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

Dreamfighter said:
I´ve heard that one before.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine the NGAD will increase just due to economies of scale, but the only other competitor would be Russia who can't even take out Ukraine's early 4th gen fighters. Maybe there's the possibility that China or the Euros/Japan will export it to an unfriendly country, however that's extremely doubtful.
 
Josh_TN said:
Russia is far from harmless but when it comes to aircraft, there is no way forward for them. If they successfully fulfill their current Su-57 order, they will have 76 machines five years from now. The US builds more F-35s in a year. NGAD should be solely focused on the Pacific theater and the challenges there in (primarily the huge distances involved).
Click to expand...
True, we all know that their SU-57s are shit. But we must assume that they have solved it with the Checkmate, which could possibly be the bigger competitor should it eventually be out (If it ever will). Sometimes, it's better to be safe than sorry in such a situation. However, a cheaper option could just be to send some of those 300 F-35s with drones to the area instead, maybe 20-30 of them should do it.

The NGADs can instead not just be deployed in areas near China, but also on Alaska, to also give Russia no incentive for any funny ideas to do something on Alaska or anywhere else in the area.

trose213 said:
I'd imagine the NGAD will increase just due to economies of scale, but the only other competitor would be Russia who can't even take out Ukraine's early 4th gen fighters. Maybe there's the possibility that China or the Euros/Japan will export it to an unfriendly country, however that's extremely doubtful.
Click to expand...
It will also increase in scale should a situation become hot and call for more Deterrence. But I'm also betting that due to the Economy of Scale, they will also fast-track future iterations of the NGAD, as although they have dropped the Digital Century Series build plan, they may still have plans in place to create newer, better and far more capable airframes that will succeed the first generations of NGAD but are still under the NGAD designation.
 
La-Fuente Technologies said:
True, we all know that their SU-57s are shit. But we must assume that they have solved it with the Checkmate, which could possibly be the bigger competitor should it eventually be out (If it ever will). Sometimes, it's better to be safe than sorry in such a situation. However, a cheaper option could just be to send some of those 300 F-35s with drones to the area instead, maybe 20-30 of them should do it.

The NGADs can instead not just be deployed in areas near China, but also on Alaska, to also give Russia no incentive for any funny ideas to do something on Alaska or anywhere else in the area.
Click to expand...

I didn't discuss Su-57 capability, I'm just noting they will forever be heavily outnumbered by any single US flying organization's F-35s. Therefore I don't think it is a contingency that needs to be planned around. I personally don't think Checkmate will even enter production, but if it does it will similarly be in small enough numbers to be managable by existing US aircraft. My point is that NGAD can and should be focused solely on the Pacific theater.
 
Josh_TN said:
I didn't discuss Su-57 capability, I'm just noting they will forever be heavily outnumbered by any single US flying organization's F-35s. Therefore I don't think it is a contingency that needs to be planned around. I personally don't think Checkmate will even enter production, but if it does it will similarly be in small enough numbers to be managable by existing US aircraft. My point is that NGAD can and should be focused solely on the Pacific theater.
Click to expand...
That I know. My point is that at least some of the advanced aircraft we get should also go to Europe, for deterrence purposes. Russia may not be as powerful as it was before, but if it tries anything funny, at least there's something to squash up that hope.

Obviously the majority of the advanced fighters we have should go to the Pacific, and with regards to that, we also need to speed up the development of the F/A-XX as well. Insofar as I'm concerned, I see more progress to the NGAD, if the articles are any indication, than there is to F/A-XX. And that's a problem because the F/A-XX is the Navy's own NGAD, and likewise, is needed to help put further deterrence in the Pacific.
 
DrRansom said:
If the US has 200 NGADs, it doesn't matter if China is a generation - or two - behind. The numbers are simply not enough.
Click to expand...

Exactly DrRansom, I would want between 400 to 500 NGADs but that all depends on who the next president will be, whether the military will get enough funding for such numbers after the next election.
 
FighterJock said:
Exactly DrRansom, I would want between 400 to 500 NGADs but that all depends on who the next president will be, whether the military will get enough funding for such numbers after the next election.
Click to expand...
I don't wanna talk political, but whatever party the President belongs to might play a factor in how many NGADS (And any other upcoming Military technologies) that we'll get. However, given the recent events of the past 3 decades, that prior point might be moot, as no matter whether the president is a Republican or a Democraft, the United State's military prowress wasn't really negatively affected or stunted by any political actions since either the Vietnam War or the End of the Cold War. If there are any changes, it's mostly positive and contributing to any kind of military and technology buildup.

I think 500 should be the bare minimum during a crisis that may change the status quo, but there should be provisions for more should we allow it. But I'm also of the opinion that there should be 5 or more Drones per NGAD, so if a single drone would have the same capability and weapon load as a F-22, then a fewer number of NGAD units is acceptable because in that case, a single NGAD and its squad of Loyal Wingmen Drones would be equivalent to a squadron on deployment, and thus save some "precious" money and other NGAD units to be used elsewhere or become demonstrators or users for upcoming technological advancements beyond those of the NGAD.

