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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Desertfox said:
For the next 5 years... that will do wonders for NGAD and F/A-XX...
Click to expand...
It's good if it will force them to focus on acquisition and a cheaper "business model". Nothing else will.
 
_Del_ said:
It's good if it will force them to focus on acquisition and a cheaper "business model". Nothing else will.
Click to expand...
CRs have already forced the military to spend less than they want and a "cheaper" business model hasn't appeared...

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...-annual-8-cut-to-defense-budget-through-2030/

"Seventeen categories would be exempt from the budget reductions, including military operations at the southern U.S. border, nuclear weapons and missile defense programs, and acquisition of certain drones and munitions."

If this happens, NGAD is dead... while we spend money on unnecessary things...
 
Desertfox said:
If this happens, NGAD is dead... while we spend money on unnecessary things...
Click to expand...
They already couldn't afford a fleet of their next NGAD design. That's why they stopped before proceeding to throw good money after bad.

The air dominance mission will continue, I assure you.
 
dark sidius said:
It is a non sens you can't do the domination politic that the new administration want to do with a 8 % cut in defense spending.
Click to expand...
Well, the decision-makers looking at the data clearly disagree with your incredibly well-informed opinion.
 
Ozair said:
Good to see AvWeek also has a good understanding of what is and isn't happening with digital century series...
Click to expand...

That it is still going forward, under different bands, across the whole Air Force?
 
_Del_ said:
Well, the decision-makers looking at the data clearly disagree with your incredibly well-informed opinion.
Click to expand...
Republican criticize the democrats to spend not a lot about defense but they do worst ? What is logical ?
 
dark sidius said:
8% cut in the face of China growing capacity and Russia ready to war , my opinion is this is dangerous.
Click to expand...
China's production capacity is exactly why they have to break the paradigm. Even full funding toward the manned-NGAD element would not change the equation.

If you want to stop China, you have to be able to make the price too high. We cannot currently do that. Any protracted action and we run out of everything including missiles and bombs in a matter of weeks.

You need mass. If you can't produce ordinance faster than you can shoot it or produce NGAD, F-35, etc faster than they are destroyed in the air or on the ground, you're screwed. We cannot do that. More complicated and expensive NGAD doesn't change the equation.

We need to build off new first principles if we're going to right the ship.
 
_Del_ said:
China's production capacity is exactly why they have to break the paradigm. Even full funding toward the manned-NGAD element would not change the equation.

If you want to stop China, you have to be able to make the price too high. We cannot currently do that. Any protracted action and we run out of everything including missiles and bombs in a matter of weeks.

You need mass. If you can't produce ordinance faster than you can shoot it or produce NGAD, F-35, etc faster than they are destroyed in the air or on the ground, you're screwed. We cannot do that. More complicated and expensive NGAD doesn't change the equation.

We need to build off new first principles if we're going to right the ship.
Click to expand...
You are right for sure but on what they can reduce 8%
 
dark sidius said:
You are right for sure but on what they can reduce 8%
Click to expand...
A LOT. Despite all the talk about our recapitalization needs and our air frames being rode hard and put up wet, "they" continually spend more on R&D programs than acquisition. Makes no sense. R&D gives the least return for the money, and they often point it in the directions that make the least sense (for the Air Force as a policy instrument -- works great for the defense industry shareholders, which is why all these generals end up on a board at RTX or LM or wherever after retirement).
 
_Del_ said:
China's production capacity is exactly why they have to break the paradigm. Even full funding toward the manned-NGAD element would not change the equation.

If you want to stop China, you have to be able to make the price too high. We cannot currently do that. Any protracted action and we run out of everything including missiles and bombs in a matter of weeks.

You need mass. If you can't produce ordinance faster than you can shoot it or produce NGAD, F-35, etc faster than they are destroyed in the air or on the ground, you're screwed. We cannot do that. More complicated and expensive NGAD doesn't change the equation.

We need to build off new first principles if we're going to right the ship.
Click to expand...
Do you think we start to see the end of the tactical aviation in favor of , long range missile ,missile defense, hypersonic attack missile and drones , B-21 bomber, space weapons? etc....
 
https://www.geaerospace.com/news/pr...ign-review-adaptive-cycle-engine-us-air-force
February 19, 2025 – GE Aerospace announced today the successful completion of the Detailed Design Review (DDR) for its XA102 adaptive cycle engine, a critical milestone in support of the U.S. Air Force’s Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) program. With the DDR now complete, GE Aerospace has been awarded the next contract phase to procure, assemble and test an XA102 full scale demonstrator engine.
Click to expand...
 
dark sidius said:
Why invest in it if NGAD is compromise ?
Click to expand...
Because it has applications beyond the current form of NGAD? Also, experience and data they could apply to XA101 or a follow-up re-engine program if it ever gets revived.
 
_Del_ said:
Because it has applications beyond the current form of NGAD? Also, experience and data they could apply to XA101 or a follow-up re-engine program if it ever gets revived.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the DOD, USAF and USN are looking at various platforms and missions for the adaptive cycle tech. Fighter, strike, ISR, etc.
 
I'm wondering if the USAF is going to release photographs this year of its' NGAD demonstrator aircraft*?

*I wonder if it has been assigned an "X" designation?
 
NMaude said:
I'm wondering if the USAF is going to release photographs this year of its' NGAD demonstrator aircraft*?

*I wonder if it has been assigned an "X" designation?
Click to expand...

Why would it? Regardless of the program direction, there is no reason to do so.
 
_Del_ said:
A LOT. Despite all the talk about our recapitalization needs and our air frames being rode hard and put up wet, "they" continually spend more on R&D programs than acquisition. Makes no sense. R&D gives the least return for the money, and they often point it in the directions that make the least sense (for the Air Force as a policy instrument -- works great for the defense industry shareholders, which is why all these generals end up on a board at RTX or LM or wherever after retirement).
Click to expand...
R&D is a matter of necessity if you don't want to fall behind in capabilities. Admittedly you can go to extremes where the research becomes of questionable value, but when it comes to NGAD it's really hard to determine if that has been an issue since so much is classified. The limitations of actual acquisition doesn't seem to have been a failure to develop new systems. Choices like the one made with F-22 production tend to happen instead.

As for where the money comes from, it's probably against these forum rules to discuss foolish tax cuts or questionable initiatives and the politicians involved. The DoD (and government as a whole) needs to do a better job of how they spend the money, not cutting that overall figure in times like this so that money can seemingly be misappropriated elsewhere.
 
Desertfox said:
PR. Getting the public on your side could be one way to save a program from being cut.
Click to expand...

Public opinion doesn’t matter at the program level. The average US citizen could not name a USAF aircraft, let alone understand anything about program funding. Also the nature of U.S. politics now is such that only one opinion really matters. The ruling party will rearrange itself around that opinion regardless of what it is.
 
Josh_TN said:
Public opinion doesn’t matter at the program level. The average US citizen could not name a USAF aircraft, let alone understand anything about program funding. Also the nature of U.S. politics now is such that only one opinion really matters. The ruling party will rearrange itself around that opinion regardless of what it is.
Click to expand...

Indeed. A former colleague of mine claimed that the “F-16” had trillions of dollars invested in its stealth capabilities and has only a balloon kill to show for it while I rolled my eyes into the back of my head.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom