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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The prime situation is really bad now, the USAF needs 1.5 - 3 new aircraft designs and it cannot rely on any of the 3 main primes to deliver.

I do have a criticism about the software-focused description. Yes, better architected software fixes the F-35 mission software catastrophe, but it isn't as helpful for Taiwan scenario. Useful payload, range, speed, operating envelope all come with heavier weight.

What the US really needs is Anduril or GA to get to 40kLbs-60kLbs MTOW size-class ASAP, preferably manned. Give a real option for a 4+ Gen fighter or 4.9+ gen interdictor, something that can do multiple missions with useful payloads in the Pacific. Something that's easy to upgrade, easy to update, put on latest payloads, sensor pods, whatever, and not leave the USAF waiting years for a normal block upgrade.

Lastly, there doesn't seem to be a worthwhile operational concept for the Pacific. The Taiwan Strait battle is closer to WW3, Fulda-Gap scenario than anything else. In such an environment, air superiority is very nice to have, but rather secondary to achieving the immediate mission (sinking Chinese ships or preventing Soviet Armored Divisions from overrunning Western Europe). There doesn't seem to be a cross-service coherent view of what to do and how that can inform procurement.
 
Can I post a hypothetical here? If not I apologize in advance. I noticed that while NGAD is on hold, NG spoke on the FAXX after the fact and it had me wonder; the Navy got in on the F-35 program, is it wild to think that the USAF is going to get in on the F/A-XX? With the fear of fighting a near-peer adversary, maneuvering around the Pacific with at risk/damaged runways may be needed. Maybe the USAF is trying to work with a more robust bird.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
Can I post a hypothetical here? If not I apologize in advance. I noticed that while NGAD is on hold, NG spoke on the FAXX after the fact and it had me wonder; the Navy got in on the F-35 program, is it wild to think that the USAF is going to get in on the F/A-XX? With the fear of fighting a near-peer adversary, maneuvering around the Pacific with at risk/damaged runways may be needed. Maybe the USAF is trying to work with a more robust bird.
Click to expand...
That would.make a lot of sense if the USN and Congress were still funding F/A-XX. The funding profile though is looking at essentially keeping the PMO going and that is about it for at least the next couple of years.

Edit: source info is here, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/9...re-us-navy-fa-xx-next-gen-fighter/ar-BB1qaguP and it is proposed but with the USN serious about taking.moneynl away I can see why Congress gave it up as well.
 
Last edited:
Ozair said:
That would.make a lot of sense if the USN and Congress were still funding F/A-XX. The funding profile though is looking at essentially keeping the PMO going and that is about it for at least the next couple of years.

Edit: source info is here, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/9...re-us-navy-fa-xx-next-gen-fighter/ar-BB1qaguP and it is proposed but with the USN serious about taking.moneynl away I can see why Congress gave it up as well.
Click to expand...
Something Isn't adding up here. It just seems very odd to me that they've slashed funding and put on hold so many highly advanced next generation projects. I'm just trying to wrap my head around it and I can't seem to make sense of it.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
Something Isn't adding up here. It just seems very odd to me that they've slashed funding and put on hold so many highly advanced next generation projects. I'm just trying to wrap my head around it and I can't seem to make sense of it.
Click to expand...
For the USN they just cannot afford it in their budget. The pause with NGAD and F/A-XX funding reduction aren't linked in the sense of some threat or technology failure.
“We’re absolutely committed to the capacity and lethality of the of the carrier wing,” Rear Adm. Ben Reynolds, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for budget, told reporters last week. “The capacity [and] the firepower of the air wing is orders of magnitude above anything else that that [the Defense Department] has.”


Reynolds said that funding for F/A-XX, the strike fighter intended to replace the service’s stalwart F/A-18 Super Hornet, was previously projected to receive around $1.5 billion in FY25, but the constraints of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 forced the Navy to disperse much of that money into future budgets. The FRA, signed into law last June, provides an FY25 defense spending cap of $895 billion, and the Navy and Marine Corps’ share of that topline under the newly-released budget is $257.6 billion.

“In terms of what comes at the top of the list, it is readiness. It is people. It is the today issues that we have to get on top of,” Navy Under Secretary Erik Raven told reporters while speaking alongside Reynolds. “Where our guidance directs us to take risk is in future modernization.”
Click to expand...

breakingdefense.com

Navy delaying next-gen F/A-XX fighter spending for near-term investments - Breaking Defense

The combination of delaying F/A-XX development and shutting down F/A-18 production may not go well for Navy leadership when they testify to lawmakers.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
I don't think that would happen somehow kqcke for you, that would quite possibly be a step too far for the US Navy. Let's wait and see what happens to the F/A-XX program, I want it to continue and not be scrapped.
 
FighterJock said:
I don't think that would happen somehow kqcke for you, that would quite possibly be a step too far for the US Navy. Let's wait and see what happens to the F/A-XX program, I want it to continue and not be scrapped.
Click to expand...
Just saying because the requierments aren't to far off each other
 
How long would it take the French naval FCAS to enter service against the F/A-XX? Just a thought.
 
FighterJock said:
How long would it take the French naval FCAS to enter service against the F/A-XX? Just a thought.
Click to expand...
The French Fcas will never see the light , the French economy is unable to make this program happen, we will stay forever with the Rafale..It is very sad but the Rafale F-5 will be the last French fighter.
 
dark sidius said:
The French Fcas will never see the light , the French economy is unable to make this program happen, we will stay forever with the Rafale..It is very sad but the Rafale F-5 will be the last French fighter.
Click to expand...
But you still got Germany, Spain and even belgium to squeez out some money
 
kqcke for you said:
But you still got Germany, Spain and even belgium to squeez out some money
Click to expand...
I also would argue that er See FCAS tought it will be a very Long Journey. But given how far Tempest is and Sweden not showing enough it Shows that for now they don't have a choice for an european Fighter with there own industrie being part of it.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
Can I post a hypothetical here? If not I apologize in advance. I noticed that while NGAD is on hold, NG spoke on the FAXX after the fact and it had me wonder; the Navy got in on the F-35 program, is it wild to think that the USAF is going to get in on the F/A-XX? With the fear of fighting a near-peer adversary, maneuvering around the Pacific with at risk/damaged runways may be needed. Maybe the USAF is trying to work with a more robust bird.
Click to expand...
Interesting thought, but here where it doesn't work. The Navy likely does not have the same requirements at the minimum for range and broadband stealth. The Navy also has constraints it much consider that the AF does not have to - such as the size of the aircraft which needs to fit on the carrier deck.

I don't think the Navy really wants to penetrate high contested areas like the AF. Operating from carriers from give or take 1,000 nm from Chinese baes offer some protection. A key mission would like be fleet defense, operating with CCAs, resurrecting the outer air battle. It is likely that the F/A-XX may use the same components as NGAD, but may be slightly smaller with a different planform.
 
GTX said:
www.twz.com

Air Force "Starting At The Beginning" With NGAD 6th Gen Fighter Requirements Review

Signs that big changes are coming to the USAF's NGAD combat jet plans, or that the program may be supplanted entirely, are growing.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
Well, the moral of the story for the prime contractors is...

Never bid on a major development program personally championed by a zealous Service Secretary.

Exhibit A. SECNAV John Lehman and ATA/A-12.
Exhibit B. SECAF Frank Kendall and NGAD PCA.

Interesting that Northrop is 2 for 2 in reading the ATA and NGAD tea leaves. Very impressive!
 
joewee said:
Well, the moral of the story for the prime contractors is...

Never bid on a major development program personally championed by a zealous Service Secretary.

Exhibit A. SECNAV John Lehman and ATA/A-12.
Exhibit B. SECAF Frank Kendall and NGAD PCA.

Interesting that Northrop is 2 for 2 in reading the ATA and NGAD tea leaves. Very impressive!
Click to expand...
We understand nothing at what they say, what they say mean nothing , we know bla-bla-bla , we don(t know bla-bla-bla, we have CCA 1 but CCA2 could be enterely different bla-bla-bla, there is something strange with what they say , yesterday we retire F-22, today we are in falling love with the F-22 ??? we have F-15 EX , hey guy you have F-15 since the 80s what you say is ridiculous. Listen General , build the B-21 fleet , build the SR-72 hypersonic striker , put a variable engine in the F-35 , buy all the hypersonic missile you can , and you can win. Another words are the family of systems it mean nothing too , what is in your family ? one pod ? 2 missiles ? family of systems of what ? Realy it could not be possible , there is something strange behind all of this story, a capacity mature in the black world now ? When we look the Ukraine war if you don't dominate the sky , you don't win and UAV change nothing about that the both have UAV and the war will never be win by anybody.
 
Last edited:
Elysium said:
Man, what a bummer. I remember reading way back in 2009, when the F-22 production was cancelled, that it was done with the explicit knowledge that its successor was already in the works, and they knew what they were doing. Apparently, not even close.
Click to expand...
Yes it seem to be the same we see now what a good idea it was.
 
I appreciate that Kendall maybe got out over his skis, and that a fighter even more expensive (in relative terms) than the F-22 might not be the best strategy for an Air Force that might be in a shooting war sometime soon, but some of the comments here were less than reassuring. “In an Air Force where we launched cruise missiles out of the back of C-17s [as part of a program called Rapid Dragon] and dropped people out of the bomb bay of… B-24s [during World War II] and things of that nature, I don’t even know what a cargo airplane is, or a bomber is, or a fighter is.”

Really?

Maybe I’ve just been reading too much recently about the navy’s morass of acquisitions since 1990, but this “all categories and subdivisions are consensual delusions, lean and agile software adaptations can open new avenues of capability in any system”-type philosophy sounds like the indulgent design fantasies that led the Navy down the path from frigates and destroyers to “Power Projection Ships,” to the Swiss army crapbox that was the LCS.

I believe these people are relatively smart and conscientious when it comes to their responsibilities, but the language here sounds a little too wide-eyed, pie in the sky for my liking.
 
MrTopaz said:
I appreciate that Kendall maybe got out over his skis, and that a fighter even more expensive (in relative terms) than the F-22 might not be the best strategy for an Air Force that might be in a shooting war sometime soon, but some of the comments here were less than reassuring. “In an Air Force where we launched cruise missiles out of the back of C-17s [as part of a program called Rapid Dragon] and dropped people out of the bomb bay of… B-24s [during World War II] and things of that nature, I don’t even know what a cargo airplane is, or a bomber is, or a fighter is.”

Really?

Maybe I’ve just been reading too much recently about the navy’s morass of acquisitions since 1990, but this “all categories and subdivisions are consensual delusions, lean and agile software adaptations can open new avenues of capability in any system”-type philosophy sounds like the indulgent design fantasies that led the Navy down the path from frigates and destroyers to “Power Projection Ships,” to the Swiss army crapbox that was the LCS.

I believe these people are relatively smart and conscientious when it comes to their responsibilities, but the language here sounds a little too wide-eyed, pie in the sky for my liking.
Click to expand...
Yes what they say in this article mean nothing. Or there is something they can't talk about.... there is something behind the line, it is impossible speaking like that for the guys like us.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
Can I post a hypothetical here? If not I apologize in advance. I noticed that while NGAD is on hold, NG spoke on the FAXX after the fact and it had me wonder; the Navy got in on the F-35 program, is it wild to think that the USAF is going to get in on the F/A-XX? With the fear of fighting a near-peer adversary, maneuvering around the Pacific with at risk/damaged runways may be needed. Maybe the USAF is trying to work with a more robust bird.
Click to expand...
Possible, but the USN has some weight constraints that the USAF doesn't. MTOW of ~85klbs due to catapult limits, max landing weight of about 55klbs due to arresting gear limits. Plus the dimensional limits of the flight deck elevators. ~69ft long and ~33ft wings folded.



FlyGuy369 said:
Something Isn't adding up here. It just seems very odd to me that they've slashed funding and put on hold so many highly advanced next generation projects. I'm just trying to wrap my head around it and I can't seem to make sense of it.
Click to expand...
They have things like Columbia-class submarines eating the budget alive.



B2Blain said:
Interesting thought, but here where it doesn't work. The Navy likely does not have the same requirements at the minimum for range and broadband stealth. The Navy also has constraints it much consider that the AF does not have to - such as the size of the aircraft which needs to fit on the carrier deck.

I don't think the Navy really wants to penetrate high contested areas like the AF. Operating from carriers from give or take 1,000 nm from Chinese baes offer some protection. A key mission would like be fleet defense, operating with CCAs, resurrecting the outer air battle. It is likely that the F/A-XX may use the same components as NGAD, but may be slightly smaller with a different planform.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I think that the FAXX will be a smaller, lighter aircraft with the same systems designed for NGAD.
 
Elysium said:
Man, what a bummer. I remember reading way back in 2009, when the F-22 production was cancelled, that it was done with the explicit knowledge that its successor was already in the works, and they knew what they were doing. Apparently, not even close.
Click to expand...
If l may... call on everyone to check what should be the first post of this thread... Yesterday my finger slipped and opened the first page by accident. Without making any comments on anyone and any objects whatsoever. But it says Boeing, Sixth Generation, by 2024.
 
okakac said:
If l may... call on everyone to check what should be the first post of this thread... Yesterday my finger slipped and opened the first page by accident. Without making any comments on anyone and any objects whatsoever. But it says Boeing, Sixth Generation, by 2024.
Click to expand...
We are light years away of that. The only new platform we see since decades is the B-21 and I m afraid that it stay like that for 2 decades again. I asked my self where the enormous amount of money of NGAD program since years is going ? Billions for a pod on F-22 ?
 
B2Blain said:
I don't think the Navy really wants to penetrate high contested areas like the AF. Operating from carriers from give or take 1,000 nm from Chinese baes offer some protection. A key mission would like be fleet defense, operating with CCAs, resurrecting the outer air battle. It is likely that the F/A-XX may use the same components as NGAD, but may be slightly smaller with a different planform.
Click to expand...
F/A-XX may be a part of the kill chain to counter/defend against boost glide vehicles. Whether it's lock down shoot down, boost phase intercept or taking out launch sites.

For the latter 2, being able to penetrate highly contested airspace may be on the table. Not to mention the navy still has a giant gap in deep strike requirement with the cancellation of a/f-x. Ideally, the f/a-xx is just an updated version of a/f-x.
 
donnage99 said:
F/A-XX may be a part of the kill chain to counter/defend against boost glide vehicles. Whether it's lock down shoot down, boost phase intercept or taking out launch sites.

For the latter 2, being able to penetrate highly contested airspace may be on the table. Not to mention the navy still has a giant gap in deep strike requirement with the cancellation of a/f-x. Ideally, the f/a-xx is just an updated version of a/f-x.
Click to expand...
But for instance there is no FA/XX, budget for it is slashed. Going the same way of NGAD.
 
GTX said:
www.twz.com

Air Force "Starting At The Beginning" With NGAD 6th Gen Fighter Requirements Review

Signs that big changes are coming to the USAF's NGAD combat jet plans, or that the program may be supplanted entirely, are growing.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
Former Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Charles Brown, is fond of saying, "Accelerate Change or Lose." Depending how you interpret it, the AF is taking a pause or starting over with NGAD. They try to spin it by saying that air superiority is not dependent on one platform, that they are relying on a system of systems approach. But you know and I know that the NGAD platform is an important element. CCAs are there to enable manned platforms. Meanwhile the Chinese have the initiative and are pressing ahead, implementing their vision and concept of operations. It looks like they have gotten inside our decision cycle and we are just reacting.
 
Theres alot of doom and gloom here but think about this. What if NGAD was looking at 500 million a fighter plus another say 300million in CCAs per fighter? All that was going to happen was NGAD would eventually be canceled and we would get nothing. But say if we stop, reevaluate, and get an 80% solution for say 200 million a plane plus another 100 million in CCAs per? NGAD survives and we get enough planes.

I'll take Option 2 over Option 1. The 3 Seawolves are great but I'll take the 22+ Virginias.
 
From the airandspaceforce* report, I understand that range is no more a new paradigm since F-22, 35 and EX are now deemed relevant for part of the mission.
It looks also as if the persistence part of Air Dominance is demoted to a lower priority or offset on the CCA (or more probably on multiple CCA with a combined effect being persistence). But persistence also generally includes magazine size, something we already knew was discussed being replaced by CCA and Arsenal planes. So the end result might just be a nearly disarmed NGAD that would trade missile carriage for fuel, hence being hosted within a smaller, less complex airframe. Let´s say a sensor craft with teeth.

*See post here from @Dreamfighter
 
Last edited:
GTX said:
www.twz.com

Air Force "Starting At The Beginning" With NGAD 6th Gen Fighter Requirements Review

Signs that big changes are coming to the USAF's NGAD combat jet plans, or that the program may be supplanted entirely, are growing.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
A lot of waffle and not a lot of substance from TWZ. Am I the only one that find their articles hard to read, it's like they try to use 7000 words to say something that should take 10.

As for NGAD will see where the pause takes them but I still see a paired down platform emerging that has some characteristics that still meets the pacific theatre mission set.
TomcatViP said:
It looks also as if the persistence part of Air Dominance is demoted to a lower priority or offset on the CCA (or more probably on multiple CCA with a combined effect being persistence). But persistence also generally includes magazine size, something we already knew was discussed being replaced by CCA and Arsenal planes. So the end result might just be a nearly disarmed NGAD that would trade missile carriage for fuel, hence being hosted within a smaller, less complex airframe. Let´s say a sensor craft with teeth.
Click to expand...
That is my thinking. Reduce the requirement set of the NGAD but uplift requirements for the accompanying CCA. It is far easier to iterate over a CCA design, reuse or upgrade in service components for new generations and push that design to be built by multiple vendors than to do the same for the manned portion. The digital century series is alive today in CCA but has died for manned NGAD for obvious reasons.
 
Ah yes, the requirements developed starting in 2014 are now 10 years old, and the X-planes that have flown are now a bit obsolete. We have better ideas now!

We will start over with our new and improved ideas. In 3 years we will have the new requirements locked in. In 7 years the first demonstrators will fly. In 10 years the 6th-gen contract will be awarded.

But wait! In 10 years, we can build an AI to design our jets for us. We'll have to start over from scratch. And given that it will be an AI built by the DOD, you just know that it will recommend an indefinite program delay until the next new science thing comes along.

At what point do we just build the fighter that we already designed?

We've lost our way. China is going to absolutely dominate us. Good game, well played.
 
joshjosh said:
Ah yes, the requirements developed starting in 2014 are now 10 years old, and the X-planes that have flown are now a bit obsolete. We have better ideas now!

We will start over with our new and improved ideas. In 3 years we will have the new requirements locked in. In 7 years the first demonstrators will fly. In 10 years the 6th-gen contract will be awarded.

But wait! In 10 years, we can build an AI to design our jets for us. We'll have to start over from scratch. And given that it will be an AI built by the DOD, you just know that it will recommend an indefinite program delay until the next new science thing comes along.

At what point do we just build the fighter that we already designed?

We've lost our way. China is going to absolutely dominate us. Good game, well played.
Click to expand...
They can't win though. If they design a manned platform then people will likely complain it is too costly and overspecced, if they change direction people will likely complain about requirements creep or slow process. Roper's digital century series was envisioned to be a short generation design and build phase and was probably too radical for manned aircraft but is perfect for CCAs. Hence why I think a manned NGAD will still happen but will shift its focus. The USAF can probably take a whole bunch of requirements out of the design but retain the key aspects that combined with evolving CCAs will make manned NGAD survivable within the threat it needs to operate in.
 
Last edited:
So if members had to guess one or the other of the following statements had some impact on this delay decision.

1) The Chinese 5th Gen “aren’t” as good as we thought giving us more time to develop our 6th Gen aircraft.
2) The Chinese 5th Gen “are better” than we thought making us need a bigger jump in technology than we first imagined we needed in a 6th Gen aircraft.
 
bobbymike said:
So if members had to guess one or the other of the following statements had some impact on this delay decision.

1) The Chinese 5th Gen “aren’t” as good as we thought giving us more time to develop our 6th Gen aircraft.
2) The Chinese 5th Gen “are better” than we thought making us need a bigger jump in technology than we first imagined we needed in a 6th Gen aircraft.
Click to expand...
How about another option.

3) USAF development of CCA has progressed further than thought and replaced manned NGAD mission sets that were previously thought to require a manned aircraft.
 
Ozair said:
How about another option.

3) USAF development of CCA has progressed further than thought and replaced manned NGAD mission sets that were previously thought to require a manned aircraft.
Click to expand...
Oh I’m sure there are many other reasons that’s why I wrote which one might have had “some impact” on the decision.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom