www.defensenews.com
Not sure how advanced it is or even if it is being worked on...?
Agree, unless they broach 250 jets it may not be worth the investment.
I don't see why invest in new engine if they don't know for the futur of the NGAD fighter?Air Force triples funding for prototype sixth-gen fighter engine
The future of the NGAD sixth-generation fighter remains unclear, but billions in extra funding would keep work progressing on its prototype engine.
Not to add insult to injury. but no supercruise then of no use inthe Pacific, imho.
B-21 is a bomber , the fighter missions are different and need more speed.
If you have the endurance to get there and stay there, you don't need to speed anywhere. You just put pairs on station and draw circles of doom around them. Especially if we field T3 missiles quickly (and I think we are).
Therefore, have never stopped believing the Digital Twin of Bone was worthy idea, but any new build B-1 should to the B-1A speed standard ie high supersonic.
It's not quite as certain as that, but this announcement keeps the propulsion program alive and moving forward. Both NGAP bidders had warned their programs were at risk without this move, so it's good to see. They could still ice PCA, or punt it down the line to a time when decision-making is in a less.....uncertain situation. But keeping NGAP alive is a good thing.
Because the engine is the most difficult component to develop. That's why they start doing research on engine tech as soon as a new engine goes into service. There will be a new fighter. They can design the engine for the size they think the USAF will want. If they have to resize it due to changing requirements, that's not as big a deal as just developing the technology in the first place.
Variable targeting capability for the same missile. AAM/ARM/ASM. I'm speaking broadly of the capability, not the specific T3 that was a DARPA program.
Sounds like agit propagandist..there is never only one card, that is how wars are lost betting on one card.
In countering TCTs/TELs, sprints are enough and once again fuel for speed & endurance is why one needs penetrating tankers.
The CSBA study I linked above, while a few years out of date now. doesn't paint a rosy picture of all SH being replaced by F/A-XX. The 2040 airwing suggestions point to F/A-XX generally being a single squadron on the boat and the delta covered by unmanned assets. They even suggested upgraded SH may be a consideration.
It is a hard decision point for the USN as at the moment the money isn't really available, given other priorities. I agree, and said as much in the other thread, that this platform is really a 5.5 gen aircraft.
As other have said, there is more to life than supercruise, especially if the CONOPS includes using CCA to bulk numbers.
it is bizarre to say I will be disappointed, as if national security is my purview, I have no influence over congressional / contractor complex in the first place. Downsizing under the new administration seems less likely and the future is unwritten and full of continuous tumult.
"I actually like the approach of a 3000 nautical mile ranged subsonic strike UAS (son of X-47) fielded first followed by a next-gen counter air and fleet defense optimized F-X with higher end capability (and smaller fleet) as a better option. "
Great addition but now the question is can they keep the cost down enough to make it viable for an attritable airframe?
We hope!
Since the same with the poor kinematics performance , it will become expensive for not a big value of performance. Subsonic speed in time of high speed and hypersonic weapon and futur drone is not the better response and Fury have a lack of stealth too, this is a waste of money making the mass with poor performance aircrafts. Instead buying a mass of long range missile will be cheaper and will have the same result. Fury will face supercruise ennemy fighters I don't see how it can win in a confrontation. At a time of China are building high performance fighter the USAF response is a reusable cruise missile with a radar.....Taking hours and hours going in the battlefield.
Yes agree that there will definitely be a sensor mix as you and others have said. Correspondingly though there is value in volume production. RTX making 1000 radars at a rapid rate, instead of 400 slow, could reduce the average unit price by as much as 40% (based on typical 10-15% reduction in cost for doubling production). That would also allow the US to stockpile these for future buys and for situations where the CCA fleet has to grow quickly. Bending the metal to make the airframe is cheap and relatively quick but the higher tech parts have longer lead times.
I agree with you , but we have a lack of time with China they running very fast , CCA-1 will flight in what ? 5 years in squadron ? CC-2 will be in 10 years ? at this time China will surely have plenty of 5th gen and 6th gen squadron in PLAAF , I understand the concept but for me me the timing is not good, we are losing a lot of time with NGAD , losing a lot of time with F-35 and in the same time China are building more and more advanced capacity , and I m afraid that China could built a hypersonic striker soon in a ultimate capacity. I don't understand why we are losing so long time to develop advanced programs.We can't win a power like China with a discount Air Force. We are February and still no decision on how to build the NGAD we have lost 6 months since July in the same time we saw 2 Chinese demonstrator flying in public and one over a higway , who say it is more advanced than we think.
We must choose NGAD this year to be in the 2030 timing. CCA-1 this year ok , but realy in squadron ? surely more years.
Rate of production is a huge issue, but it is too easy to distract some decision-makers with fancy power points showing how much cooler a $60m CCA that will take forever to develop and produce would be, rather than these "disposable cheap CCA's that can't do all these things".
Disagree with this part, but I agree that with a proper production run, you can drive the costs strongly in the right direction for sensors. As Ozair notes, securing long lead items in quantity is half the battle. The smaller the subs making components are, the harder it is to ramp up production without a large commitment.
Systems integration is now the cost/time, not the hardware. The reason the F-35 is taking forever to get to block 4 is not hardware. The more stuff you pack in, the more stuff you have to make code for. We are hopefully moving into open architecture that makes that easier, but nothing rides free.
