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

[Skunknotworks]

U.S. Navy to Arm Carriers With 1,000 Fifth and Sixth-Generation Stealth Fighters

A new plan released by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday calls for a “family” of manned and unmanned sixth-generation aircraft.

nationalinterest.org

Interesting, but where is the US Navy going to get the funding for the 1000 fifth and sixth generation fighters from?

I was wondering the same thing since NGAD is undoubtably expensive but only one can dream of such numbers just thought it was an interesting article even though it seems these numbers are not likely but I'm hoping for around 350-500 NGAD systems to come to fruition i wonder what the USAF NGAD numbers look like.

The USAF NGAD numbers will probably be around the same as the US Navy’s, because both are going to be expensive programs. I cannot see the USAF ordering more than 600 NGADS.

So around 150 NGAD manned platforms and more unmanned modular platforms? either way I'm excited to see numbers finally.

 

[BDF]

I worry about numbers for the manned component. We've seen the tyranny of small numbers with the Raptor fleet and that's a fleet that's roughly 25% larger than 150. I really hope both services heed those lessons from the Raptor program and aim for a fleet roughly double that. Probably a pipe dream but even with a swarm of unmanned systems I doubt that 150 can meet maintenance and strategic objectives.

 

[rooster]

Frank Kendall or some other USAF official already said there will be fewer ngad manned planes than f22. But given that each manned plane will come with a flight of unmanned planes, 150 or so manned planes might translate to some 900 or so ngad component fighters, majority of which would be unmanned.

Well then we'll have to make sure we're more competent at keeping others out of our network than we've been thus far.

That's the problem and I'm not liking even fewer fighters than the raptor. Its as if our leadership is trying to give up US airpower

 

[martinbayer]

Augustine's Law 16 comes readily to mind.

 

[FighterJock]

Frank Kendall or some other USAF official already said there will be fewer ngad manned planes than f22. But given that each manned plane will come with a flight of unmanned planes, 150 or so manned planes might translate to some 900 or so ngad component fighters, majority of which would be unmanned.

Well then we'll have to make sure we're more competent at keeping others out of our network than we've been thus far.

That's the problem and I'm not liking even fewer fighters than the raptor. Its as if our leadership is trying to give up US airpower

I heard a saying years ago that with each new generation of aircraft there is less aircraft to buy because of the cost of the new fighter.

 

[Skunknotworks]

I worry about numbers for the manned component. We've seen the tyranny of small numbers with the Raptor fleet and that's a fleet that's roughly 25% larger than 150. I really hope both services heed those lessons from the Raptor program and aim for a fleet roughly double that. Probably a pipe dream but even with a swarm of unmanned systems I doubt that 150 can meet maintenance and strategic objectives.

Yeah, I'm concerned 150 manned NGAD components also have we also forgot that they mentioned 2 separate NGAD platforms for the Pacific and Europe? it's very concerning Considering if we repeat the Raptors history meaning in Numbers and Budget Cuts NGAD is too important not to get the reasonable numbers the USAF needs to maintain Air Superiority in the future but I'm a-bit confused about the two separate NGAD platforms for different theaters...I think it's going to be like fighterjocks comment there will be fewer NGAD Manned Aircraft. But maybe it's just a lot of smoke in the air.

 

[Rolead]

So each manned aircraft will be matched up with X amount of drones. What is X ? Also l wonder how the pilot will be able to manage X amount of drones in a conflict situation.

 

[sferrin]

So each manned aircraft will be matched up with X amount of drones. What is X ? Also l wonder how the pilot will be able to manage X amount of drones in a conflict situation.

This. Too much hand waving for me.

 

[TomcatViP]

Flight leaders handling X nbr of wingmen is old as aerial battles. IMOHO, the intends are not to have them fly their loyal wingmen like if they were 1970s RPV but interact with them like it has always been in combat.

 

[Josh_TN]

I worry about numbers for the manned component. We've seen the tyranny of small numbers with the Raptor fleet and that's a fleet that's roughly 25% larger than 150. I really hope both services heed those lessons from the Raptor program and aim for a fleet roughly double that. Probably a pipe dream but even with a swarm of unmanned systems I doubt that 150 can meet maintenance and strategic objectives.

Yeah, I'm concerned 150 manned NGAD components also have we also forgot that they mentioned 2 separate NGAD platforms for the Pacific and Europe? it's very concerning Considering if we repeat the Raptors history meaning in Numbers and Budget Cuts NGAD is too important not to get the reasonable numbers the USAF needs to maintain Air Superiority in the future but I'm a-bit confused about the two separate NGAD platforms for different theaters...I think it's going to be like fighterjocks comment there will be fewer NGAD Manned Aircraft. But maybe it's just a lot of smoke in the air.

I think we can consider a separate European variant DOA after current events. The original goal was apparently to build a shorter ranged version for the theater, presumably for reducing cost or increasing maneuverability over the Pacific variant which appears to have a range requirement that heavily influences the design. But it's hard to picture a future where anything more than F-35s would be needed in Europe; there is no 5th gen competition and the USAF already has a combat coded 5th gen fighter for every 4+ gen fighter Russia has ever built (discounting other NATO F-35 operators). By the end of the decade there will be ~150 NATO F-35s on the Russian border (Poland, Finland, Norway).

 

[Josh_TN]

As for the small number of NGADs to be built - where is the 150 number people are talking about coming from? Is that something the USAF has actually put out as a minimum buy or something? Also it seems unlikely that NGAD will operate in a vacuum. There's hardly a shortage of F-35s in the pipe. The issue seems to be range: the USAF wants a system that can engage a numerically superior enemy at extreme distance on favorable terms. The move to a heavy, less fighter sized airframe along with UAVs support that requirement. UAVs generally are much longer ranged (generally at the expense of performance as well as human cargo) and the controlling platform will need to be particularly large and expensive to have the fuel and payload required for the mission.

As for flying formation, the most recent studies seem to indicate that actually flying UAVs close to the manned platform was counter productive. It seems like the goal would be more of a screen of forward based sensors, ECM, and possible weapons platforms of differing sizes and expendability that would have AI driven general combat behaviors dictated by the manned element...sort of an American football offensive line with the "fighter" being the quarterback. I'd think a close formation wingman would only be useful for a drone that was operating as a dedicated decoy (EDIT: and even then only if it could have as low of a signature as the manned platform and augment it on demand, otherwise it is just is a flare marking the fighter's position).

 

[Hanz2k]

Isn’t USAF mentioned that NGAD present different approach with rapid improvements over previous generation? Then why not assume that after 150 NGAD in 7-10 year (or maybe earlier) come NGAD v2 with direct energy weapon, and then within 10 years NGAD v3. This way within 25 years we could expect at least 450 manned airframes?

 

[Josh_TN]

Isn’t USAF mentioned that NGAD present different approach with rapid improvements over previous generation? Then why not assume that after 150 NGAD in 7-10 year (or maybe earlier) come NGAD v2 with direct energy weapon, and then within 10 years NGAD v3. This way within 25 years we could expect at least 450 manned airframes?

USAF has since backed off that approach for the manned fighter, though it seems likely some of the UAV components of the system still follow that route.

I think it is far to early to be discussing airframe numbers. What we do know is that the manned component will be extremely expensive, like hundreds of millions per airframe. That will naturally put an upper bound on the number deployed compared to previous fighter types.

 

[BDF]

As for the small number of NGADs to be built - where is the 150 number people are talking about coming from? Is that something the USAF has actually put out as a minimum buy or something? Also it seems unlikely that NGAD will operate in a vacuum. There's hardly a shortage of F-35s in the pipe. The issue seems to be range: the USAF wants a system that can engage a numerically superior enemy at extreme distance on favorable terms. The move to a heavy, less fighter sized airframe along with UAVs support that requirement. UAVs generally are much longer ranged (generally at the expense of performance as well as human cargo) and the controlling platform will need to be particularly large and expensive to have the fuel and payload required for the mission.

As for flying formation, the most recent studies seem to indicate that actually flying UAVs close to the manned platform was counter productive. It seems like the goal would be more of a screen of forward based sensors, ECM, and possible weapons platforms of differing sizes and expendability that would have AI driven general combat behaviors dictated by the manned element...sort of an American football offensive line with the "fighter" being the quarterback. I'd think a close formation wingman would only be useful for a drone that was operating as a dedicated decoy (EDIT: and even then only if it could have as low of a signature as the manned platform and augment it on demand, otherwise it is just is a flare marking the fighter's position).

The 150 number was opined by a previous poster. I don't think there's been any official indications of the total buy but it seems to have been hinted at in the past to be a small fleet. Agreed it's probably too early to really ponder at this point when so much of the program is still black.

 

[rooster]

Isn’t USAF mentioned that NGAD present different approach with rapid improvements over previous generation? Then why not assume that after 150 NGAD in 7-10 year (or maybe earlier) come NGAD v2 with direct energy weapon, and then within 10 years NGAD v3. This way within 25 years we could expect at least 450 manned airframes?

USAF has since backed off that approach for the manned fighter, though it seems likely some of the UAV components of the system still follow that route.

I think it is far to early to be discussing airframe numbers. What we do know is that the manned component will be extremely expensive, like hundreds of millions per airframe. That will naturally put an upper bound on the number deployed compared to previous fighter types.

It doesn't needed to be ridiculous expensive. Quantity is a quality said a Russian.

 

[TomcatViP]

Those T-72 crew, that massively lost their life in Ukraine, will beg to differ...

 

[donnage99]

It doesn't needed to be ridiculous expensive. Quantity is a quality said a Russian.

losing pilot is very expensive. US already already has a pilot shortfall that will continue to persist far into the future, especially against the back drop of a shortfall in qualified men intellectually and physically for the armed forces in general.

 

[TomcatViP]

the Air Force is looking to change the “cost-benefit analysis” of air superiority.

“We want to get to the point where shooting a missile at something is more expensive than taking the missile shot. That’s the radical difference right there. Because typically, we have been thinking about using air power in ways that involve very exquisite platforms and capabilities, that are very expensive,” Hinote said. “And a missile, or sets of missiles, or even a dozen missiles coming at it are much cheaper than that one particular platform. We’re trying to turn that around, and we think we can, and when that happens, it has the potential to change the entire return on investment for both our adversary and for us.”

Mutual Denial of Air Superiority Could Benefit US in Future Conflict, Top USAF Planner Says | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration, and requirements, spoke about air superiority in the Ukraine war.

www.airforcemag.com

 

[jsport]

the Air Force is looking to change the “cost-benefit analysis” of air superiority.

“We want to get to the point where shooting a missile at something is more expensive than taking the missile shot. That’s the radical difference right there. Because typically, we have been thinking about using air power in ways that involve very exquisite platforms and capabilities, that are very expensive,” Hinote said. “And a missile, or sets of missiles, or even a dozen missiles coming at it are much cheaper than that one particular platform. We’re trying to turn that around, and we think we can, and when that happens, it has the potential to change the entire return on investment for both our adversary and for us.”

Mutual Denial of Air Superiority Could Benefit US in Future Conflict, Top USAF Planner Says | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration, and requirements, spoke about air superiority in the Ukraine war.

www.airforcemag.com

huh?

close superiority (ie a sphere around the craft) w/ DEW protects one from all but other DEW threats.

 

[X-39]

6th Gen Fighter cockpit concept from Collins Aerospace:

 

[njiiaf]

6th Gen Fighter cockpit concept from Collins Aerospace:View attachment 683783

Still no physical buttons on the display or HUD, which are two of the biggest complaints from F-35 pilots.

 

[njiiaf]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1567490800509919232

 

[rooster]

the Air Force is looking to change the “cost-benefit analysis” of air superiority.

“We want to get to the point where shooting a missile at something is more expensive than taking the missile shot. That’s the radical difference right there. Because typically, we have been thinking about using air power in ways that involve very exquisite platforms and capabilities, that are very expensive,” Hinote said. “And a missile, or sets of missiles, or even a dozen missiles coming at it are much cheaper than that one particular platform. We’re trying to turn that around, and we think we can, and when that happens, it has the potential to change the entire return on investment for both our adversary and for us.”

Mutual Denial of Air Superiority Could Benefit US in Future Conflict, Top USAF Planner Says | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration, and requirements, spoke about air superiority in the Ukraine war.

www.airforcemag.com

huh?

close superiority (ie a sphere around the craft) w/ DEW protects one from all but other DEW threats.

The best defense is a strong offense. This article is borderline psychobabble. The USA needs air superiority akin to the original ATF concept where we should negate their offense by taking the battle behind and into their airspace.

Russia hasn't come into even the early 2000s yet with air power. Thats why they suck among other reasons. Goes to show the value of stealth that we glimpsed in GW1 and goes to show the mistake of gutting the 22 purchase. Goes to shoe why the EX is a mistake. There's no reason why the USA can't build 600 affordable stealth fighters. We've got 45 years experience now.

 

[Whisperstream]

SECAF Kendall says that when he previously said that the USAF's Next Generation Air Dominance fighter had reached the EMD stage, he meant that the service was continuing to work on designs, after a preliminary design review.

This is disappointing. I was hoping for some actual airplanes getting ready to fly.

Objectives of the F-22 EMD program in the 1990s included design, fabrication, and delivery of ground and flight test vehicles. Lockheed Martin produced nine EMD airframes, the first of which completed its maiden flight in September 1997.

From Kendall's remarks, I had expected similar progress with NGAD.

 

[Rhinocrates]

6th Gen Fighter cockpit concept from Collins Aerospace:View attachment 683783

Still no physical buttons on the display or HUD, which are two of the biggest complaints from F-35 pilots.

For comparison,

Physical buttons outperform touchscreens in new cars, test finds

Physical buttons are increasingly rare in modern cars. Most manufacturers are switching to touchscreens – which perform far worse in a test carried out by Vi Bilägare. The driver in the worst-performing car needs four times longer to perform simple tasks than in the best-performing car.

www.vibilagare.se

The results speak for themselves. The worst-performing car needs 1,400 meters to perform the same tasks for which the best-performing car [a 2005 Volvo V70 without a touchscreen] only needs 300 meters.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

I’m rather surprised by Kendall’s comment that PDR has occurred even before the down-select. For comparison, the B-21 completed its PDR in 2018 while the LRS-B down-select was 2015. The F-22 PDR was in 1993, a year after the ATF down-select.

That said, it’s possible that he’s using the phrase informally rather than strictly in accordance with acquisition definitions.

 

[Alifzero]

Still no physical buttons on the display or HUD, which are two of the biggest complaints from F-35 pilots.

Can you share the reference of F-35 pilot complaining on the lack of physical buttons and HUD?

 

[njiiaf]

Still no physical buttons on the display or HUD, which are two of the biggest complaints from F-35 pilots.

Can you share the reference of F-35 pilot complaining on the lack of physical buttons and HUD?

Gladly

What is good and bad about the F-35 cockpit: A ‘Panther’ pilot’s guide to modern cockpits

The F-35 helmet: does it show too much too small? My background – Current F-35 pilot and Weapons School graduate. I Have flown the Harrier II and F/A-18 Hornet operationally as well as instructing …

hushkit.net

The technology of the helmet is great, but I’d take a HUD any day. It all comes down to physics – you can only shrink things so much before they start to become degraded, and HUDs have bigger optics than helmets…currently.

The rest of the cockpit is beautiful to look at – nothing analogue, all digital with about 10 actual switches in the cockpit. Notice I say beautiful to look at, not necessarily beautiful to interact with! In theory the all-glass display is great. It’s touchscreen, you can set it up to show pretty much anything you want in any layout you want. Take, for example, a fuel display. You can have it in a large window that shows you everything you could possibly want to know about the aircraft’s fuel system; the contents of each tank, which pumps are operating, fuel temperature, centre of gravity etc. Or you can shrink it into a smaller window that only shows more basic info. Or you don’t even display it at all because the Function Access Buttons (FAB) along the top of the display always has a small fuel section with the essential info visible at all times. That’s the beauty of the display – size and customisation. The drawback is in the complete lack of tactile response. It can be challenging to press the correct ‘button’ on the display whenever the jet is in motion as it is quite a bumpy ride at times. At present I am pressing the wrong part of the screen about 20% of the time in flight due to either mis-identification, or more commonly by my finger getting jostled around in turbulence or under G.

There was another one talking about eye fatigue from the HMD, but I don’t remember where I read that.

Also make note of the fact that the J-20 and J-35 both have HUDs despite adopting many other features of the F-35. Physical buttons at least for the J-20 too.

 

[Forest Green]

For comparison,

Physical buttons outperform touchscreens in new cars, test finds

Physical buttons are increasingly rare in modern cars. Most manufacturers are switching to touchscreens – which perform far worse in a test carried out by Vi Bilägare. The driver in the worst-performing car needs four times longer to perform simple tasks than in the best-performing car.

www.vibilagare.se

The results speak for themselves. The worst-performing car needs 1,400 meters to perform the same tasks for which the best-performing car [a 2005 Volvo V70 without a touchscreen] only needs 300 meters.

Completely agreed. On cars sometimes a touch does nothing and sometimes it does the wrong thing if your finger moves sideways slightly while pressing, which inevitably happens going over bumps.

 

[jsport]

the Air Force is looking to change the “cost-benefit analysis” of air superiority.

“We want to get to the point where shooting a missile at something is more expensive than taking the missile shot. That’s the radical difference right there. Because typically, we have been thinking about using air power in ways that involve very exquisite platforms and capabilities, that are very expensive,” Hinote said. “And a missile, or sets of missiles, or even a dozen missiles coming at it are much cheaper than that one particular platform. We’re trying to turn that around, and we think we can, and when that happens, it has the potential to change the entire return on investment for both our adversary and for us.”

Mutual Denial of Air Superiority Could Benefit US in Future Conflict, Top USAF Planner Says | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration, and requirements, spoke about air superiority in the Ukraine war.

www.airforcemag.com

Attack supriority could be establised if again, a Manhattan Project effort were to be put into a cannon fighter firing from internal magazines Round/UAS/Missiles against various tgts. The craft would carry more muntions and fire farther than an opposing fighter could.

 

[jsport]

US Air Force needs to embrace air denial as a core mission

Though the impulse to hold tight to the air superiority paradigm may be strong, the future of air warfare is denial.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Forest Green]

I agree that there should be a plan B, but then the plan B is likely drones and smart artillery, and there's definitely some overlap between that and making plan A better.

 

[Dreamfighter]

The F-22 PDR was in 1993, a year after the ATF down-select.

2 years (and one week)

 

[X-39]

Interesting update since last time we heard anything about F/A-XX AOA's. Anyone got an AWIN subscription here?

U.S. Navy’s Secret F/A-XX In ‘Concept Refinement’ Phase | Aviation Week Network

The U.S. Navy's sixth-generation fighter will be the “survivable, lethal” quarterback that will fly with loyal wingmen drones, now known in the Pentagon as collaborative combat aircraft.

aviationweek.com

 

[rooster]

Interesting update since last time we heard anything about F/A-XX AOA's. Anyone got an AWIN subscription here?

U.S. Navy’s Secret F/A-XX In ‘Concept Refinement’ Phase | Aviation Week Network

The U.S. Navy's sixth-generation fighter will be the “survivable, lethal” quarterback that will fly with loyal wingmen drones, now known in the Pentagon as collaborative combat aircraft.

aviationweek.com

Sounds like a jet version of the Hawkeye and probably not very numerous. This rush to drones sounds like the maginot line

 

[X-39]

Interesting update since last time we heard anything about F/A-XX AOA's. Anyone got an AWIN subscription here?

U.S. Navy’s Secret F/A-XX In ‘Concept Refinement’ Phase | Aviation Week Network

The U.S. Navy's sixth-generation fighter will be the “survivable, lethal” quarterback that will fly with loyal wingmen drones, now known in the Pentagon as collaborative combat aircraft.

aviationweek.com

Sounds like a jet version of the Hawkeye and probably not very numerous. This rush to drones sounds like the maginot line

Hopefully it will be a spiritual successor to the cancelled Boeing EX. Not only that, but they are also planning to keep flying the E-2's until the 2040s. By that time it will be an almost 80yr old design!

Navy Plans Upgrades to Fly E-2Ds into the 2040s - USNI News

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — With production coming to an end in four years, the Navy is working out a plan to sustain the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye command-and-control aircraft for at least another 30. Upgrades include cockpit avionics and enhancements to mission systems, communication capabilities and...

news.usni.org

 

[FighterJock]

Interesting update since last time we heard anything about F/A-XX AOA's. Anyone got an AWIN subscription here?

U.S. Navy’s Secret F/A-XX In ‘Concept Refinement’ Phase | Aviation Week Network

The U.S. Navy's sixth-generation fighter will be the “survivable, lethal” quarterback that will fly with loyal wingmen drones, now known in the Pentagon as collaborative combat aircraft.

aviationweek.com

Sounds like a jet version of the Hawkeye and probably not very numerous. This rush to drones sounds like the maginot line

Hopefully it will be a spiritual successor to the cancelled Boeing EX. Not only that, but they are also planning to keep flying the E-2's until the 2040s. By that time it will be an almost 80yr old design!

Navy Plans Upgrades to Fly E-2Ds into the 2040s - USNI News

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — With production coming to an end in four years, the Navy is working out a plan to sustain the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye command-and-control aircraft for at least another 30. Upgrades include cockpit avionics and enhancements to mission systems, communication capabilities and...

news.usni.org

View attachment 684057View attachment 684058

Would that be wise flying the E-2 into the 2040s? After all it is a US Navy aircraft and don’t forget that navy aircraft take more punishment on landing and taking off from carriers than land based aircraft like the B-52. Look at what happened to the F-14 for example.

 

[Hood]

The E-2D is still in production, in fact the oldest production airframes are only 8 years old, so they will be about 30 years old on retirement.

 

[Josh_TN]

Would that be wise flying the E-2 into the 2040s? After all it is a US Navy aircraft and don’t forget that navy aircraft take more punishment on landing and taking off from carriers than land based aircraft like the B-52. Look at what happened to the F-14 for example.

The configuration looks the same but the E-2Ds are brand new aircraft that probably don't share a bolt pattern with the original A version.

 

[FighterJock]

The configuration looks the same but the E-2Ds are brand new aircraft that probably don't share a bolt pattern with the original A version.

Thanks Hood and Josh_TN, I did not realise that the current E-2D were brand new aircraft. I had thought that they were upgraded.