Either ways, I'm doubtful that Biden would be President the moment the NGAD will be unveiled. Even if he wins 2024, the NGAD probably wouldn't be deployed until the 2030s, and that's almost 2 years after his possible second term will expire.
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
DrRansom said:
If the US has 200 NGADs, it doesn't matter if China is a generation - or two - behind. The numbers are simply not enough.
Click to expand...

Exactly DrRansom, I would want between 400 to 500 NGADs but that all depends on who the next president will be, whether the military will get enough funding for such numbers after the next election.
Click to expand...

The outstanding lesson of Ukraine is that everybody needs more. With runway cratering cruise-missiles going for <$100k USD, a small airplane force runs the risk of being caught on the ground and destroyed. A few blown Rapid Raptor missions (inevitable in war) and you've lost 10-20% of your force.

What I get from the whole concept is just inadequacy, a clear lack of vision or, if they have a vision, a vision which simply won't work. To compete against China, the US needs: NGAD (mainly for bomber escort), a F-15EX/F-111 cruise missile carrier (STOL preferable), a 4+ gen (STOL preferable) rear-area fighter, and all the UCAVs money can find. Instead we have a boutique force pursuing some 'technological overmatch.' It's a recipe for defeat.
 
trose213 said:
Colonial-Marine said:
NATF reboot.
Click to expand...
Stealth not needed in this concept
Click to expand...

Exactly, trade stealth for numbers, lower CPFH, and ability to operate off "rougher" runways and highways without mission degradation. And - with a cheaper more numerous airplanes, keeps a large pilot pool which can be cycled up to bombers / penetrating NGAD if high-production is required. (Also non-stealthy will be much easier to ramp up production)

But the plan for 200 NGAD and 1000 ill-defined drones is just bizarre. It assumes some magical combat ability that'll overcome numbers, distance, and enemy stand-off precision attacks.
 
The USAF has been moaning about the vulnerability of long concrete runways since the 1970s and done naff all about reducing its reliance on them.

Has the F-35B ever done VTOL on a non-concrete/steel surface?
 
trose213 said:
Colonial-Marine said:
NATF reboot.
Click to expand...
Stealth not needed in this concept
Click to expand...
Unless you build some edge-level stealth (where you indeed pay a lot for new levels of sneakiness), there is literally no reason to develop a non-stealthy airframe when you already have the know-how how to get a stealthy one.
Modelling, verification, and production techniques are already here.
Just drop out the maintenance-heavy parts of it, as of now they still aren't the main component of RCS reduction anyways.
 
What about adding an ultra long range air-air missile to the mix? Something like what the Russians have in the R-37, such a missile would be good for the USAF in those types of situations.
 
DrRansom said:
Exactly, trade stealth for numbers, lower CPFH, and ability to operate off "rougher" runways and highways without mission degradation. And - with a cheaper more numerous airplanes, keeps a large pilot pool which can be cycled up to bombers / penetrating NGAD if high-production is required. (Also non-stealthy will be much easier to ramp up production)
Click to expand...
The F-35 and F-22 are both bleeding edge stealth fighters and still are. You can incorporate RCS reduction like they're trying to do on the KF-21 without building a stealth fighter.
 
jsport said:
NeilChapman said:
seruriermarshal said:
How A Phantom Works Project Fits The Secretive NGAD Profile
Steve Trimble February 27, 2023

View attachment 694546

The Weekly Debrief: How A Phantom Works Project Fits The Secretive NGAD Profile | Aviation Week Network

What is the “Voodoo II”? And why does the Voodoo II project’s special patch say “Two-0-Thunder”?
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Click to expand...

Please don't let Boeing muck up another program...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This entire reliance on cheap drones will to down in history as the nail in coffin on the usaf. I work on a unmanned project and if this is the future of air dominance then good night air superiority. God help us if the Navy screws it up as well and we can't even buy a naval fighter like we did with the phantom. its like we're planning on losing a war. If they we're going to buy 400 of the ngad, I'd say sure, fine, whatever. But they're not even buying that minimum requirement to replace all the f22s and f15c\d. These cheap drones have a place but its not this capstone. They never heard of the concept start small and build on successive successes
 
trose213 said:
The F-35 and F-22 are both bleeding edge stealth fighters and still are.
Click to expand...

They are really not.
Capabilities have changed dramatically since these aircraft were being developed. Manufacturing techniques in particular have advanced considerably, which has resulted in dramatic practical RCS reduction.

Polecat is a relevant example. Large, precisely manufactured single piece composites that reduced complexity.
 
quellish said:
trose213 said:
The F-35 and F-22 are both bleeding edge stealth fighters and still are.
Click to expand...

They are really not.
Capabilities have changed dramatically since these aircraft were being developed. Manufacturing techniques in particular have advanced considerably, which has resulted in dramatic practical RCS reduction.

Polecat is a relevant example. Large, precisely manufactured single piece composites that reduced complexity.
Click to expand...
Which is probably why the USAF is proceeding with certain high-end upgrades and block developments for the F-35, if Sandboxx is correct:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SNALUoybt0

And that's also why the NGAD is being developed, among other reasons. Though it's possible that the NGAD in all its advanced upcoming glory, will be rendered technologically obsolete if technology continues to accelerate much faster than it is currently at right now .
 
La-Fuente Technologies said:
Though it's possible that the NGAD in all its advanced upcoming glory, will be rendered technologically obsolete if technology continues to accelerate much faster than it is currently at right now .
Click to expand...

That is why the NGAD should come with some form of upgradability built in so that if any new technology comes out in the future the USAF can swap out the old tech with no issues. Think of it as a flying desktop PC.
 
NGAD is first realisation of agile doctrine - 10-15 years span between iterations using mainly 3d printing. 200 is an sustainable fleet that in 10 years will be supported by first 7th gen airframe.
 
FighterJock said:
TomcatViP said:
Well, probably something like tooling, long lead material etc...
Click to expand...

I do not see the NGAD appearing anytime soon at least in hardware form.
Click to expand...

This link could also fit in other topics, but...
www.airandspaceforces.com

In 2024 Budget, USAF Pushes Major New Aircraft Starts | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Air Force (USAF) pursues multiple new aircraft in fiscal 2024 budget, including CCAs, tankers, a new AWACS, bombers, and fighters.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

"Production of CCAs is planned before the end of the decade, Kendall said, with initial operational capability projected to be roughly comparable to the NGAD fighter despite entering development later. "

(I know this is about the Airforce´s NGAD-fighter & CCAs and not about the Navy´s F/A-XX and it´s CCAs. I´ll leave it to others to guesstimate which service might be ahead or behind the other regarding NGAD.)
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
La-Fuente Technologies said:
Though it's possible that the NGAD in all its advanced upcoming glory, will be rendered technologically obsolete if technology continues to accelerate much faster than it is currently at right now .
Click to expand...

That is why the NGAD should come with some form of upgradability built in so that if any new technology comes out in the future the USAF can swap out the old tech with no issues. Think of it as a flying desktop PC.
Click to expand...
Yeah, modularity seems to be the current technology game of the US Military as of recent. The B-21 Raider is also considered to be modular, and The US Navy's DDG(X) is also planned to be modular as well, so it won't be a surprise if the NGAD does come with upgradability. But it also seems that based from some other news and discussions, that the NGAD will also have a shorter service lifespan so that any upgrades will be placed on newer and better airframes instead of existing ones.

quellish said:
Are they changing the outer mold line significantly? Nope.
Click to expand...
I mean yeah, it's mostly software and capability upgrades. The only physical upgrade is a modified bomb bay to hold an additional 2 weapons, making it carry 6 weapons instead of 4, and even that's mostly internal work. It doesn't have to be an outright physical change, just mostly an internal one.
 
Last edited:
www.popularmechanics.com

The Navy Declassified Its Demands for a Next-Gen Fighter Jet

The secretive F/A-XX will replace the Super Hornet.
www.popularmechanics.com www.popularmechanics.com

www.forbes.com

Air Force And Space Force On Right Vector—But Need More Resources To Meet Defense Strategy

Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall’s first budget built entirely under his direction does a fine job of underwriting Air Force and Space Force capabilities. But the demands on the Air Force Department still far exceed the resources it is allocated.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 
Last edited:
www.airandspaceforces.com

Kendall: Air Force Wants as Many as 2,000 CCAs with a Common, Modular Airframe

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall says he wants potentially 2,000 Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCAs) based on a single, modular airframe
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

"The Air Force is looking for a single airframe on which to build its Collaborative Combat Aircraft concept, with interchangeable, modular elements, service Secretary Frank Kendall said March 15. And while he has set 1,000 as the 'planning number" for the new class of combat aircraft, the true requirement could be twice that, he said.
...
"Kendall said in a briefing ahead of the budget release that the plan will be to carry two CCA airframe concepts through initial development, but he couldn’t say on what timeline the Air Force will select one type for production. However, whichever contractor is chosen to build the basic airframe, the Air Force’s intent is to compete the modular payloads thereafter, thus avoiding one companying having “vendor lock” on the CCA fleet."
...
"He emphasized that developing and fielding CCAs will not come at the expense of manned aircraft, but as an enabling adjunct to them."
...
"Last week, Kendall said he expected these aircraft to achieve initial operational capability “by the end of the decade,” and in parallel with the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) family of systems, which will succeed the F-22 in about the same timeframe.
Besides the NGAD and F-35, Kendall said the F-15EX could also conceivably be a 'controlling aircraft' for CCAs."
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom