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

Status
Not open for further replies.
A US GCAP/Tempest while I like that idea Forest Green it will never happen, there is too much at stake for the US aircraft companies.
 
FighterJock said:
A US GCAP/Tempest while I like that idea Forest Green it will never happen, there is too much at stake for the US aircraft companies.
Click to expand...
Just get one Boeing to build the US version.

I could see the single-engine light fighter working provided it 1) has longer range than the F-35, 2) Can operate from small airfields, 3) Is cheap. Kind of like a STOL F-16XL. Basically flood the area with a cheap air-superiority fighter.
 
On the topic of automation.
Radiation shielding for leading edge gpu.
https://www.space.com/ai-nvidia-gpu-spacex-launch-transporter-11
This should help in using latest hardware in fighters.
Nvidia Orin was released in 2022. Future nodes are rumoured to be built with some radiation shielding because of electron transport and some issues as transistors shrink. Also easier to implement new functions on such powerful hardware. No need to bang the head with 28nm cpu.
 
Last edited:
indicisivedivide said:
On the topic of automation.
Radiation shielding for leading edge gpu.
https://www.space.com/ai-nvidia-gpu-spacex-launch-transporter-11
This should help in using latest hardware in fighters.
Nvidia Orin was released in 2022. Future nodes are rumoured to be built with some radiation shielding because of electron transport and some issues as transistors shrink. Also easier to implement new functions on such powerful hardware. No need to bang the head with 28nm cpu.
Click to expand...
Big news for NVidia too, since it's potentially a new market.
 
FighterJock said:
A US GCAP/Tempest while I like that idea Forest Green it will never happen, there is too much at stake for the US aircraft companies.
Click to expand...
Oh I know, but it beats the idea of this light fighter, which is basically just a copy and pasted F-35 re-badged as an NGAD.
 
Why is everyone freaking out? It literally has built to adapt written on it, so I assume it will improve as time goes on.
 
Isn’t there a pilot retention issue and general shortage? Who’s going to fly these, I’m assuming hundreds maybe thousands, of light fighters in addition to what we have in terms of other aircraft?

Another dumb dead end idea IMHO. Just build the darn NGAD.
 
bobbymike said:
Isn’t there a pilot retention issue and general shortage? Who’s going to fly these I’m assuming hundreds of light fighters? Another dumb dead end idea IMHO. Just build the darn NGAD.
Click to expand...
That's why I posted the article about GPUs. They can theoretically allow autonomous tech beyond anyone's wildest dreams. It should solve pilot retention problem and leave a ton of space on the jet. Full cost analysis which includes increased cost of research but should allow lower operation costs will need a full study. But I am confident that total autonomy is possible.
 
If they are worried about pilot retention issues and shortage then why not build a fully unmanned twin engined NGAD just like the designs that LM released? It would not be that expensive to do would it?
 
Generals don't know what they wants , one time a F-22 successor, one time F-35 , after they are in love of the F-15 after they are in love with CCA , and now they are in love with a light fighter unable to fight the great distance of the Pacific. And what new in inventory since 10 years ? nothing . It change every two years, there was the century series of M Ropper who was a good idea too so why don't continue that strategy ?
 
Last edited:
dark sidius said:
Generals don't know what they wants , one time a F-22 successor, one time F-35 , after they are in love of the F-15 after they are in love with CCA , and now they are in love with a light fighter unable to fight the great distance of the Pacific. And what new in inventory since 10 years ? nothing . It change every two years, there was the century series of M Ropper who was a good idea too so why don't continue that strategy ?
Click to expand...
Well, this is what happens when many different groups or parties of military leaders have varying and contradicting ideas on what they think is best for the Military as a whole. Military politics and the like.
 
Model 437 has flown. Interestingly I did not known that a lot of detail was released on the aircraft, far more than Fury or QX-67. It is powered by a PW 535 with 3400 lbs thrust and a 10,000 lb MTOW with 4000 of that being fuel. Cruise speed Mach 0.8 and range said to be ~3000 miles. 1000# of stores including a central bay for two AIM-120 sized weapons.

This craft seems larger than the Incr1 vehicles - 41 x 41 feet. But I think it points to what the USAF wants for the first couple increments: a pair of AAMs on a subsonic platform using an off the shelf engine.
 
Ozair said:
Sure David Axe, replacing the F-22 fleet with F-15EXs makes a lot of sense... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What are we going to do? In the absence of a) actual cost certainty it’s impossible to the confidence and support in congress to b) fund it. USAF is pushing F-22 as much as possible with new avionics, adaptable compute systems, new LO IRST pods & drop tanks, new coatings all while they try to salvage and upgrade as many early Raptor airframes as possible. Look at all the money invested in F-35 and how all that’s resulted in is severe constipation for TR3/Block 4. Might as well invest in EX if it’s capable of taking a AIM-174 class VLRAAM or lugging a couple HACMs. Those are pretty interesting high volume rooks to move around the TO that are difficult to ignore. I don’t know.


The more I think about it the more I believe the USAF was right to kill NGAD. Right now they’d be better off approaching a new fighter as they did with Raider. The problem is they don’t have the prime continuity they did with NG to transmute B-2 into B-21, and NG has said NFW to NGAD.
 
Re the 437. That’s a
Josh_TN said:
Model 437 has flown. Interestingly I did not known that a lot of detail was released on the aircraft, far more than Fury or QX-67. It is powered by a PW 535 with 3400 lbs thrust and a 10,000 lb MTOW with 4000 of that being fuel. Cruise speed Mach 0.8 and range said to be ~3000 miles. 1000# of stores including a central bay for two AIM-120 sized weapons.

This craft seems larger than the Incr1 vehicles - 41 x 41 feet. But I think it points to what the USAF wants for the first couple increments: a pair of AAMs on a subsonic platform using an off the shelf engine.
Click to expand...

If you do the stupid person and multiply the cost per dry weight of the F-35 to a 10k pound estimate for 437 that’s a $30mm airframe just to lug two AMRAAMs / JATMs. These are pretty miserable maths to be dealing with tbh.
 
Training_Dummy said:
Re the 437. That’s a


If you do the stupid person and multiply the cost per dry weight of the F-35 to a 10k pound estimate for 437 that’s a $30mm airframe just to lug two AMRAAMs / JATMs. These are pretty miserable maths to be dealing with tbh.
Click to expand...

I think having three different platforms that could carry out an attack instead of one would have it’s benefits.
 
Training_Dummy said:
What are we going to do? In the absence of a) actual cost certainty it’s impossible to the confidence and support in congress to b) fund it. USAF is pushing F-22 as much as possible with new avionics, adaptable compute systems, new LO IRST pods & drop tanks, new coatings all while they try to salvage and upgrade as many early Raptor airframes as possible. Look at all the money invested in F-35 and how all that’s resulted in is severe constipation for TR3/Block 4. Might as well invest in EX if it’s capable of taking a AIM-174 class VLRAAM or lugging a couple HACMs. Those are pretty interesting high volume rooks to move around the TO that are difficult to ignore. I don’t know.
Click to expand...

F-15EX isn't a magic bullet, it is a marginal improvement over the F-15E fleet and it is pretty clear the USAF see it as that despite the marketing bluster from hacks like Axe. HACM is F-15E capable and will eventually make its way to the F-35 which is more than capable of lugging to HACMs externally should a cruise missile carrier role be required. AIM-174 I expect we won't see on the F-15EX or other USAF platforms, I can see it being a USN weapon only especially as the USAF seems all in on AIM-260 which likely matches better to the force structure and 5th gen platform intent.

The question is what role would an F-15EX play in a contested Taiwan straight conflict that is more important than the F-22? Sure it can launch long range AAMs and ASMs forward but who is going to target those and eventually you run out of targets and expensive weapons those F-15EXs can launch. SM-6 is not cheap nor will HACM be either and they likely will never have the stocks available comparted to other weapons. After you have expended those the F-15EX becomes a stooging 4.5 gen platform that cannot survive the dense IADS being developed and deployed by China without significant support likely better applied elsewhere.

Training_Dummy said:
The more I think about it the more I believe the USAF was right to kill NGAD. Right now they’d be better off approaching a new fighter as they did with Raider.
Click to expand...
NGAD isn't dead, it has been paused to ensure the direction and set of requirements matches what the USAF thinks it needs going forward. That may result in a change of direction but that change isn't no NGAD, just a different form. The tech developed for NGAD will continue into whatever new form it takes.

Training_Dummy said:
The problem is they don’t have the prime continuity they did with NG to transmute B-2 into B-21, and NG has said NFW to NGAD.
Click to expand...
?? One of the two Primes expected to be in the running for the manned NGAD is LM which built both USAF 5th gen fighters. How is that not continuity?
 
Training_Dummy said:
Re the 437. That’s a


If you do the stupid person and multiply the cost per dry weight of the F-35 to a 10k pound estimate for 437 that’s a $30mm airframe just to lug two AMRAAMs / JATMs. These are pretty miserable maths to be dealing with tbh.
Click to expand...
The AF's leadership does not give you much confidence. Frank Kendall is an engineer and acts like one, throwing one idea out after another, before reversing course, pausing programs to reassess, then going off on another tangent. The AF needs leadership that knows what it's doing and sticks with a plan.

I've said this perviously, a CCA, costing $20-30 million, being attritable or semi-attritable and having a shelf life of ten years, is a terrible value. Much worse than paying $300 Million for NGAD. An F-35A will be able to carry 6 AMRAAM sized weapons in the near future. It also has a robust sensor suite and is much more versatile than a CCA in terms on weapons load. Seemingly for the price of an F-35A you get three CCAs. But mass has a quality of its own they say. But not if they get shot down like the Iranian and Houthi drones did once they were confronted with 4th and 5th Gen fighters from a first rate military with advanced ISR capabilities.

CCAs will be more capable than the suicide drones produced by Iran. But the AF needs to examine whether the US will be the losing end of a modern Mariana's Turkey Shoot over the Taiwan Strait.

A key questions regarding CCAs will be whether more innovative smaller companies like Anduril can change the cost paradigm with regard to combat aircraft. CSIS has a new report out about CCAs. The author, Greg Allen, thinks that may be CCA manufacturers might follow Space X and find efficiencies by taking a different approach to designing and manufacturing combat aircraft. We will see.

https://defaeroreport.com/2024/08/2...st-aug-29-24-season-2-e32-no-crew-no-problem/
 
I believe a key requirement of CCA will need to be having a sufficiently low enough RCS that it can get to AIM-120 firing range/no escape zone of an opponent without being detected by an airborne radar. At that point, it has about as much chance of killing a manned aircraft as the other way around. In that scenario, cost favors the less expensive platform. As for manufacturing costs, I think that will play heavily into who gets down selected. I consider 1/3 or 1/4 of the cost of F-35 to be a ceiling.

As for the manned component - I wonder if using something with better short runway performance is not a better concept than building a very large, long ranged aircraft (which is what most people suspect is the current direction). Hard to know anything without having any inkling of the program requirements.
 
Ozair said:
?? One of the two Primes expected to be in the running for the manned NGAD is LM which built both USAF 5th gen fighters. How is that not continuity?
Click to expand...
LockMart is kinda busy with unfucking F35 TR3/Block 4. They have absolutely not exactly covered themselves in Glory on this, more like covered themselves in sewage for being so far behind on deliveries.

And Boing has proven themselves unable to engineer any new items.

Which leaves the one company that has delivered on time on budget, NG. Too bad NG said NFW are we bidding on NGAD...
 
Scott Kenny said:
LockMart is kinda busy with unfucking F35 TR3/Block 4. They have absolutely not exactly covered themselves in Glory on this, more like covered themselves in sewage for being so far behind on deliveries.

And Boing has proven themselves unable to engineer any new items.

Which leaves the one company that has delivered on time on budget, NG. Too bad NG said NFW are we bidding on NGAD...
Click to expand...
The argument wasn't on the competency, only on the continuity.

Agree neither LM or Boeing are shining themselves in glory right now but NG isn't exactly blameless either, they are running Sentinel after all...
 
Scott Kenny said:
Which leaves the one company that has delivered on time on budget, NG. Too bad NG said NFW are we bidding on NGAD...
Click to expand...
Back in the eighties, the Northrop-Grumman/LTV combination effectively refused to submit a fixed-price bid on the ATA - which morphed into the A-12 fiasco. NG corporate memory at work?
 
Arjen said:
Back in the eighties, the Northrop-Grumman/LTV combination effectively refused to submit a fixed-price bid on the ATA - which morphed into the A-12 fiasco. NG corporate memory at work?
Click to expand...
There is no indication that NGAD is going to be fixed price development or fixed price production (or both). With Boeing's leadership saying that they would not be bidding on FPC's, and knowing that it was one of the down selected OEM's it might suggest that the contract might not be as restricted in terms of fixed price components as the T-X, or the KC-46 that got the company in trouble over the last few years.
 
@bring_it_on It wasn't specifically the fixed-price shenanigans I had in mind, more NG's historical refusal to play ball with what NG apparently saw as a project unlikely to benefit the company.
 
Ozair said:
F-15EX isn't a magic bullet, it is a marginal improvement over the F-15E fleet and it is pretty clear the USAF see it as that despite the marketing bluster from hacks like Axe. HACM is F-15E capable and will eventually make its way to the F-35 which is more than capable of lugging to HACMs externally should a cruise missile carrier role be required. AIM-174 I expect we won't see on the F-15EX or other USAF platforms, I can see it being a USN weapon only especially as the USAF seems all in on AIM-260 which likely matches better to the force structure and 5th gen platform intent.

The question is what role would an F-15EX play in a contested Taiwan straight conflict that is more important than the F-22? Sure it can launch long range AAMs and ASMs forward but who is going to target those and eventually you run out of targets and expensive weapons those F-15EXs can launch. SM-6 is not cheap nor will HACM be either and they likely will never have the stocks available comparted to other weapons. After you have expended those the F-15EX becomes a stooging 4.5 gen platform that cannot survive the dense IADS being developed and deployed by China without significant support likely better applied elsewhere.


NGAD isn't dead, it has been paused to ensure the direction and set of requirements matches what the USAF thinks it needs going forward. That may result in a change of direction but that change isn't no NGAD, just a different form. The tech developed for NGAD will continue into whatever new form it takes.


?? One of the two Primes expected to be in the running for the manned NGAD is LM which built both USAF 5th gen fighters. How is that not continuity?
Click to expand...

no one said EX is a magic bullet. far from it. the whole premise of my post is to look at the realistic options that get us say 100 airframes in the next five years. because the only option is to buy F-15EX, magically restart F/A-18E/F line (for what purpose I have no clue), Bigfoot into the Viper production line, or do the same with F-35. We cannot buy more F-22. Absent a new fighter, these are the options.

F-35EX as a platform allows you to bring stand off weapons to the theaters with a threat that is completely independent to Raider or whatever B platform you're thinking of. My point was that having options for platforms that can launch HACM type weapon is valuable. you can focus on the yeah buts, but that's the reality. more platforms with different basing requirements to launch stand off weapons is a good thing. The other point I would make is that for inherently non-stealthy high value arial targets like tankers and AWACS, do you really want to dedicate Raptors or -35 to escort and defend? or do you use a couple of -15EX instead. A single EX can carry 12 AMRAAMs, which is 2x what a Raptor carries and 3x what a F-35 carries. show me one post where someone here is proposing that the use case for a -15EX buy is to have that type merge with a J-20 over the Taiwan straights as it dodge HQ-9 barrages.

as for surviving the dense Chinese IADS it doesn't have to, nor does it fit with how the US would deal with a IADS. As for how a F-15EX would contribute in a TS blockade or conflict I just told you - long range weapons. It would be a compliment to, not replacement for, heavier bomber capacity.

I didn't say 174. I said 174 class VLRAAM. Keep in mind the J in JATM comes from Joint. As in it's a JOINT USAF and USN missile. USN is all in on 260 and yet here we are with AIM-174... The reason is simple (range), since JATM is a prisoner to the tyranny of the -35/-22 weapons bay (which in turn is a slave to the AMRAAM OML) and absent any huge leaps in propellant chemistry or lightweight, medium duration power sources for seeker engagement post propellent exhaustion, JATM can only evolutionarily improve the range (seeker might be a different question altogether if GAN TRM can be made cheaply enough) over AMRAAM.

F-15E is a 20 year old airframe with city miles bc of GWOT. Guess what? it will have to be replaced, along with the C models aging out.

Im trying to have a sincere conversation but your comments are coming off as unconstructively pedantic about NGAD being a family of systems. Everyone here understands that. We are discussing the manned component of NGAD that was becoming pretty well characterized as a long-range, high MTOW, high-fuel fraction /pacific theater range and a $300mm price tag. There have been very clear, very obvious signs that this aircraft was intended to integrate many cutting edge technologies. What am I hearing is that there is a real conversation as to what extent any of those technology leaps actually improve the odds for air superiority.

There is a real conversation about the value for money at $300mm / airframe, and beneath that conversation is another one about how that $300mm/airframe is going to be inevitably too low (as has been the case with literally almost every fighter and aircraft airframe the US government has purchased in the last 45 years and then there is another conversation about when USAF would actually be able to field a reasonable number of NGADs, which is always longer than we think, and results in fewer airframes than hope.

The other reason the way this played out is frustrating is because a re-scoped, less-complicated, more affordable NGAD doesn't come quicker. On the contrary, in all likelihood.

As for the prime thing, I was referring to the fact that Boeing literally cannot design anything at the moment (T-7 canopy/seat issue, T-7 wing issue, B737 MAX, B777x, Starliner) and all signs point to relations between USAF and LM being pretty tense at the moment, especially around the software and supporting architecture side. NG is out of NGAD as we know, so its pick your poison.
 
B2Blain said:
The AF's leadership does not give you much confidence. Frank Kendall is an engineer and acts like one, throwing one idea out after another, before reversing course, pausing programs to reassess, then going off on another tangent. The AF needs leadership that knows what it's doing and sticks with a plan.

I've said this perviously, a CCA, costing $20-30 million, being attritable or semi-attritable and having a shelf life of ten years, is a terrible value. Much worse than paying $300 Million for NGAD. An F-35A will be able to carry 6 AMRAAM sized weapons in the near future. It also has a robust sensor suite and is much more versatile than a CCA in terms on weapons load. Seemingly for the price of an F-35A you get three CCAs. But mass has a quality of its own they say. But not if they get shot down like the Iranian and Houthi drones did once they were confronted with 4th and 5th Gen fighters from a first rate military with advanced ISR capabilities.

CCAs will be more capable than the suicide drones produced by Iran. But the AF needs to examine whether the US will be the losing end of a modern Mariana's Turkey Shoot over the Taiwan Strait.

A key questions regarding CCAs will be whether more innovative smaller companies like Anduril can change the cost paradigm with regard to combat aircraft. CSIS has a new report out about CCAs. The author, Greg Allen, thinks that may be CCA manufacturers might follow Space X and find efficiencies by taking a different approach to designing and manufacturing combat aircraft. We will see.

https://defaeroreport.com/2024/08/2...st-aug-29-24-season-2-e32-no-crew-no-problem/
Click to expand...
I agree with you. there is no way LM, NG or B are willing to abandon their current manufacturing footprint that they have sunk billions into, to say nothing of their workforce (this is probably more of a comment about Boeing than anyone else). We need new primes. We need primes that actually have a software-first technology skill. We need primes that can and are willing to bet on risky new manufacturing approaches. We need primes that are willing to look at new propulsion and planform ideas. I dont know if LM, NG or B *can* ever change, but I suspect that if they can, they won't until they feel like they have no choice... they need to be put into an existential situation. The leaders of these primes are like people who were born on third and feel like they hit a stand-up triple: they survived the great contraction (twice) and have forgotten what a brutal business this can be without an oligopoly and the artificial peace post the Soviet period.
 
Ozair said:
The argument wasn't on the competency, only on the continuity.

Agree neither LM or Boeing are shining themselves in glory right now but NG isn't exactly blameless either, they are running Sentinel after all...
Click to expand...

Im no fan of any of the primes, but we both know the reason why Sentinel is a disaster has far less to do with the missile itself and far more to do with having to rewire your grandparents 60s era system for secure, hardened fiber optics and all that good stuff.
 
Ozair said:
The argument wasn't on the competency, only on the continuity.

Agree neither LM or Boeing are shining themselves in glory right now but NG isn't exactly blameless either, they are running Sentinel after all...
Click to expand...
Sentinel's problem isn't the missile, it's the contract written assuming that the 1960s infrastructure was still usable when any of the USAF missile crews could have told them it wasn't and needed total replacement. To the point that attempting to refurbish the old stuff was significantly more expensive than just starting over with new construction.

All of which was not included in the original contract.
 
Training_Dummy said:
no one said EX is a magic bullet. far from it. the whole premise of my post is to look at the realistic options that get us say 100 airframes in the next five years. because the only option is to buy F-15EX, magically restart F/A-18E/F line (for what purpose I have no clue), Bigfoot into the Viper production line, or do the same with F-35. We cannot buy more F-22. Absent a new fighter, these are the options.
Click to expand...
You replied to my response to an article by David Axe claiming to retire F-22s in favour of F-15EXs. Nothing you have said or I have stated contradicts the stupidity of Axe's claim.

As for the F-15EX I don't think it is the solution and clearly the USAF agrees. If we push forward X number of years to a Taiwan straight conflict there are three main issues that the EX doesn't address. Ramp space, target types and weapons stocks.

There will be finite ramp space available for tactical aviation to operate from. Using that on F-15EX which cannot penetrate sufficiently into the IADS doesn't help the overall force structure. I'd trade F-15EXs for CCAs from those same locations accompanying F-35s and F-22s into theatre.

There are also a finite number of targets that can be prosecuted with long range stand off precision weapons. For land and sea based targets that are mobile the USAF will need platforms and weapons that can dynamically target those and last time I looked at the Chinese structure a huge amount of them are mobile which does not lend themselves to prosecution by long range generally slow weapons fired from stand off fighters. For air based targets the F-15EX stooging around outside the IADS but close enough to support with 174 "class VLRAAM" or JATM or whatever is also within range of Chinese similar based weapons. If the Chinese are seeing anything on their radar scopes at that range it is the tennis court with a load of external missiles.

Finally weapons stocks today and likely for the next ten years will never approach the number of targets they are required to hit. If we look at the April 2018 attacks against Syrian military targets by Coalition forces they used 105 cruise missiles against three small targets. The US has approx 7000 JASSM today but if we projected a US strategic bomber fleet using those weapons they would likely not last more than five to seven days (the B-52 fleet maxed on JASSM would use approx 2000 a day... and that is before you add B-1s to the mix) before the inventory was depleted. What value is there in F-15EX flying after seven days when most JASSM stock are gone. HACM will never be a large volume weapon and there are already sufficient F-15E in the fleet, even after the -220 fleet retires, to support that mission. That is before we get into how few Tomahawk the USN would actually be able to use, both from a small inventory, approx 4000 weapons, and their inability to reload while underway. If we move to AAMs how many 174 "class VLRAAM" will ever be acquired given the SM-6 is costly and likely prioritised for sea based assets. I could see the USN having perhaps 200 total in a few years if they were lucky given production is going to only 300 a year by 2028 and the USN and US Army are also using the missile. For JATM/AIM-260 who knows what the production rate will be, there have been statements of more than AMRAAM by 2026 but is that pre or post AMRAAM scaling. Either way the weapons will flow to the F-22 and F/A-18 fleet while the EX fleet is a lower priority.

I am all for a long range large payload stealthy manned NGAD and I still think the USAF will get there but I also can fully understand why they have decided to pause for a moment to ensure they have all their ducks lined up in a row. Manned NGAD without a complementary CCA is probably a lot less effective and potentially less survivable. I see no value in a 6th gen platform that doesn't address long range long persistence and large payload.

Re the primes there isn't a good one (NG despite their claims knew exactly what they were doing signing up to Sentinel and the expected cost growth going forward) and all are locked into a cost structure that is unsustainable and none are blameless. That doesn't mean they aren't trying to do the right thing but they are beholden to the stock market and their shareholders. No wonder why Andruil and GA are the first two for CCA phase one and the US is beginning to turn towards silicon valley.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom