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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Could be as simple as the new engines are going to cause 5 year delay, what can we do with F119/F135s to get this plane into service sooner at say 90% capability? Basically pulling a F-14A.
 
Manuducati said:
Thanks for sharing!

Well, knowing that Boeing inherited YF-23 DNA after the merge with McDonnell Douglas, maybe in the end we will have a F-23ish in service one day!

As for the foldable tails, that reminds me of this J-20 derivative patent that was shared somewhere else in this forum.
Click to expand...
Since I had involvement with the YF-23 way back and based on our design, it was a gen 5.5 aircraft, again, look at the various new NGAD 6th gen concepts from us and other nations. Hell, we (Northrop) educated Boeing on advanced composites back in the early B-2 days and yes, McAir/Boeing gained YF-23 DNA from Northrop. Folding/retractable tails adds to actuation complexity and must be redundant, you do not want any failure mode in an asymmetric condition which could compromise aero performance or LO.
From Rodrigo's previous post, a B-21 or any flying wing-type vehicle would not make a good fighter, great for stand-off but would be a sitting duck in close air combat. Any B-2 or B-21 caught visually by an enemy fighter, better pull the handles.
 
Hydroman said:
Since I had involvement with the YF-23 way back and based on our design, it was a gen 5.5 aircraft, again, look at the various new NGAD 6th gen concepts from us and other nations. Hell, we (Northrop) educated Boeing on advanced composites back in the early B-2 days and yes, McAir/Boeing gained YF-23 DNA from Northrop. Folding/retractable tails adds to actuation complexity and must be redundant, you do not want any failure mode in an asymmetric condition which could compromise aero performance or LO.
From Rodrigo's previous post, a B-21 or any flying wing-type vehicle would not make a good fighter, great for stand-off but would be a sitting duck in close air combat. Any B-2 or B-21 caught visually by an enemy fighter, better pull the handles.
Click to expand...
Hello!
In the design they requested, the plane had to have split ailerons like the X36 for yaw control when the tails were down.
Even I used some concepts published by Boeing a few years ago showing a sixth-generation fighter with folding tails to get my bearings a bit.
I don't know if this will actually be something we'll see if both NGAD concepts are ever shown, but it was something I wanted to share in case it actually happens.
Best regards!
 
Rodrigo Avella said:
Hello!
In the design they requested, the plane had to have split ailerons like the X36 for yaw control when the tails were down.
Even I used some concepts published by Boeing a few years ago showing a sixth-generation fighter with folding tails to get my bearings a bit.
I don't know if this will actually be something we'll see if both NGAD concepts are ever shown, but it was something I wanted to share in case it actually happens.
Best regards!
Click to expand...
Show us
 
Rodrigo Avella said:
Hello!
In the design they requested, the plane had to have split ailerons like the X36 for yaw control when the tails were down.
Even I used some concepts published by Boeing a few years ago showing a sixth-generation fighter with folding tails to get my bearings a bit.
I don't know if this will actually be something we'll see if both NGAD concepts are ever shown, but it was something I wanted to share in case it actually happens.
Best regards!
Click to expand...
Thanks Rodrigo, understood. Best regards.
 
Forest Green said:
breakingdefense.com

There is no time to delay NGAD if the Air Force is to meet the China challenge - Breaking Defense

In this op-ed, Rebecca Grant of the Lexington Institute argues that the Air Force can't hit pause on NGAD if the US is to survive the INDOPACOM "Hellscape"
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
Grant speculates that the AF's confidence with CCAs has reached a point where they are giving second thoughts to an exquisite manned fighter. Could the AF be thinking that it can create "Hellscape" in the Taiwan Strait without a manned penetrating counter air platform by just using CCAs and decoys, enabled by network gateways via space and other unmanned systems?

If that is true the AF is taking a huge risk to forgo the development of the next generation of manned fighters. even as a hedge against CCAs. Relaxing NGAD's specs would also come with risks. It would delay the needed recapitalization of the fighter fleet as it gets older and smaller. Would a different fighter still have the range, performance, stealth, and sensors to survive in the Taiwan Strait?

The requirements and the justification for them are classified, but with the AF signaling a pivot to something else this late in the game, its difficult to have confidence in what they are doing. Congress will surely be thinking the same thing.

Do CCAs need a manned component? The original concept was that the AF needed a exquisite manned fighter with enough speed, range, broad spectrum stealth, and sensors to be able to penetrate and operate inside against air and air defense targets in China's A2/AD bubble with the B -21. These platforms would be supplemented by relatively inexpensive and at one time attritable CCAs. These aircraft would not need to have the same performance and sensors of the manned platform and would be less expensive and enable the Air Force to acquire affordable mass. They would act as force multipliers which would extend the reach and payload of the NGAD platform.

Depending on the size and planform, it was anticipated that NGAD's combat radius would be greater than current manned fighters. Adaptive engines would increase its range, but to get beyond a combat radius of 1,000 nm NGAD would likely be larger and have a planform that is different than a traditional fighter. An combat radius of 1,000 nm would allow NGAD to operate from a greater number of bases in the Philippines and still be able to cover the Taiwan Strait without air to air refueling, increasing its survivability and availability. It would complicate air base targeting for the PLA. To operate unrefueled from the Second Island Chain - primarily Guam, its nearby islands, and Micronesia, it would need a combat radius of around 1,500 nm. The greater the unrefueled range requirement, the greater the cost of the aircraft.

NGAD allows the Air force to design CCAs with less range and sensors. The unmanned element could join the NGAD platform closer to its operating area. If NGAD is cancelled wouldn't you need to design CCAs with greater performance and more advanced mission systems, increasing their costs?
 
There's also the propaganda value of having the baddest, most technologically sophisticated fighter ever. The F-22, for all its alleged badassery, hasn't really engaged in an air-to-air battle during its service life, yet still the public perception of it is that its still the top dog even today. With a bit of luck, we won't actually see a direct confrontation between superpowers during our lifetimes, and the question of which nations 6th gen fighter takes the cake will be confined to theory-crafters on forums such as these.
The US needs to retain the perception that it has a technological edge.
 
We do not know enough about the program requirements to have an informed opinion. I think speculation is welcome, but the “sky is falling” tone seems unhelpful and, quite honestly, a little demeaning to this board.

I, and others, have given many reasons why the program may need to be rescoped. Posts that explicitly imply it will be cancelled, or otherwise imply the whole thing will fall to F-35 tech, seem unlikely and unhelpful, in my view.
 
Rodrigo Avella said:
The leader of this project was an aerospace engineer who worked at both Boeing and Lockheed, because, although he did not know what the proposals of both companies were like, he did have some knowledge of the general aspects of both.
One of the things they emphasized the most is that the model had to be large, about 22 meters, have side air intakes and above all that it had to look very similar to a modern YF-23 (which they emphasized the most).
And what caught my attention the most was that they wanted him to have foldable tails. They told me that this was so that it would be as stealthy as possible on long flights and that when the plane reached its destination or the pilot needed it, the tails that in "stealth mode" would make it look like a plane without a tail (like those seen in most representations), folded upwards, reaching an angle similar to that of a YF-23, so that the plane would enter "combat mode."
Click to expand...
Boeing displayed this concept around 2012.
 

Attachments

  • ngad1.jpg
    ngad1.jpg
    61.7 KB · Views: 97
  • shaffer-f-x-01.jpg
    shaffer-f-x-01.jpg
    35.6 KB · Views: 83
  • F-X Boeing.jpg
    F-X Boeing.jpg
    693 KB · Views: 78
  • F-X Boeing copy.jpg
    F-X Boeing copy.jpg
    340.2 KB · Views: 104
Rhinocrates said:
Boeing displayed this concept around 2012.
Click to expand...
what is the benefit of intakes being placed on the top of the airframe? I’d assume it means signature would be greatly reduced when the plane is viewed by ground based radar, but would it not decrease performance in
maneuvers where the pilot pulls back on his stick?
 
4decaa said:
what is the benefit of intakes being placed on the top of the airframe? I’d assume it means signature would be greatly reduced when the plane is viewed by ground based radar, but would it not decrease performance in
maneuvers where the pilot pulls back on his stick?
Click to expand...
I think they're using the vortices rolling off the fuselage chines to feed the inlets.
 
B2Blain said:
Grant speculates that the AF's confidence with CCAs has reached a point where they are giving second thoughts to an exquisite manned fighter. Could the AF be thinking that it can create "Hellscape" in the Taiwan Strait without a manned penetrating counter air platform by just using CCAs and decoys, enabled by network gateways via space and other unmanned systems?
Click to expand...
What happens when/if jamming upsets communication with the CCAs?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Forest Green said:
What happens when/if jamming upsets communication with the CCAs?
Click to expand...
CCA is a drone companion not a drone controlled by remote human operator. Also we are at a point of technology dependency that if an aircraft' sensor suite is jammed, the only difference between a manned aircraft and drone is a dead pilot.

That is not to disregard the heightened concern of jamming/interference with an unmanned platform, though it's not as much of a difference as one would think.

PS. the concern I think, is mostly how creative and out of the box human beings can come up with ways to fool AI, as demonstrated by a group of foot soldiers against an unmanned land drone in one of US military's tests. The soldiers were able to come up with multiple ways to fool the AI all but 1 instance if I remember correctly.
 
Forest Green said:
What happens when/if jamming upsets communication with the CCAs?
Click to expand...

That's where AI comes in.


https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/technology/ukraine-war-ai-weapons.html

Autonomous drones are “already in high demand,” he said. The machines have been especially helpful against jamming that can break communications links between drone and pilot. With the drone flying itself, a pilot can simply lock onto a target and let the device do the rest.

Briefing:

 
Forest Green said:
What happens when/if jamming upsets communication with the CCAs?
Click to expand...

What happens to NGAD in the same situations? Both will have to fall back to on board processing in one form or another. Both will have their effectiveness drastically reduced.
 
Forest Green said:
What happens when/if jamming upsets communication with the CCAs?
Click to expand...

According to Bill Sweetman, CCAs should act fully autonomously when communication is jammed.

" We routinely launch missiles against things we can’t see, and don’t require them to check in before impact, one argument went – what is so different about a CCA? And when the balance of forces otherwise seemed unfavorable, or Red’s comms jamming was working too well, letting the robots off the leash was an effective option. "

Just Don’t Call It A Flying Killer Robot – Valkyrie Strategic Solutions LLC

valkstrat.com valkstrat.com
 
Last edited:
Remember UAVs data hacked in Iraq, around 2009.
And the RQ-170 reportedly hacked and detained by Iran in 2011.
There is always a weakness, somewhere.

"The practice was uncovered in July 2009, when the US military found files of intercepted drone video feeds on the laptop of a captured militant"

US fixed drones hacked by Iraqi insurgents: Pentagon https://phys.org/news/2009-12-drones-hacked-iraqi-insurgents-pentagon.html

www.militaryaerospace.com

Iran–U.S. RQ-170 incident has defense industry saying 'never again' to unmanned vehicle hacking

THE MIL & AERO COMMENTARY, 3 May 2016. If there's anything that continues to haunt U.S. military unmanned vehicle development, it's the December 2011 Iran–U.S. RQ-170 incident...
www.militaryaerospace.com www.militaryaerospace.com
 
sferrin said:
But now they're hobbled by CCA's speed and range (or lack of both). Can't leave the CCA's behind and, from the looks of it, those are going to be strictly subsonic.
Click to expand...
We know how to time flights so they arrive in the required combat area at the same time. Our military does this all of the time. The CCA's will probably saturate the area just as the NGAD arrives in the required combat zone. Also, I don't know that NGAD will be flying faster in the combat area in order to minimize it's signature. There isn't a single person here who knows how the mission profile of NGAD looks. So we can speculate all we like, but that doesn't make it so.
 
Sundog said:
We know how to time flights so they arrive in the required combat area at the same time. Our military does this all of the time. The CCA's will probably saturate the area just as the NGAD arrives in the required combat zone. Also, I don't know that NGAD will be flying faster in the combat area in order to minimize it's signature. There isn't a single person here who knows how the mission profile of NGAD looks. So we can speculate all we like, but that doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...
I mean, either you cruise subsonic or you design the plane to be most efficient when cruising at some supersonic speed, like the Blackbird or XB70. Not likely to be Mach 3, that's too hot. But I wouldn't be surprised if the NGAD can cruise at ~Mach 2 for the entire mission.

VLO on radar, and Mach 2 at ~30km altitude for low air temps and pressures, to reduce skin friction for a lower IR sig.
 
Sundog said:
We know how to time flights so they arrive in the required combat area at the same time. Our military does this all of the time. The CCA's will probably saturate the area just as the NGAD arrives in the required combat zone. Also, I don't know that NGAD will be flying faster in the combat area in order to minimize it's signature. There isn't a single person here who knows how the mission profile of NGAD looks. So we can speculate all we like, but that doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...
If you're trying to respond to a developing attack 500 miles away you're going to need a teleporter to get the CCA's there at the same time as NGAD. Defense doesn't always give one the luxury of planning every detail that offense does.
 
Sundog said:
We know how to time flights so they arrive in the required combat area at the same time. Our military does this all of the time. The CCA's will probably saturate the area just as the NGAD arrives in the required combat zone. Also, I don't know that NGAD will be flying faster in the combat area in order to minimize it's signature. There isn't a single person here who knows how the mission profile of NGAD looks. So we can speculate all we like, but that doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...
You mean the mission profile isn't going to be over an Asian city at night conducting a high dive missile strike on discrete targets in a sky scraper while the AI drone watches?
 
Holy click bait Batman!

"Frank Kendall reassured in an interview with Defense News that the service was working on creating an advanced next-generation fighter, but a redesign was necessary to control expenses and improve the integration of loyal wingman drones"

How is it "dead" then?
 
Manuducati said:
Remember UAVs data hacked in Iraq, around 2009.
And the RQ-170 reportedly hacked and detained by Iran in 2011.
There is always a weakness, somewhere.

"The practice was uncovered in July 2009, when the US military found files of intercepted drone video feeds on the laptop of a captured militant"

US fixed drones hacked by Iraqi insurgents: Pentagon https://phys.org/news/2009-12-drones-hacked-iraqi-insurgents-pentagon.html

www.militaryaerospace.com

Iran–U.S. RQ-170 incident has defense industry saying 'never again' to unmanned vehicle hacking

THE MIL & AERO COMMENTARY, 3 May 2016. If there's anything that continues to haunt U.S. military unmanned vehicle development, it's the December 2011 Iran–U.S. RQ-170 incident...
www.militaryaerospace.com www.militaryaerospace.com
Click to expand...

To be fair, those drone feeds were rushed to service unencrypted IIRC. It was a known liability of getting the ISR desired sooner I believe.
 
I would throw another theory in the mix - maybe it's not that they have newfound confidence in CCA but that they realize CCA might not live to the hype which means number of NGAD need to increase, and with current cost projection, it's just not sustainable.

From the wording, it doesn't seem that unit price has gone above the 300 mil they had always quoted. But suddenly now they're saying that unit price isn't sustainable. I think they trying to hollow out couple of capabilities to see if they can bring cost down and buy more airplanes than previously planned.
 
My unfounded speculation is that they've run into a similar situation the B1-A has with stealth planes - NGAD is based on an incremental improvement of existing approach at high cost. Meanwhile a breakthrough capability has emerged that, while unproven, promises to be way more effective for way less money. This has prompted a scale-back of cost and capability of the original platform, like how the B1-A was turned into the B1-B.
Now we can speculate on what this capability entails - the pedestrian answer being drones, to the entirely out-there idea of Area-51 UFO antigravity tech - that they are withholding purposefully until a watershed moment, like they did with the F-117 until the Gulf War.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
So is F/A-XX still going ahead?
Click to expand...
So this is a tough spot for me. Because what I recall from my other carrier friends looking big picture is that support equipment commonality is a big issue. With a large majority of the ship's needing full F-35 retrofits from LHDs and CVNs, I would be quick to guess with high accuracy that if F/A-XX is still moving ahead, I have an odd feeling that LM may be preferred or will have to share their systems commonality ship side to support the F/A-XX program. Call me wrong if anyone wants. I just know from experience, aircraft maintenance out to sea is much more tedious than shore side.
 
Last edited:
donnage99 said:
I would throw another theory in the mix - maybe it's not that they have newfound confidence in CCA but that they realize CCA might not live to the hype which means number of NGAD need to increase, and with current cost projection, it's just not sustainable.

From the wording, it doesn't seem that unit price has gone above the 300 mil they had always quoted. But suddenly now they're saying that unit price isn't sustainable. I think they trying to hollow out couple of capabilities to see if they can bring cost down and buy more airplanes than previously planned.
Click to expand...
I agree with this possibility
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom