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

breakingdefense.com

Air Force's future spending outlook shows big jumps for new, marquee weapons - Breaking Defense

Seeking to pivot to a new generation of air power by fielding platforms like the Next Generation Air Dominance Fighter, the Air Force is planning significant investments into future technologies, according to service budget documents, which also show that fiscal 2024 could be a turning point for...
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

ICYMI: NGAD, NGAP and CCAs, FYI

After previewing an approximately $276 million funding increase for NGAD technologies during the service’s budget rollout, the FYDP numbers show that near-term spending on NGAD will more than double by the end of the five-year period, climbing from a request of $1.9 billion in FY24 to roughly $4.1 billion in FY28.

NGAD efforts include development of a secretive, sixth-gen stealth fighter as well as the associated hardware and software to foster a family of systems, the budget documents say. The FY24 spending levels further show the Air Force may be moving more aggressively to develop the fighter than previously anticipated, as FY23 budget documents showed the service was predicting to spend under $1.7 billion in FY24.

It is still unknown what airframe primes are in the running to build the fighter, though Kendall has indicated that the program is well along the way to a down-select.

To power NGAD, the service will also continue developing the fighter’s Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) engine, seeking $595 million in the coming fiscal year. RDT&E spending will finish off in FY27 at a level of $291 million, according the the j-books, which state that “competitive prototyping” work would proceed between FY25 and FY28. Both Pratt & Whitney and General Electric are participating in NGAP, which a top official suggested last year could move to down-select as soon as this year.

And to fight alongside NGAD, the Air Force also wants to significantly ramp up spending on CCA drones. Last year, the Air Force’s FY23 request suggested the service would seek roughly $50 million in FY24 for work to develop the CCA platform, but the service is now asking lawmakers for nearly eight times as much at $392 million. The program’s topline is projected to dip in funding to around $246 million in FY25 but will shoot up to $1.6 billion in FY27 and will approximately double to $3 billion in FY28.

Along with funds for new sensor development, the Air Force is also supplementing CCA efforts with two new starts: one for an Experimental Operations Unit (EOU) that will run risk reduction tasks like generating operational concepts for deployment, and another for expanding autonomy test beds, which an industry executive previously pointed to as a choke point for CCA development.
Click to expand...
 
Same news as before, but from Potomac Officer's Club:

potomacofficersclub.com

Budget Documents Reveal Air Force Spending Priorities Through 2028

The Department of the Air Force has disclosed documents detailing near-term budget priorities such as the Next Generation Air Dominance stealth fighter and Collaborative Combat Aircraft drone projects, which are part of a broader effort to modernize warfare capabilities. The released documents...
potomacofficersclub.com potomacofficersclub.com

It even cites the prior article from Breaking Defense.
 
jsport said:
breakingdefense.com

Air Force's future spending outlook shows big jumps for new, marquee weapons - Breaking Defense

Seeking to pivot to a new generation of air power by fielding platforms like the Next Generation Air Dominance Fighter, the Air Force is planning significant investments into future technologies, according to service budget documents, which also show that fiscal 2024 could be a turning point for...
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
Yep, that's pretty much what's going to happen to the NGAD program now. A big increase in spending, which should lead to some results in the next few years.
 
Interesting development La-Fuente Technologies, I would like to see the spending increased on the NGAD so that the USAF can order many more than there are F-22s at present.
 
Personally, it's great to hear that there is confidence in CCAs. What is critical is that Kendall, and the manufacturers, realize the need for speed.They don't need to last for decades bc one would continue to rapidly iterate. The speed of production, the rapid generation of force projection, will be an excellent deterrent.

You're never going to replace F-35's at greater than 15 - 20 per month. B-21 may be 8 - 16 per year after a three year ramp. But if you select a CCA design that uses inexpensive materials, and an engine that is already in high volume production, you will have the tools to get started.

The RCO would design the program to focus on building a production line that rapidly iterates their CCA proposal. Tell them to model it on SpaceX Starbase. The winner will show they can rapidly iterate and produce a CCA that either meets the requirements, or is on the way to meeting the requirements. Select and fund three or four competitors. I'd give them two years to see how far they get, then cull one. I think it will be obvious who is committed to the job.

Musk tells his workers, 'assume there is a killer asteroid on its way to earth.' I recognize they have digital models but the point here is rapid iteration to speed up production. It will take at least a year or three to ramp production. Using this model will flush out who can make it happen quickest.

You can buy tooling, and you can buy material, but you cannot buy back time.
 
Building the CCA will probably be much easier than any manned aircraft; there are already several promising starting points that would serve as decent baseline platforms. I suspect the harder part will be software development and integration with the manned platforms; I'd imagine the hardware is practically off the shelf and most of the producers of UAVs are generally smaller, more nimble companies that already iterate quite rapidly compared to the last three or so defense companies that produce manned military aircraft.
 
FighterJock said:
Interesting development La-Fuente Technologies, I would like to see the spending increased on the NGAD so that the USAF can order many more than there are F-22s at present.
Click to expand...
Spending will definitely be increasing, if the article is right on the money. Or it may actually be increasing much more than what we're being told. Either way, it does seem that the NGAD and its CCAs are now being pushed up the USAF's priority list in terms of defense budget spending
 
Josh_TN said:
Building the CCA will probably be much easier than any manned aircraft; there are already several promising starting points that would serve as decent baseline platforms. I suspect the harder part will be software development and integration with the manned platforms; I'd imagine the hardware is practically off the shelf and most of the producers of UAVs are generally smaller, more nimble companies that already iterate quite rapidly compared to the last three or so defense companies that produce manned military aircraft.
Click to expand...
General Atomics did make a deal with some 3D Printing Car company that would help develop the technology to print UCAVs or UASs into completion in record time and be deployable in areas near their Area of Operations, so the part about using smaller and more nimble companies that specifically innovate in that department are right on the money.

Now just imagine taking that technology, and then making it even bigger so that it will make CCAs in record time! And in addition, it can be deployed much nearer to the battlefield so that they can reach it much sooner, and ensure that when any of them are lost, new ones don't have to be made much farther away. And thus, it will take a much shorter amount of time to send in the replacement to the Area of Operations.

breakingdefense.com

General Atomics signs 3D printing agreement with automotive-focused startup Divergent - Breaking Defense

For something like a small UAS, “instead of taking years to develop [a design] it takes months, and instead of taking weeks to manufacture by laying out carbon fiber, we take hours to assemble," Divergent CEO Kevin Czinger told Breaking Defense.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
Last edited:
La-Fuente Technologies said:

And in addition, it can be deployed much nearer to the battlefield so that they can reach it much sooner, and ensure that when any of them are lost, new ones don't have to be made much farther away. And thus, it will take a much shorter amount of time to send in the replacement to the Area of Operations.
Click to expand...
Don't get too excited - even 3D printers need access to input materials. they are not "replicators" from Star Trek making things out of thin air.
 
GTX said:
La-Fuente Technologies said:

And in addition, it can be deployed much nearer to the battlefield so that they can reach it much sooner, and ensure that when any of them are lost, new ones don't have to be made much farther away. And thus, it will take a much shorter amount of time to send in the replacement to the Area of Operations.
Click to expand...
Don't get too excited - even 3D printers need access to input materials. they are not "replicators" from Star Trek making things out of thin air.
Click to expand...
And almost always require post processing.

1679769168757.png
 
GTX said:
La-Fuente Technologies said:

And in addition, it can be deployed much nearer to the battlefield so that they can reach it much sooner, and ensure that when any of them are lost, new ones don't have to be made much farther away. And thus, it will take a much shorter amount of time to send in the replacement to the Area of Operations.
Click to expand...
Don't get too excited - even 3D printers need access to input materials. they are not "replicators" from Star Trek making things out of thin air.
Click to expand...
Give it enough time, and who knows what might happen. This is exactly why such deals are being made, so that research can happen so that it becomes reality, or much closer to it.
 
I am sorry but the "human designed" part is not a 1 block cnc. It can be manufactured in 3 parts, welded.
It's also a flat packaging.

Last but not least, 3d recursive structural automated optimization often leads to part unable to sustain real stress loads, too oftenly not taken into account by a more restrictive approach (see here the max sustained stress that leaves very few margins (this piece could have been made out of wood and have the same tolerance in stress...)).

Design margins, when appropriatly selected, are not waste but an optimization approach, also, but for time, cost and maintenance. (way more efficient).

Obviously, such arguments doen't fit inside a PowerPoint due to the amount of text needed to make the point...
 
Last edited:
La-Fuente Technologies said:
GTX said:
Don't get too excited - even 3D printers need access to input materials. they are not "replicators" from Star Trek making things out of thin air.
Click to expand...
Give it enough time, and who knows what might happen. This is exactly why such deals are being made, so that research can happen so that it becomes reality, or much closer to it.
Click to expand...
Let's keep to reality here please.
 
GTX said:
Let's keep to reality here please.
Click to expand...
Sure. I mean, that's what Research is for, right. To eventually make such things reality, so it should be at least ok to discuss things of the intermediate or expected future should such program actually come to fruition, as promised.
 
TomcatViP said:
I am sorry but the "human designed" part is not a 1 block cnc. It can be manufactured in 3 parts, welded.
It's also a flat packaging.
Click to expand...

Introducing the need for more time, tooling, and touch time. $$$

TomcatViP said:
Last but not least, 3d recursive structural automated optimization often leads to part unable to sustain real stress loads, too oftenly not taken into account by a more restrictive approach (see here the max sustained stress that leaves very few margins (this piece could have been made out of wood and have the same tolerance in stress...)).
Click to expand...

Sounds like a case of insufficient definition of the requirements of the part. It still requires iteration and real-world testing. For now.
 
red admiral said:
Quite. We now just seem to be re-labelling various computational optimisation techniques as "AI" when they've been used for decades and there's nothing intelligent behind them.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I grabbed the shot from an article in AvWeek a few weeks old. Not sure why they slapped "AI" on the table. Could be something as simple as AI making use of common algorithms.

Looking at it again.

1679909668033.png

facepalm-worf.gif
 
sferrin said:
To be clear, I grabbed the shot from an article in AvWeek a few weeks old. Not sure why they slapped "AI" on the table.
Click to expand...
I had the same reaction to that AvWeek article. I can't wait till someone uses a quantum computer to do it too.
 
La-Fuente Technologies said:
GTX said:
Let's keep to reality here please.
Click to expand...
Sure. I mean, that's what Research is for, right. To eventually make such things reality, so it should be at least ok to discuss things of the intermediate or expected future should such program actually come to fruition, as promised.
Click to expand...
Most likely though not in time for a 6G fighter, which is the topic of this thread.
 
TomcatViP said:
sferrin said:
red admiral said:
Quite. We now just seem to be re-labelling various computational optimisation techniques as "AI" when they've been used for decades and there's nothing intelligent behind them.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I grabbed the shot from an article in AvWeek a few weeks old. Not sure why they slapped "AI" on the table. Could be something as simple as AI making use of common algorithms.

Looking at it again.

View attachment 696499

View attachment 696500
Click to expand...
martinbayer said:
Most likely though not in time for a 6G fighter, which is the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Too bad. When Roper back then said "several records were broken", i would have expected one of them to be related to weight reduction/optimization. Just like the J-20 empty weight is nearly the same as the F-22 despite it's size discrepancy after 20 years of advancement in materials (1990-2010), i imagined a SR-71 or FB-22 sized plane with an innovative parametric skeleton beyond the traditional spars and ribs coupled with advanced composites AND further improvements in electronics (https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/1413611) could set the bar even lower in the ballpark of the OG F-22 or F-35!
Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case. A fantasy of mine.

(For reference)
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdG4gUTowXc
 

Attachments

  • 149396-b08bd619a3aa717888e72891479bc60c.jpg
    149396-b08bd619a3aa717888e72891479bc60c.jpg
    23.5 KB · Views: 50
  • index5.jpg
    index5.jpg
    5.1 KB · Views: 52
martinbayer said:
La-Fuente Technologies said:
GTX said:
Let's keep to reality here please.
Click to expand...
Sure. I mean, that's what Research is for, right. To eventually make such things reality, so it should be at least ok to discuss things of the intermediate or expected future should such program actually come to fruition, as promised.
Click to expand...
Most likely though not in time for a 6G fighter, which is the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...
We still have yet to see whether that is the case. But if it should be, then it should come just in time for a Seventh-Generation Fighter, provided we don't blow ourselves up just yet.
 
La-Fuente Technologies said:
www.thedrive.com

Big Emphasis On "Spectral Warfare" In Air Force's Next Generation Air Dominance Plans

USAF aircraft will leverage large swathes of the RF spectrum, including electronic warfare, infrared masking, and lasers to win future fights.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...
Oh, something died here.
After decades of insisting that a good radar is good enough for detection, a good signature reduction is good enough for self-protection- first, it was ad-hoc IRSTs, and now we turn into Eurocanard/Su-57 styled array of arrays. Especially the latter - basically full match.
Irony.
 
Expecting to see an aircraft built against dominant USAF views.
Dominant over long, long time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FighterJock said:
I fear another JSF/F-35 style joint project.
Click to expand...

Already separate projects, and I can't see Congress forcing the issue again. What the USN and USAF are probably collaborating on is underlying technologies like coatings, sensors, and propulsion.
 
Thanks Josh_TN, I thought that the US congress would force them to join together again, but that is certainly good news that there won't be another program like the JSF with all it's issues.
 
FighterJock said:
Thanks Josh_TN, I thought that the US congress would force them to join together again, but that is certainly good news that there won't be another program like the JSF with all it's issues.
Click to expand...

I think the experience of the F-35 would prevent Congress from going down that path, and moreover it seems incredibly unlikely Congress will agree on anything for while. So I think there will be no involvement by them in either department's fighter development programs, outside perhaps approving or restricting budgets. But on that note there is wide bipartisan agreement on China being a competitor and potential threat, so I think both services will get everything they ask for in regards to these programs.
 
Josh_TN said:
FighterJock said:
Thanks Josh_TN, I thought that the US congress would force them to join together again, but that is certainly good news that there won't be another program like the JSF with all it's issues.
Click to expand...

I think the experience of the F-35 would prevent Congress from going down that path, and moreover it seems incredibly unlikely Congress will agree on anything for while. So I think there will be no involvement by them in either department's fighter development programs, outside perhaps approving or restricting budgets. But on that note there is wide bipartisan agreement on China being a competitor and potential threat, so I think both services will get everything they ask for in regards to these programs.
Click to expand...
I think the overriding factor will be overall cost/ affordability and it appears extremely unlikely that both services will get “everything they ask for” unless they have very carefully calibrated what they ask for.

Re: design and the question of jointness I think it is a real shame that the USAF and US Navy couldn’t come together and agree a common approx. F-14 sized carrier compatible airframe (the only significant structural difference between their variants being one has the arrester hook fitted, the other does not). This would mean real cost efficiencies and avoid much of the issues of having multiple variants or designs.

I don’t quite get claims of the supposed cost advantages of so-called “common”engines and systems if the US airforce aircraft is going to be significantly larger, heavier etc than its US Navy equivalent. It’s not like the US Navy doesn’t have much the same requirements for longer range and better payload/ range characteristics, improved stealth characteristics etc. versus the current in service designs they will be replacing. And won’t you end up with one design having sub-optimal engines and systems etc. if their is really that much difference between the 2 designs? Or have to make enough changes to engines, systems that actual commonality and associated cost savings are rapidly reduced?

And ultimately I doubt the overall affordability of the simultaneous developments of a significantly larger US airforce airframe and a separate US Navy airframe. One could foresee potential scenarios like the US airforce later being forced to take the US Navy airframe after the cancellation of an over ambitious airforce-only design but after they can have that major impact on the US Navy airframe (not completely unlike what happens with the F-4 or A-7), or the US Navy having to take a F-35E instead because their Navy-only design is dropped (somewhat similar to what happened with the Super Hornet).

While some enthusiasts here will likely decry this and advocate for paying whatever the 2 separate airframes will cost the overall context (also paying for B-21s, new unmanned aircraft, probably ongoing F-35 deliveries, renewing the nuclear triad, new tankers, likely the start of a new airlifter program, new T-7s, etc.) demands a degree of realism, particularly if you want these new “6th” generation airframes fielded in significant numbers for both services (and not in having your favoured service being seen to have “won”).

And whatever way you spin it the new US airforce design is not some re-litigation of what some wanted the B-21 to be; the new airforce strike fighter design will unavoidably be substantially smaller, shorter range and have a very significantly lower payload than a B-21 (for the required much higher flight performance) and probably won’t end up that much larger or longer range than its US Navy equivalent anyway.
 
I think the two services have very different operating environments that make combining the two programs a recipe for disaster. USAF doesn't need the size and stall speed restrictions of the USN, as well as the dead weight of the structural enhancements needed for carrier arrested landing. The USN in turn probably doesn't need the USAF's extreme range requirements, because its home base is going to be mobile somewhere in the WestPac instead of Hawaii or Alaska. I think both services could better meet their needs and price goals by developing separate aircraft while sharing a lot of the avionics and coatings between aircraft. I suspect a lot of F-35 and "RQ-180" avionics and construction processes got rolled into the B-21, for instance. I personally would rather have two separate airframes that lowered the technical risk (and additionally split that risk among two programs) rather than yet another single program that was too big to fail, had cost and time overruns, and compromised the base requirements for everyone involved.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom