Remember that there are two engine sizes for NGAP: the original tech demonstrators (XA100 and -101) were 45klbs, F135 size. Then the USAF started saying that an NGAP-derived engine was going into the NGAD, those engines (XA102 and -103) are in the 35klbs, F119 size.
XA102/103 haven't flown or even progressed far beyond critical design review and appears won't start testing until the late 2020s. Perhaps that fits with F/A-XX but I wonder what size they will be.
Which is not quite what one of the previous CNOs had said where he was looking for speed over stealth.
What are you thinking, a further enhancement of the F414 or perhaps another in service engine such as the F135? The F135 feels maybe not quite big enough as a single and two likely too big for a carrier capable aircraft.
Except the Navy has no money. There is very little budget for the next three years for F/A-XX so whichever contractor wins won't be doing much for the next few years. From the articles posted above it also feels like the USN is behind the USAF in the process pointedly talking about using USAF lessons learned.
Much of the focus has been on technology development and currently in production aircraft, there's also been a feeling that Navy (and Congress) wanted USAF to "go first."
The navy is also recapitalizing it’s SSBN force, which I gather is eating up their budget the same way Sentinel is eating into the air force’s budget.
Funding profiles can change if program changes.
There is a need for speed insteed there is jut to buy B-21.
You forgot the black budget....
Navy Will Pick a 6th-Gen Fighter as Air Force Pauses NGAD
The Navy is moving towards awarding a contract for its next-generation, long-range fighter amid uncertainty over the Air Force's NGAD fighter.www.airandspaceforces.com
"The Navy will soon decide between competitors Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. “We have three companies that have provided proposals for that and we’re actually in source selection right now,” Franchetti told reporters at a Defense Writers Group event."
Link plumeria
There is surely a fleet of USAF RQ-180 and you don't see it in the budget....
Sure they can. It would obviously help if Congress passed a budget and there wasn't the Fiscal Responsibility Act. It isn't looking like Congress will pass another budget this year and if that happens and the US has to operate under another continuing resolution then there is no funding available for the expansion needed.
Sorry I'm not sure what you're trying to say there?
If service or DOD priorities change these things can take dramatic turns especially on new starts or very young programs. I assume here that you looked at what budget docs stated in FY24 or 25 around what 27-28 or later funding on program would be. Since its such an early stage, those can change quite rapidly if the effort is prioritized.
Going to Ukraine.
Happy to be corrected but I think continuing resolutions mean no funding increase can occur and the previously agreed budget just carries forward. It also limits the ability to start new programs or change funding limits and levels.
Q3: How does the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act factor into FY 2025 appropriations and a potential CR?
A3: In June 2023, Congress passed the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA), which suspended the debt ceiling through January 1, 2025, in exchange for establishing limits on discretionary spending for defense and non-defense programs. Figure 2 shows the FRA budget caps for defense relative to the projected base funding levels in the Biden administration’s FY 2024 national defense budget. While the FY 2024 cap was in line with the administration’s FY 2024 requested defense topline, the FY 2025 limit of $895 billion—which the Biden administration’s FY 2025 request is in line with—is $10 billion less than what the administration originally projected it would spend and represents a 1 percent cut from FY 2024 levels when adjusted for inflation. The current “clean CR” under consideration would extend defense programs at FY 2024 funding levels until Congress takes action on regular FY 2025 appropriations.
Remote Visualization
As an enforcement mechanism to keep discretionary spending within the budget caps, the FRA includes sequestration, which automatically cuts funding back to the cap levels if Congress appropriates above them. However, emergency supplemental funding, such as the April 2024 bill, which provided over $67 billion in additional resources to DOD relating to Ukraine, Israel, and the Indo-Pacific, is exempt from the spending limits.
An additional clause in the FRA holds that if the government fails to pass all 12 regular appropriations bills by April 30—meaning that any part of the government continues to operate under a CR—then spending levels will automatically be adjusted to FY 2023 levels minus 1 percent. For defense programs in FY 2025, this would entail a cut of 5 percent across the board and a reduction of over $45 billion in the national defense topline.
Q4: How would a CR impact defense programs in FY 2025?
A4: Given the frequency with which the Pentagon begins the fiscal year under a stopgap funding extension, short-term CRs of 2–3 months may not cause major disruptions to the execution of defense programs. However, longer CRs that extend into the new calendar year can significantly disrupt programs that are forced to operate with spending levels lower than or higher than what they had projected. Moreover, the military services cannot fund “new start” programs or increase production rates under a CR. In a letter to congressional appropriators, Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall outlined that the 6-month CR originally proposed by Speaker Johnson would prevent production increases for munitions stockpiles and reduce aircraft mission capable rates. Once regular appropriations have been passed after a long-term CR, DOD programs still face “serious execution problems,” as they have limited time to negotiate contracts and efficiently spend operating funds before they expire at the end of the fiscal year on September 30.
Q5: What other factors could impact defense spending under a continuing resolution?
A5: Congress will ultimately punt on passing FY 2025 appropriations until after the November elections. However, if it passes a CR that extends funding at current levels into the new calendar year, Congress will also have to address a range of other fiscal issues, which could be intertwined in negotiations over the defense budget. On January 1, 2025, the debt ceiling suspended by the FRA is reimposed, and the Department of the Treasury will be forced to take “extraordinary measures” to fund the government until Congress takes action. Tax cuts passed under the Trump administration will also expire at the end of 2025 and add another source of debate on the Hill. Delaying the passage of FY 2025 appropriations into the new year risks linking them with other fiscal issues, posing a challenge to their timely passage prior to the April 30 sequestration deadline.
Zero USN dollars are going to Ukraine, stop listening to him.
If Congress tries that, the Navy gets to say "With all due respect, Senator, the only time that worked is when the USAF bought aircraft designed for the Navy. USAF needs a lot more range, our airfields move and theirs don't. But we also have pretty hard limits on how big a plane can be and still take off and land from a carrier."
Depends on how big the FAXX ends up. If it really is an 85klb MTOW monster, then yes, F135s would be a little big. Plane would be one hell of a hot rod, though, with a T:W ratio of close to 1 at takeoff.
CR's are temporary. If you are suggesting that we will be in continuous CRs for the rest of the decade then that is really not something that is going to happen. CR's cause delays and mess up new starts and other programs have to wait to ramp up as they can only be funded to previous FY levels when under CR. That doesn't mean that as administrations submit their budgets they have to honor FYDP funding profiles stated in their previous budgets. As I wrote earlier, if admin or service wishes to prioritize something based on where it is at in its analysis, it can dramatically alter the funding profile in the FYDP relative to what might have been in the out years as per the last 2-3 budget docs.
I was thinking more in terms of a lower cost / less risky propulsion EMD program that is based on more mature technologies from a tech and mfg. readiness level. So a new clean sheet engine, just not one that blows budgets and assumes a lot of risk with untested or relative immature technology. Though certainly adapting something off the shelf could be an option. It really depends how big FA-XX will be and what the Navy wants in terms of performance.
NAVY $22.7 billion in research and development funding, you can find 1 billion for FA/XX
No I'm not expecting CRs but I am expecting that there will be a continued cap on defence spending similar to the Fiscal Responsibility Act.
While that is probably the lower risk approach I feel like the requirement for range makes an AETP derived engine a better option. The other issue is cost. Your suggestion is likely lower cost and we know the XA100/101 were not cheap and 102/103 likely the same. Even if GE or PW started today on a clean sheet new engine the timeline would be very close for IOC of the aircraft so timeframe might also be difficult.
What I want to say is with a budget of 22.7 billions of research the Navy can find one billion for the FA/XX program, if they are in source selection they have the idea of want they want and how to fund it.
Spending CAP's are on topline. Within that topline, the department and services are free to prioritize as they see fit. If the very top of the USN leadership is speaking about source selection and competition with follow on development, they would at least be willing to make the necessary changes to fund those wishes including seeking civilian approval. Or their program is less ambitious and requires significantly less funding through EMD compared to a high end 6th gen PCA the air force might have been considering.
Agreed, however in that context it would be the AF trying to explain to Congress why this is a bad idea (for all the reasons you stated). The Navy wouldn't be in that position, they can say "This platform best suits our requirements, and if the AF were to increase the buy, that would be fine with us." Because I don't think that Congress would merge the programs, but would instead force one service to buy the same fighter that the other one did, and the Navy's trying to get out ahead of that while Kendall tries to figure out exactly what it is he wants.
![Phantom Works (4).mp4_snapshot_00.04_[2023.02.28_21.16.39].jpg](/data/attachments/278/278517-9926f1ff6d55db2389ecbe872e90563b.jpg)
