USAF/US NAVY 6G Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS news

Maneuverability is going to be less important I think, similar to the decreased emphasis on agility the F-35 had versus the F-22
F-35 didn't really have less emphasis on agility "per se". Only in a way that it wasn't a "no bullshit" single role air superiority type anymore.
For a single-engine strike fighter with 2x2000lbs internal capability, it is decently agile, and designers went to great lengths to ensure it.
 
In the article, it said "service’s forthcoming Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter currently in production, the service’s top official said Tuesday." don't want to take this a mile if its only inch but is this applying NGAD is in production at least the manned portion?
Interesting that it could be in production with no primes announced, no competition, and nothing in the press about any of that.
 
In the article, it said "service’s forthcoming Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter currently in production, the service’s top official said Tuesday." don't want to take this a mile if its only inch but is this applying NGAD is in production at least the manned portion?
Interesting that it could be in production with no primes announced, no competition, and nothing in the press about any of that.

So, I've listened through the interview and at no point does Kendall say that NGAD is in production.

This is a reporter taking a huge leap from the "flying demonstrator" we've been talking about for a couple of years now.
 
In the article, it said "service’s forthcoming Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter currently in production, the service’s top official said Tuesday." don't want to take this a mile if its only inch but is this applying NGAD is in production at least the manned portion?
Interesting that it could be in production with no primes announced, no competition, and nothing in the press about any of that.

So, I've listened through the interview and at no point does Kendall say that NGAD is in production.

This is a reporter taking a huge leap from the "flying demonstrator" we've been talking about for a couple of years now.
And a flying demonstrator could be as innocuous as a Citation with sensors or other tech.
 

So, I've listened through the interview and at no point does Kendall say that NGAD is in production.

This is a reporter taking a huge leap from the "flying demonstrator" we've been talking about for a couple of years now.
More likely a reporter who doesn't know the difference between producing a demonstrator and being in production. You can have demonstrators in production, or prototypes in production, without having production aircraft.
 
In the article, it said "service’s forthcoming Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter currently in production, the service’s top official said Tuesday." don't want to take this a mile if its only inch but is this applying NGAD is in production at least the manned portion?
Interesting that it could be in production with no primes announced, no competition, and nothing in the press about any of that.

So, I've listened through the interview and at no point does Kendall say that NGAD is in production.

This is a reporter taking a huge leap from the "flying demonstrator" we've been talking about for a couple of years now.
And a flying demonstrator could be as innocuous as a Citation with sensors or other tech.
or say an old Draken......
 
In the article, it said "service’s forthcoming Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter currently in production, the service’s top official said Tuesday." don't want to take this a mile if its only inch but is this applying NGAD is in production at least the manned portion?
Interesting that it could be in production with no primes announced, no competition, and nothing in the press about any of that.
Not the first time that has happened.

No one know bout the B2 was even a thing til 1988 when the Air Force showed the first of them infront of its specialize modified construction plant. To Say nothing that was the ghost the F117 was.

Like there is no law or anything that says that the military has to announce any of that.

That been mainly a newer thing, and since it work out SO WELL.... *looks at... basically all post 2000 big ticket military items publizicing history*

The Military likely be going back to the cold war style of...

The Civilians will know about the new plane when the production line is set up and pumping out planes so their "expert" bitching cant fuck it up. Which I honestly cant blame them...
 

The Civilians will know about the new plane when the production line is set up and pumping out planes so their "expert" bitching cant fuck it up. Which I honestly cant blame them...
People heard about the B-2 in 1980. (Thanks to Carter blowing its cover for political points.) The F-117 was a different type of project. It was more like the original A-12 in that there was a competition but everything was black, even the existence of the program. NGAD is right out there in the public.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
People heard about the B-2 in 1980. (Thanks to Carter blowing its cover for political points.) The F-117 was a different type of project. It was more like the original A-12 in that there was a competition but everything was black, even the existence of the program. NGAD is right out there in the public.

I don't blame him for announcing we were working on an ATB when he was taking so much flak from the Reagan campaign over rightly cancelling the B-1A. Yes, he probably could have came out and just talked about how full of crap Reagan was, but Carter was too nice for that.
 
People heard about the B-2 in 1980. (Thanks to Carter blowing its cover for political points.) The F-117 was a different type of project. It was more like the original A-12 in that there was a competition but everything was black, even the existence of the program. NGAD is right out there in the public.

I don't blame him for announcing we were working on an ATB when he was taking so much flak from the Reagan campaign over rightly cancelling the B-1A. Yes, he probably could have came out and just talked about how full of crap Reagan was, but Carter was too nice for that.
Apparently you don't remember Carter like the US does.
 
People heard about the B-2 in 1980. (Thanks to Carter blowing its cover for political points.) The F-117 was a different type of project. It was more like the original A-12 in that there was a competition but everything was black, even the existence of the program. NGAD is right out there in the public.

I don't blame him for announcing we were working on an ATB when he was taking so much flak from the Reagan campaign over rightly cancelling the B-1A. Yes, he probably could have came out and just talked about how full of crap Reagan was, but Carter was too nice for that.

I'm not so sure it makes sense to cancel programs until the next airframe achieves IoC. We've seen issues with both B-2 and F-22 having production cuts that have left the USAF with unreasonably limited numbers of airframes. Let us hope the same problem doesn't effect B-21 and NGAD.
 
People heard about the B-2 in 1980. (Thanks to Carter blowing its cover for political points.) The F-117 was a different type of project. It was more like the original A-12 in that there was a competition but everything was black, even the existence of the program. NGAD is right out there in the public.

I don't blame him for announcing we were working on an ATB when he was taking so much flak from the Reagan campaign over rightly cancelling the B-1A. Yes, he probably could have came out and just talked about how full of crap Reagan was, but Carter was too nice for that.
Apparently you don't remember Carter like the US does.
I remember him quite well. What he taught me is the U.S. doesn't want a President that actually is Christian or honest. He didn't make deals with terrorists like the Reagan campaign did to win an election.
 
People heard about the B-2 in 1980. (Thanks to Carter blowing its cover for political points.) The F-117 was a different type of project. It was more like the original A-12 in that there was a competition but everything was black, even the existence of the program. NGAD is right out there in the public.

I don't blame him for announcing we were working on an ATB when he was taking so much flak from the Reagan campaign over rightly cancelling the B-1A. Yes, he probably could have came out and just talked about how full of crap Reagan was, but Carter was too nice for that.

I'm not so sure it makes sense to cancel programs until the next airframe achieves IoC. We've seen issues with both B-2 and F-22 having production cuts that have left the USAF with unreasonably limited numbers of airframes. Let us hope the same problem doesn't effect B-21 and NGAD.
The B-1A had serious problems that even an comprehensive ECM system, which also didn't work, couldn't fix. The B-1A had no chance whatsoever of penetrating Soviet air space, which was what it was it's specified mission. Also, not putting it in production before IOC wasn't a first. See the XB-70. Instead, a much better aircraft was received, in the form of the B-2. In fact, when you look at aircraft R&D in the seventies, it was all about finding a to way defeat the Soviet Air Defense network. That's why the ATS and ATF and all of the other strike fighter programs being worked on in the seventies morphed into the eighties ATF program. Especially, once they figured out the two tracks they were taking, supercruise long range strike and V.L.O. tech could be effectively merged into a single air frame.
 
People heard about the B-2 in 1980. (Thanks to Carter blowing its cover for political points.) The F-117 was a different type of project. It was more like the original A-12 in that there was a competition but everything was black, even the existence of the program. NGAD is right out there in the public.

I don't blame him for announcing we were working on an ATB when he was taking so much flak from the Reagan campaign over rightly cancelling the B-1A. Yes, he probably could have came out and just talked about how full of crap Reagan was, but Carter was too nice for that.
Apparently you don't remember Carter like the US does.
I remember him quite well. What he taught me is the U.S. doesn't want a President that actually is Christian or honest. He didn't make deals with terrorists like the Reagan campaign did to win an election.
I'll take Reagan over Carter any day. YMMV.
 
Be nice fellas. The politics are history.

I was referring to the reduced numbers of B2 and F22s that were produced. It would be helpful to have more B2 and F22s at the moment. And with reality of their reduced production it would be helpful to have more B1s during this transition to B21.
 
Last edited:

The Civilians will know about the new plane when the production line is set up and pumping out planes so their "expert" bitching cant fuck it up. Which I honestly cant blame them...
People heard about the B-2 in 1980. (Thanks to Carter blowing its cover for political points.) The F-117 was a different type of project. It was more like the original A-12 in that there was a competition but everything was black, even the existence of the program. NGAD is right out there in the public.
No no no..... By US law the ATB had to be made public knowledge. Carter revealed at a time when it may have helped his poles but it lawfully had to be made public.

If Carter wanted to really boost his poles he would have revealed the F117 but he did not.
 

So, I've listened through the interview and at no point does Kendall say that NGAD is in production.

This is a reporter taking a huge leap from the "flying demonstrator" we've been talking about for a couple of years now.
More likely a reporter who doesn't know the difference between producing a demonstrator and being in production. You can have demonstrators in production, or prototypes in production, without having production aircraft.
This is true. Reporters are notorious for being stupid people.
 

The Civilians will know about the new plane when the production line is set up and pumping out planes so their "expert" bitching cant fuck it up. Which I honestly cant blame them...
People heard about the B-2 in 1980. (Thanks to Carter blowing its cover for political points.) The F-117 was a different type of project. It was more like the original A-12 in that there was a competition but everything was black, even the existence of the program. NGAD is right out there in the public.
No no no..... By US law the ATB had to be made public knowledge. Carter revealed at a time when it may have helped his poles but it lawfully had to be made public.

If Carter wanted to really boost his poles he would have revealed the F117 but he did not.
The F-117 was small potatoes compared to the B-1A replacement.
 

The Civilians will know about the new plane when the production line is set up and pumping out planes so their "expert" bitching cant fuck it up. Which I honestly cant blame them...
People heard about the B-2 in 1980. (Thanks to Carter blowing its cover for political points.) The F-117 was a different type of project. It was more like the original A-12 in that there was a competition but everything was black, even the existence of the program. NGAD is right out there in the public.
No no no..... By US law the ATB had to be made public knowledge. Carter revealed at a time when it may have helped his poles but it lawfully had to be made public.

If Carter wanted to really boost his poles he would have revealed the F117 but he did not.
The F-117 was small potatoes compared to the B-1A replacement.
Its all in the optics and probably would have gave him a boost nonetheless.
 
A bit more from Collins Aerospace´s art-department (which may have ties with LM´s art-department)

(If already shown somewhere in this thread, or unwanted, then feel free to remove.)

 

Attachments

  • col-ngad_pic2.jpg
    col-ngad_pic2.jpg
    92.5 KB · Views: 151
  • col-ngad.jpg
    col-ngad.jpg
    102.7 KB · Views: 151
Did they procure the rights to it? Hopefully the artist has at least gotten a decent royalty out of it.
 
Last edited:
Frank Kendall on drones to accompany NGAD and B-21:

“We’re looking for systems that cost nominally on the order of at least half as much as the manned systems that we're talking about for both NGAD and for B-21” while adding capability, he said. “ … They could deliver a range of sensors, other mission payloads, and weapons, or other mission equipment and they can also be attritable or even sacrificed if doing so conferred a major operational advantage – something we would never do with a crewed platform.”

The whole article is pretty useful imo, though broader in scope:

 
Question: if a bomber has to be manned to carry nuclear weapons, according to doctrine, what would be the case with an unmanned loyal wingman? Suppose the wingman is a considerable distance away, linked by sat or whatever.
 
Question: if a bomber has to be manned to carry nuclear weapons, according to doctrine, what would be the case with an unmanned loyal wingman? Suppose the wingman is a considerable distance away, linked by sat or whatever.
If a cruise missile can have a nuclear warhead why not a UCAV? Remember, even back in the 60s, Project Pluto was basically an unmanned bomber.
 
Question: if a bomber has to be manned to carry nuclear weapons, according to doctrine, what would be the case with an unmanned loyal wingman? Suppose the wingman is a considerable distance away, linked by sat or whatever.

I would be suprised if any new penetration systems rely on satellite communications. Line-of-site from >60k feet is a considerable distance.
 
Another tidbit of info found on the internet (via DreamlandResort.com):

Next-Generation, Power-Electronics Materials for Naval Aviation Applications​

Description:

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Materials, Electronics, Weapons
OBJECTIVE: Develop wide-band gap (WBG) electronic material systems for naval aviation applications.
DESCRIPTION: The energy optimized aircraft (EOA) technology concept is continually evolving and being recognized as a game-changer for war fighting capabilities. The main objective of EOA is to systematically replace on-board hydraulic and pneumatic systems with electrical systems to power flight controls, landing gear, and engines starts. The key feature of EOA includes a switch from AC (alternating current) to DC (direct current) power distribution to allow exchanges of energy between equipment, which minimizes electromagnetic interferences (EMI) and energy dissipation, and allows regeneration of air-powered electrical power systems (EPS). Power electronics is the discipline that deals with electrical power generation, distribution and energy storage by conversion, control, and management of electrical power. However, the power conversion forms for electrical power categories (i.e., generation, transmission, and use/storage) differ significantly. For example, the main AC power must be converted to DC power for electronic devices; circuits require DC-DC conversion from one voltage level to another; and DC power from renewable energies (i.e., batteries, solar cells, and fuel cells) can be converted to AC electrical power. Power electronics is a key enabling technology for the advancement of EOA to improve both generator (mechanical to electrical) and actuator (electrical to mechanical) energy conversion and includes novel materials capable of withstanding high temperature and high-power density with reduced weight used in Navy-unique, harsh environmental conditions including EMI. With Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) on the horizon, it is important to realize the full potential of power electronics to achieve high power and volume density, high efficiency, reliability, and affordability. A wide band gap (WBG) system would have a positive impact on the next-generation aircraft platform by combining secondary power distribution with emerging power electronics. The current distribution system is made up of bulky, low-efficiency, mechanical-based circuit breakers, contactors, and control systems. Replacing such components with power electronics transforms inefficient systems into simple and intelligent power solutions. With diagnostic and prognostic capabilities, power distribution becomes compact and efficient, which results in significant cost, energy, fuel, and weight savings. Thus, modernization of Navy aircraft is enabled though the application of a WBG system. Switch-mode power circuits (i.e., the electronic circuits utilizing switching frequencies) use two types of semiconductor-based switches: two-terminal rectifiers (diodes) and three-terminal switches (transistors). These switches include inherent material properties, such as electron mobility and thermal conductivity [Ref 1], which result in salient features such as the following: (1) high blocking/breakdown voltage [1-10 kilo Volt]; (2) low loss (conversion efficiency of 99%); (3) large current-carrying capacity (kilo Ampere range); (4) high operational frequency (i.e., 1-100 gigahertz]); (5) high-temperature tolerance (i.e., 300 deg C); and (6) low specific ON-contact resistance [~ 0.01 milliohm cm2]. [Ref 2] These devices are silicon (Si)-based and have several advantages and disadvantages. Advantages include that they operate efficiently, are mass produced, are affordable and reliable, and are used in low-power and low-voltage applications. Disadvantages include that the devices have ohmic losses and generate more heat at higher switching frequencies, which necessitate a complex thermal management solution with a limited operating temperate range. The failure rates of the devices double for every 10 deg C increase in temperature. In short, the limits of the physical properties of Si-based devices are fast approaching, which are hindering further progress. Currently naval electronic applications with Si-based devices operate up to 125 deg C. As the demand for high-voltage devices for switching applications increases, a need exists for materials with much higher breakdown fields. Silicon Carbide (SiC), gallium Nitride (GaN), and gallium arsenide (GaAs) materials within electronics have band-gaps up to 3X higher than that of 1.12 electron volts, and hence WBG materials are the choice for next-generation power electronics. WBG devices can operate at a voltage 10 times higher than Si-based power devices because of their higher maximum electric fields and operating temperatures well over 350 deg C. The higher-temperature operation eliminates the need for complex thermal management solutions such as heat sinks and cooling media. WBG systems have the ability to switch at higher frequencies, enabling equipment to drastically reduce in space, weight, and cost. A high-voltage system has the potential to use lightweight materials, resulting in weight savings for the wires and overall aircraft. WBG systems eliminate up to 90% of power losses currently occurring in the energy conversion process and impart huge energy benefits. Challenges associated with the WBG systems include: (1) the hurdles in crystal growth, both from wafer size (6 inches or more) and drastically-reduced, defect densities (i.e., 5000/cm2), need to be overcome; (2) the devices need to exhibit higher power density (i.e., 3MW/m3) to be more efficient (> 98%) and must be affordable (up to 10X reduction from the current price of $1,000/mm2); (3) the processing temperature for SiC (> 2000deg C) compared to Si is high, which requires innovation in synthesis and processing of these classes of materials; and (4) the yield for WBG materials is much lower than Si, resulting in a high market price. Other remaining challenges include identifying substrate materials, epitaxial film growth, and the back-end process of solving interface, interconnect, and package issues towards successful device development and integration. The reliability and durability (i.e., mean-time-between-failure of 2,000 hours) of the devices to meet various MIL-STD specifications for electrical power quality, environmental control, and EMI are major hurdles to overcome [Refs 3-5].

PHASE I: Establish the structure-property relationship for WBG systems (i.e., SiC, GaN, and GaAs). For instance, demonstrate feasibility of improved wafer quality (up to 8 inches) by reducing the dislocation defect density with salient device features. Apply modeling and simulation tools as necessary. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

PHASE II: Based upon Phase I results, fully develop the technology into a prototype and demonstrate on an electrical power system application.

PHASE III: Fully develop the airworthy product with performance specifications satisfying targeted acquisition requirements (e.g., F/A-18, MQ-8B, and H-60) coordinated with Navy technical point of contacts. Improve the technology readiness level/manufacturing readiness level (TRL/MRL) of the electrical power system component and transition to platform (F/A-18, MQ-8B, and H-60). For such a representative aircraft EPS, demonstrate the positive SWaP-C (space, weight, and power - cooling) benefits of the relevant showing compactness, high electrical and thermal efficiencies, and miniaturization leading to a next-generation power generation system architecture for EOA. Demonstrate hardware with in-the-loop testing, along with the electrical load analysis of EPS, as an integral part of this effort. The effort will result in developing compact, miniature electronic products that will benefit automobile and consumer electronic market sectors.

REFERENCES:
1: Wide Bandgap Power Electronics Technology Assessment, https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/02/f19/QTR Ch8 - Wide Bandgap TA Feb-13-2015.pdf
2: Tolbert, L. M., Ozpineci, B., Islam, S. K., and Chinthavali, M. "Wide Bandgap Semiconductors for Utility Applications." IASTED International Conference on Power and Energy Systems (PES 2003), (Palm Springs, CA), page 315 and references therein. http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~tolbert/publications/iasted_2003_wide_bandgap.pdf
3: MIL-STD-810G(1) – Department of Defense Test Method Standard: Environmental Engineering Considerations Laboratory Tests (15 Apr 2014). http://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=35978
4: MIL-STD-461G – Department of Defense Interface Standard: Requirements for the Control of Electromagnetic Interference Characteristics of Subsystems and Equipment (11 Dec 2015). http://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=35789
5: MIL-STD-704F(1) – Department of Defense Aircraft Electrical Power Characteristics (05 Dec 2016). http://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=35901
KEYWORDS: Power Electronics Materials; Wide-band Gap Systems; Wafers; Power Electronic Equipment; Aircraft Applications; Affordable Cost

 
Last edited:
Another tidbit of info found on the internet (via DreamlandResort.com):

Next-Generation, Power-Electronics Materials for Naval Aviation Applications​

Description:

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Materials, Electronics, Weapons


REFERENCES:
1: Wide Bandgap Power Electronics Technology Assessment, https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/02/f19/QTR Ch8 - Wide Bandgap TA Feb-13-2015.pdf
2: Tolbert, L. M., Ozpineci, B., Islam, S. K., and Chinthavali, M. "Wide Bandgap Semiconductors for Utility Applications." IASTED International Conference on Power and Energy Systems (PES 2003), (Palm Springs, CA), page 315 and references therein. http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~tolbert/publications/iasted_2003_wide_bandgap.pdf
3: MIL-STD-810G(1) – Department of Defense Test Method Standard: Environmental Engineering Considerations Laboratory Tests (15 Apr 2014). http://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=35978
4: MIL-STD-461G – Department of Defense Interface Standard: Requirements for the Control of Electromagnetic Interference Characteristics of Subsystems and Equipment (11 Dec 2015). http://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=35789
5: MIL-STD-704F(1) – Department of Defense Aircraft Electrical Power Characteristics (05 Dec 2016). http://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=35901
KEYWORDS: Power Electronics Materials; Wide-band Gap Systems; Wafers; Power Electronic Equipment; Aircraft Applications; Affordable Cost

Mate, could you maybe add paragraphs and such to this WALL OF TEXT?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom