 90
  • Screenshot_20230716_191122_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20230716_191122_Chrome.jpg
    425 KB · Views: 93
I'm fairly sure that's just a Janet's 737, since that's where they have been parking.
See here for a picture and look in the same spot.

The Sentinel hub picture is just degraded in quality and mixes pixels together with the glare off the fuselage.
 
CiTrus90 said:
I'm fairly sure that's just a Janet's 737, since that's where they have been parking.
See here for a picture and look in the same spot.

The Sentinel hub picture is just degraded in quality and mixes pixels together with the glare off the fuselage.
Click to expand...
Don't realy look like a 737 , ok for the poor quality but the shape is strange... And it look so big..
 
dark sidius said:
Don't realy look like a 737 , ok for the poor quality but the shape is strange...
Click to expand...
Use Sentinel Hub to look at any airport during a sunny day.
That's what you're going to get most of the time and you won't be able to tell an aircraft from another, even more so if the glare from the sun hits just at the right angle.

Can you even tell there is another aircraft in front of the white blob in the picture (to the left of it)? It's smaller and grey in colour and impossible to identify either. Yet I don't see people being interested in that one.
 
Just for an example, here's what looks like a white flying wing, with a very swept wing via Sentinel Hub on false color band (top middle of the pic):
Calgary SH.jpg
But it's probably just a Dash-8 or A220 at Calgary Airport:
Calgary GM.jpg
I'd love to see a classified aircraft like the next guy here, but this time it's just low resolution pictures and pareidolia.
 

U.S. Air Force Leaders Talk Export Policy For New Programs At RIAT | Aviation Week Network

Export policy for some of the Air Force’s “more sensitive” new technology is being discussed this weekend at the Royal International Air Tattoo.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
In the past, Kendall has expressed openness to sharing B-21 technology with the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), although the Australian defense strategic review released in April ruled out the acquisition of a new bomber.
Click to expand...
But the Air Force still remains open to sharing some of its most sensitive technology with allies.
Click to expand...
Kendall declined to comment on the export prospects for the NGAD fighter, and instead pointed to another program as an opportunity.
Click to expand...
Short answer: NO. Better to keep it that way for the foreseeable future. I wouldn't want to even entertain the thought of Israel laying their hands on one and not selling the technologies to China in a heartbeat.
 
Last edited:
X-39 said:

U.S. Air Force Leaders Talk Export Policy For New Programs At RIAT | Aviation Week Network

Export policy for some of the Air Force’s “more sensitive” new technology is being discussed this weekend at the Royal International Air Tattoo.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Short answer: NO. Better to keep it that way for the foreseeable future. I wouldn't want to even entertain the thought of Israel laying their hands on one and not selling the technologies to China in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...
It is truly sad how overlooked this is... but nothing will be done about it.
 
In_A_Dream said:
It is truly sad how overlooked this is... but nothing will be done about it.
Click to expand...
Simple, don´t sell stuff you don´t want others peering into. Let´s say there is a reason why the F-22 was never seriously considered for export in the first place. And if it did, it would have taken substantial rework to accommodate to the needs of allied customers.
www.thedrive.com

F-22 Export Briefing Shows What It Would Have Taken To Sell The Raptor Abroad

For years, the idea of exporting the F-22 has been a topic of intense debate. Here's what the Air Force once thought it would take to get it done.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
 
I wasn't that surprised when they announced that the F-22 was not for sale, after all it was at the time THE most advanced fighter so the USAF were right. They would have to have stripped all the advanced technology that Lockheed put in to the F-22 and would have had to start again.
 
I was not expecting that news about Northrop Grumman going after the US Navy's F/A-XX program instead of the USAF NGAD, it will be interesting to see what happens when the F/A-XX down selects and who remains after.
 
www.defenseone.com

Northrop will not bid on Air Force’s new fighter

The company's decision leaves Boeing, Lockheed Martin to compete to build the Next Generation Air Dominance jet.
www.defenseone.com www.defenseone.com

Well, I’m frankly not sure how I feel about Northrop Grumman forgo bidding as a prime for USAF NGAD. It remains to be seen how they are positioning themselves for the naval F/A-XX, since beating the current Navy fighter incumbents, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, would be challenging but certainly not impossible.
 
Last edited:
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
www.defenseone.com

Northrop will not bid on Air Force’s new fighter

The company's decision leaves Boeing, Lockheed Martin to compete to build the Next Generation Air Dominance jet.
www.defenseone.com www.defenseone.com

Well, I’m frankly not sure how I feel about Northrop Grumman forgo bidding as a prime for USAF NGAD. It remains to be seen how they are positioning themselves for the naval F/A-XX, since beating the current Navy fighter incumbents, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, would be challenging but certainly not impossible.
Click to expand...
Well with Raider and Sentinel plus industry stories you read about labor issues it could be about capacity.

Plus a question given the above if you’re the major “subprime” contractor and I’m guessing NGAD and F/A-XX will be closer to a partnership of primes there’ll still be massive amount of work and contract value (ie $$$)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom