NGAD / F/A-XX - General Discussion and Speculation

So F/A-XX is meant to succeed both the E/F and the G. Against a peer, rolling back IAD networks is some real work, maybe the core business.

In this vein, what attributes would distinguish F/A-XX in this role? To me: MW range sustained power generation, X band and IR LO (assuming L band emitters are taken out by B-21), 4-6 -ER or SIAW sized strike weapons and a short-dwell time, positionably agile DEW for SAM and AAM self defense.
 
Quellish talked about more parts of NGAD that are separate from PCA.

In regards to that, one of the main parts of NGAD as a concept is NGAS/ air lift and how next gen fighters would fit into that.

One thing that could be very beneficial is if the F-47 can refuel from both booms and drogues. That way refueling can be done both from existing tankers and MQ-25s from the navy. MQ-25s can be replenished from large tankers and carriers. Both air force and naval fighters can refuel off MQ-25s. Then you can have range and survivability in the pacific. The only limiting factor here is a math problem - how many MQ-25s can sustain the required numbers of navy and F-47s? How many large tankers / carrier stops are needed to sustain the MQ-25s?

Any thoughts on the refueling system?
 
NMaude said:
In that case I suppose there'd be a dedicated EW version of the F/A-XX (Call it the EA-XX).
Click to expand...
That's not clear. Stealth aircraft don't need standoff jamming, and stand-in jamming needs much less power. What a standoff jammer needs kilowatts to do, a stand-in jammer only needs tens of kW to do.

So I suspect that broadband jamming will get offloaded to CCAs but SEAD/DEAD will be FAXX. However, X-band jamming is available through AESA radars, so that will likely be part of every FAXX defensive suite.
 
NMaude said:
In that case I suppose there'd be a dedicated EW version of the F/A-XX (Call it the EA-XX).
Click to expand...
I'd like to believe they'd shift the EW-centric role to a CCA but I'm not sure what the USN's vision is for CCAs in the Pacific theater.

Scott Kenny said:
Stealth aircraft don't need standoff jamming
Click to expand...
That would depend on the threat environment.
 
It comes down to how efficiently you can covert chemical PE into the requisite kinematic performance for the mission plus the power and cooling to keep you aware and counter missiles enabled by a 360 broad spectrum EW bubble and effected by directed energy from distributed AESA arrays for some seeker modes and advanced DIRCOm for other seeker modes. I won’t touch DEW for now.
 
In_A_Dream said:
That would depend on the threat environment.
Click to expand...
Even against a fancy IADS/A2AD zone, a VLO aircraft with VLO CCAs can get a lot closer and do the necessary jamming with far less required power. Again, 2 orders of magnitude reduction in power required for stand-in jamming compared to stand-off jamming. Which means a MALD-sized or JASSM-sized CCA could be doing your jamming for the strike package.
 
A single NJB works with >150 KW of power and absolutely murders the performance of the platform carrying it. The USN is behind the USAF on CCAs and fantasizing the USN (of alll outfits) into rapidly deploying any system, let alone an uncrewed platform that can step into a Growlers role begs disbelief, but hey, we live in a wild timeline.
 
Reddington777 said:
Quellish talked about more parts of NGAD that are separate from PCA.

In regards to that, one of the main parts of NGAD as a concept is NGAS/ air lift and how next gen fighters would fit into that.

One thing that could be very beneficial is if the F-47 can refuel from both booms and drogues. That way refueling can be done both from existing tankers and MQ-25s from the navy. MQ-25s can be replenished from large tankers and carriers. Both air force and naval fighters can refuel off MQ-25s. Then you can have range and survivability in the pacific. The only limiting factor here is a math problem - how many MQ-25s can sustain the required numbers of navy and F-47s? How many large tankers / carrier stops are needed to sustain the MQ-25s?

Any thoughts on the refueling system?
Click to expand...
Certainly possible F-47 could have drogue and boom but it seems unlikely to me especially in light of the YFQ-42 appearing to have a boom receptacle. That would have been a good break point to go drogue if they were going to.

More likely would be future USAF assets could be mounted with this,
www.twz.com

Aerial Refueling Boom Pods That Could Go On F-15s In The Works

New boom refueling pods could turn combat jets or even drones into small tankers to help meet USAF demands, especially in a Pacific fight.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Including an MQ-25 variant although I'm also not convinced the USAF likes that airframe.
 
Training_Dummy said:
A single NJB works with >150 KW of power and absolutely murders the performance of the platform carrying it. The USN is behind the USAF on CCAs and fantasizing the USN (of alll outfits) into rapidly deploying any system, let alone an uncrewed platform that can step into a Growlers role begs disbelief, but hey, we live in a wild timeline.
Click to expand...

The power requirements go down if your strikers are 6th gen compared to super hornets.
 
I would like to think the same thing about the F/A-XX having EW right away it makes sense for it to have such capabilities from in service day one Josh_TN, it will probably have much more powerful EW than the F-35 because of the advancements in that particular area since the F-35 first arrived on scene.
 
Ozair said:
Certainly possible F-47 could have drogue and boom but it seems unlikely to me especially in light of the YFQ-42 appearing to have a boom receptacle. That would have been a good break point to go drogue if they were going to.

More likely would be future USAF assets could be mounted with this,
www.twz.com

Aerial Refueling Boom Pods That Could Go On F-15s In The Works

New boom refueling pods could turn combat jets or even drones into small tankers to help meet USAF demands, especially in a Pacific fight.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Including an MQ-25 variant although I'm also not convinced the USAF likes that airframe.
Click to expand...
I attended the AFWERX event and it took a day and a half to finally find out what ARFL was looking for, a tactical refueling boom in a pod which I kind of assumed, just needed confirmation. We spent a day and a half in groups doing silly scenarios for "group building", just tell us what the hell you are looking for, gotta love the USG when comes to this kind of non-value added crap.
 
Training_Dummy said:
A single NJB works with >150 KW of power and absolutely murders the performance of the platform carrying it. The USN is behind the USAF on CCAs and fantasizing the USN (of alll outfits) into rapidly deploying any system, let alone an uncrewed platform that can step into a Growlers role begs disbelief, but hey, we live in a wild timeline.
Click to expand...
Because we're literally talking about a MALD-J for the needed size of the "CCA"
 
They all certainly will be able to do EW themselves as software adjustable frequency technology will be standard by then. It's already available today just not widespread and with limited offerings. But they might not use them due to signal management rules and rel on alternatives:
1. They all will likely also have towed decoys like ALE-70 on the F-35.
2. And certainly will also have active expendable decoys.
3. MALD-N; has long range so it can be launched from far away and ahead as well as from support aircrafts for extended time.
 
Reddington777 said:
Quellish talked about more parts of NGAD that are separate from PCA.

In regards to that, one of the main parts of NGAD as a concept is NGAS/ air lift and how next gen fighters would fit into that.

One thing that could be very beneficial is if the F-47 can refuel from both booms and drogues. That way refueling can be done both from existing tankers and MQ-25s from the navy. MQ-25s can be replenished from large tankers and carriers. Both air force and naval fighters can refuel off MQ-25s. Then you can have range and survivability in the pacific. The only limiting factor here is a math problem - how many MQ-25s can sustain the required numbers of navy and F-47s? How many large tankers / carrier stops are needed to sustain the MQ-25s?

Any thoughts on the refueling system?
Click to expand...
The desired longer range plus drop tanks was meant to reduce the need of tankers if not at all depending on starting location.

An MQ-25 should be able to do two 50% refuels or one 100% refuels. So 1 MQ-25 per 2 aircrafts at one refuel point. A conventional tanker should be able to do twenty 50% refuels for all of them. So about one per squadron.
 
another LMSW ad plane again showing that non-protruding long canopy seen on their concepts
 

Attachments

  • AI Fight Club Head-to-Head Test of AI Capabilities for National Security.mp4_snapshot_00.57_[2...jpg
    AI Fight Club Head-to-Head Test of AI Capabilities for National Security.mp4_snapshot_00.57_[2...jpg
    758 KB · Views: 188
  • AI Fight Club Head-to-Head Test of AI Capabilities for National Security.mp4_snapshot_00.57_[2...jpg
    AI Fight Club Head-to-Head Test of AI Capabilities for National Security.mp4_snapshot_00.57_[2...jpg
    794.3 KB · Views: 167
  • AI Fight Club Head-to-Head Test of AI Capabilities for National Security.mp4_snapshot_00.56_[2...jpg
    AI Fight Club Head-to-Head Test of AI Capabilities for National Security.mp4_snapshot_00.56_[2...jpg
    797.3 KB · Views: 168
  • AI Fight Club Head-to-Head Test of AI Capabilities for National Security.mp4_snapshot_00.56_[2...jpg
    AI Fight Club Head-to-Head Test of AI Capabilities for National Security.mp4_snapshot_00.56_[2...jpg
    780 KB · Views: 182
  • AI Fight Club Head-to-Head Test of AI Capabilities for National Security.mp4_snapshot_01.07_[2...jpg
    AI Fight Club Head-to-Head Test of AI Capabilities for National Security.mp4_snapshot_01.07_[2...jpg
    915.2 KB · Views: 199
  • AI Fight Club Head-to-Head Test of AI Capabilities for National Security.mp4_snapshot_01.07_[2...jpg
    AI Fight Club Head-to-Head Test of AI Capabilities for National Security.mp4_snapshot_01.07_[2...jpg
    26 KB · Views: 192
No wonder they lost NGAD and don't participate in F/A-XX, Lockheed was teaming up with CAC and pitched the J-20 for both programs.
IMG_20251104_014606.jpg
Jokes aside, that's why only so much value can be given to ads and the likes. Frank from marketing and an energy drink fueled intern cobble these together.
 
Reddington777 said:
If that AI fight club description is anything to go by, it would make sense to have a J20 in there...
Click to expand...
Everything else is from LM though (Sirkosky belongs to Lockheed these days, right?).

And given the air data probe, I think we can all safely say that similar to the "sixth gen" in the same picture, they simply used a commonly available 3D model from the internet.
 
Hydroman said:
I attended the AFWERX event and it took a day and a half to finally find out what ARFL was looking for, a tactical refueling boom in a pod which I kind of assumed, just needed confirmation. We spent a day and a half in groups doing silly scenarios for "group building", just tell us what the hell you are looking for, gotta love the USG when comes to this kind of non-value added crap.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming offload would be more limited than a integrated system on a dedicated tanker. The USAF, or the Navy for matter, could supplement their tanker fleets with used Boeing 777s for a relatively low price. The main cost would be to add communication equipment and defensive systems.
 
B2Blain said:
I'm assuming offload would be more limited than a integrated system on a dedicated tanker. The USAF, or the Navy for matter, could supplement their tanker fleets with used Boeing 777s for a relatively low price. The main cost would be to add communication equipment and defensive systems.
Click to expand...
I doubt it will be cheap. They would still need modifiations for the higher stress of being transporters and the military requirements.
We need more agile, stealthy, and higher loaded-fraction types moving forward.
 
In regards to a tanker version of the 777 my understanding is that one of the factor against its' selection as the KC-46 instead of the 767 was its size, the 777 has a much larger ground "Footprint" occupying more ram-space than a 767 tanker variant.
 
B2Blain said:
I'm assuming offload would be more limited than a integrated system on a dedicated tanker. The USAF, or the Navy for matter, could supplement their tanker fleets with used Boeing 777s for a relatively low price. The main cost would be to add communication equipment and defensive systems.
Click to expand...
Where a converted 777 could fulfil a role is a safe location tanker. For example forget the extensive comm suite and defensive systems and just operate the aircraft as a tanker where there is essentially no threat, so keep them CONUS side of the dateline in a east pacific conflict. Problem is there is no 777 tanker flying today and would be years to go through the process to test and validate.

A more likely scenario is converting 767s in a similar way. Hundreds still operating today and there is an STC already https://www.iai.co.il/p/multi-mission-tanker-transport-mmtt that would allow relatively rapid conversion to a known configuration.
 
Last edited:
flateric said:
another LMSW ad plane again showing that non-protruding long canopy seen on their concepts
Click to expand...
What concept is it ? they have lose the NGAD contract so why they put it in a promotion video ? or is it something else ?
 
Obviously, this one:
Lockheed-NGAD.jpg


The promotion video seems to be on the "AI" network web of all platforms so this is more about communication, sensors, information fusion and OS/software.
 
EmoBirb said:
No wonder they lost NGAD and don't participate in F/A-XX, Lockheed was teaming up with CAC and pitched the J-20 for both programs.
View attachment 790409
Jokes aside, that's why only so much value can be given to ads and the likes. Frank from marketing and an energy drink fueled intern cobble these together.
Click to expand...
Looks like LM is going to copy the J-20, tables turned, ha, ha! Just joking.
 
LM isn't going to sit around, keep an eye on them, one hopes Boeing doesn't screw this NGAD thing up.
 
jymp said:
LM isn't going to sit around, keep an eye on them, one hopes Boeing doesn't screw this NGAD thing up.
Click to expand...
One struggles to think of the last thing they ran well, let alone knocked out of the park. The only thing I can think of that isn't in the "FUBARed" category would be the MQ-25.
 
Sferrin said:
One struggles to think of the last thing they ran well, let alone knocked out of the park. The only thing I can think of that isn't in the "FUBARed" category would be the MQ-25.
Click to expand...
Still behind schedule. IOC date kept slipping from 2024 to 2027. and that's if it's not gonna be delayed again
 
I expect the F-47 to have enormous teething problems.

At the same time, I’m hopeful a truly USG owned MOSA means addressing those problems at the component and subsystem level can be achieved much more rapidly and less painfully than with prior programs.

The choice between LM and Boeing was never going to be easy. At least with Boeing, you’ve got a post crisis partner open to new ways and willing to sacrifice to succeed because they have no choice at this point. LM, with the black programs, F-35 and missiles cash cows, simply lacks that sense of urgency.

The F/A-XX and the NG vs BA choice obviously has a much different feel and the airframe may answer a very distinct set of questions than F-47.
 
True Training_Dummy, but like all new fighters problems are to be expected I would think that they would be ironed out quickly before the F-47 enters service.
 
Sferrin said:
I stand corrected.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but I believe their level 4 and 5 stealth engineers with top secret clearance get paid like 50k less than what Northrop offers. Maybe their stock options are better idk but I wouldn't be surprised if it's one of the many reasons their programs always end in a dumpster fire.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom