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

Status
Not open for further replies.
NMaude said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
His handling of some programs like ARRW and MH-139 already had me concerned, but everything out of his mouth regarding NGAD for the past couple months is increasingly delivering the message he's trying to spitball a new reality into existence rather than execute a plan to meet a requirement. Maybe he has a concept of a plan, but he can't articulate it and the industry is already putting out "we can't plan around not having a plan" smoke signals. He's not suited to this role, and campaigning to stay at the job a couple months ahead of an election is another sign of it.
 
www.airandspaceforces.com

Kendall: New, Re-Imagined NGAD Could Cost Less Than an F-35

The Air Force is reconsidering the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program and looking to slash its cost, service leaders said.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

"The Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter—once envisioned as a hyper-expensive, exquisite platform—may be restructured to slash its price to below that of the F-35, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told reporters at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber conference."
...

:oops:
 
Last edited:
Dreamfighter said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

Kendall: New, Re-Imagined NGAD Could Cost Less Than an F-35

The Air Force is reconsidering the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program and looking to slash its cost, service leaders said.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

"The Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter—once envisioned as a hyper-expensive, exquisite platform—may be restructured to slash its price to below that of the F-35, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told reporters at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber conference."
...

:oops:
Click to expand...

I have a sneaky feeling that the only thing that will be slashed in the end is the numbers of units procured.
 
NMaude said:
I have a sneaky feeling that the only thing that will be slashed in the end is the numbers of units procured.
Click to expand...

Or the NGAD-fighter(s) they have been working on get(s) cancelled and they swtich to a small(er) and much cheaper possibly unmanned 'air-superiority' aircraft assisted by all kinds of CCAs and other craft...
I still hope the new 'operational requirements' they have in mind will NOT make them decide F-22 should go into history as the last US manned high-end fighter.
 
TomcatViP said:
There is a good quote at the bottom of that report:



Seems they are trading the bulky internal fuel tanks of the transcontinental NGAD for something lighter that would refuel on a secured enough manner and have the mass of a large magazine of weapons carried by lighter CCAs. In other words: a disaggregated design that brings similar capacity out of a variety of platforms (not a flying puzzle but an agnostic one that can pair with whatever is there available).

The lighter, less complex components also fit the desire to evolve rapidly, module after module.
Click to expand...
It looks like Frank Kendall went to a seance over the weekend and channeled Pierre Sprey.
 
B2Blain said:
It looks like Frank Kendall went to a seance over the weekend and channeled Pierre Sprey.
Click to expand...
Well, technically you can control CCAs from a sneaky f-5 no worse than from PCA.
Cockpit and HMD is going to be just as good; starlink dish(and even a set of directional datalinks) doesn't require too much either.
Otherwise a small, very stealthy airframe with some conservative avionics is good for job.
It's even simpler to keep it on station with tankers - refill is simply smaller.
 
Ainen said:
Well, technically you can control CCAs from a sneaky f-5 no worse than from PCA.
Cockpit and HMD is going to be just as good; starlink dish(and even a set of directional datalinks) doesn't require too much either.
Otherwise a small, very stealthy airframe with some conservative avionics is good for job.
It's even simpler to keep it on station with tankers - refill is simply smaller.
Click to expand...
It's better to have your quarterback (sorry, 'Murrican football term for "the guy calling plays") closer to the action.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's better to have your quarterback (sorry, 'Murrican football term for "the guy calling plays") closer to the action.
Click to expand...
Small fighter's geometry doesn't have to be worse(and in this particular part, size is money. Very directly).

In fact, given everything else is similar, smaller aircraft will be stealthier across the spectrum.
 
all of these second thoughts from Kendall somewhat remind me of my Grandmother with alzeheimers... I think they really need to just zip it instead of broadcasting any time something happens. Who knows if they can even do that atp
 
Ainen said:
...and b-2 is understood not to be the stealthiest thing ever precisely due to it's size.
Click to expand...

Nope, nopitty nope nope.
The B-2 is quite stealthy , and across a broad range of frequencies, partly because of its size.

When the wavelength of the radar is large compared to the electrical size of the target the radar largely sees the volume it takes up and shaping is less effective.

Big objects are much easier to make stealthy at large wavelengths than small objects. Large wavelengths though are generally not a high priority for designers, other parts of the kill chain matter far more.

A small target, like a cruise missile, presents different problems. It’s electrical size may be small enough that shaping isn’t as effective at wavelengths used by more important parts of the kill chain like tracking radars.
 
quellish said:
Nope, nopitty nope nope.
The B-2 is quite stealthy , and across a broad range of frequencies, partly because of its size.
Click to expand...
Quite stealthy and stealthiest is two different concepts.
I never doubted it's quite stealthy.

The question is if it's x-band signature forward is smaller than, say, JASSM, or even LO fighters.

And this, from all accounts, is just not true.
 
Dreamfighter said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

Kendall: New, Re-Imagined NGAD Could Cost Less Than an F-35

The Air Force is reconsidering the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program and looking to slash its cost, service leaders said.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

"The Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter—once envisioned as a hyper-expensive, exquisite platform—may be restructured to slash its price to below that of the F-35, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told reporters at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber conference."
...

:oops:
Click to expand...
Maybe, this change in philosophy will produce a single-engine / tailless-delta design similar to the configurations investigated during ICE/FATE programmes... in the 90s!
ICE_101-izometry2.jpg
 
So what have you got for the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on this program ? There has been mentioned of some sort of demonstrators but nothing to show (in public) anyway. I wonder if the arrival of the Su-75 a couple of years ago has had an influence of what is being proposed now.
 
Ainen said:
Quite stealthy and stealthiest is two different concepts.
I never doubted it's quite stealthy.

The question is if it's x-band signature forward is smaller than, say, JASSM, or even LO fighters.

And this, from all accounts, is just not true.
Click to expand...

The frontal aspect x band RCS of the B-2 is definitely lower than JASSM or the F-35.
 
Unlikely.
From outside it seems like ngad was (1) overambitious, (2) doesn't fit into threat evaluation, (3)COVID inflation+Ukraine didn't help DOD with money for Battlestars.
quellish said:
The frontal aspect x band RCS of the B-2 is definitely lower than JASSM or the F-35.
Click to expand...
This statement goes against literally everything said about their relative signatures.
 
TomcatViP said:
There is a good quote at the bottom of that report:



Seems they are trading the bulky internal fuel tanks of the transcontinental NGAD for something lighter that would refuel on a secured enough manner and have the mass of a large magazine of weapons carried by lighter CCAs.
Click to expand...
So why not just use F-22s? I think shorting NGAD on range is a huge mistake. And costly too. What happens when the tanker gets cancelled? Or it's bought in token numbers?
 
@sferrin : we know that they want to have those new tactical robot tankers that offload fuel from bigger one to fighters in the combat area. So the tankers are probably safe. Just pushed farther away.
On the threat side, it complicates their approach since lobbing big missiles at those assets won´t do the trick anymore.
I understand that Kendall is after a new F-22 that is smaller than an F-35. Nobody is canceling them, just cloning little Raptors into the new era.
 
Last edited:
Rolead said:
So what have you got for the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on this program ? There has been mentioned of some sort of demonstrators but nothing to show (in public) anyway. I wonder if the arrival of the Su-75 a couple of years ago has had an influence of what is being proposed now.
Click to expand...

The Su-75 has no influence on anything.
 
I think the question to ask is: where exactly is NGAD going to be based out of? And the sevetal answers are basically first island chain (Japan, possibly PI), second island chain (U.S. and associated protectorates), or Australia. The first option requires no large increase to combat radius. The third requires a likely unachievable combat radius for anything with fighter-ish performance. The second option is limited to a small handful of airports/bases with runways capable of handling large aircraft, and no longer offers much more protection against PRC PGMs as their effective range has increased.

My guess is that the spiraling costs forced a harder look at the survivability of the platform given its basing scheme. That may or may not force a major change to the program requirements. But it is worth reconsidering the program if basically every suitable runway at the range band the aircraft can achieve is located in Guam. It seems to me having a fighter and tanker force with better short/rough airstrip performance is a more flexible basing concept, even if it comes at the sacrifice of absolute range of the combat platform.

Another thought as to why this has changed recently - besides the huge Sentinel cost overruns and increased PLARF range and precision, Japan has taken a decidedly more assertive security role in the region in the last year or two. “Offensive “ weapons are now on order. Japan’s reset might have convinced USAF planners that it will always be available for forward basing, where as previously the USAF might have been planning around a U.S. only contingency. The U.S. might have come to the conclusion that Japan is fully committed to hosting U.S. forces in a Sino-American conflict, or alternatively they may have come to the conclusion the U.S. cannot win without Japanese basing and there is no point in designing equipment around that scenario. It is even possible some kind of formal agreement was reached on open ended use of Japanese bases in private.

i am not sure where the program stands or what the optimal solution is; just some food for thought.
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
So why not just use F-22s? I think shorting NGAD on range is a huge mistake. And costly too. What happens when the tanker gets cancelled? Or it's bought in token numbers?
Click to expand...
Because F-22 are 15 years old plane, they can't stay forever and is capacity are very well known by China
 
New engine, modern structure, more compact avionics, rationalized mission objectives, refined aerodynamics, new weapons with more efficient energetics and kinetics payload, offloaded weapon magazine, smaller size...
If the B-21 ended up smaller than the B-2 with an increase in range, so can NGAD-mini do.

Think Mustang.
 
Last edited:
Personally I can´t see how a US fighter-jet, even a single-engine one, to be produced starting in the 2030s, could cost (much) less then an F-35(A) today. Unless it´s a 'fighter-jet' which is much more similar to a Scaled Composites Model 437 then to an F-35. Or a small hot-rod without radar, without weapons, without fuel, and without sensors except for a phone to call in the CCAs (when they´re not on vacation).
 
4decaa said:
How'd you get that picture of the NGAD development roadmap on the left? :eek:
Click to expand...
Next Generation Alternate Direction, Dimension or Delusion (NGAD), take your pick. NGAD production to begin when F-22's begin to go to Carvana and Carmax.
 
Right to me the question in all of this drama is: what exactly is the primary role for the manned component? If it's merely a battle manager (with maybe a couple JATMs/AMRAAMs as self defense weapons) then maybe a light single engine "fighter" could work. Where the primary weapons are off board in CCAs. But for the life of me, I can't see how you could possibly have a stand-in manned capability that has a medium to large responsibility as a shooter being a small single engine platform unless it goes 200nm.

My hope (but admittedly doesn't seem likely) is that most of this talk from the SecAF is still posturing to get more funding and/or putting pressure on the primes to drive costs down. I'm all in on CCAs but I would feel a ton better if we still fielded a F-22 sized force of flying star destroyers.
 
TomcatViP said:
New engine, modern structure, more compact avionics, rationalized mission objectives, refined aerodynamics, new weapons with more efficient energetics and kinetics payload, offloaded weapon magazine, smaller size...
If the B-21 ended up smaller than the B-2 with an increase in range, so can NGAD-mini do.

Think Mustang.
Click to expand...
All the buzz words in the world aren't going to double its range.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom