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

I wonder what missions the USN envisions for CCAs. I would think it likely these end up being very small platforms with limited payloads. This might prevent them from having any significant strike capability.
 
Josh_TN said:
I wonder what missions the USN envisions for CCAs. I would think it likely these end up being very small platforms with limited payloads. This might prevent them from having any significant strike capability.
Click to expand...
Right now, the primaries seem to be extra AAMs and EW/recon assets.

What has been surprising me has been the lack of air-to-ground missions.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Right now, the primaries seem to be extra AAMs and EW/recon assets.

What has been surprising me has been the lack of air-to-ground missions.
Click to expand...
"Its last hour, it's either a target or a weapon."
It sounds like they may take the ones close to the end of their service life and turn them into jumbo cruise missiles.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Right now, the primaries seem to be extra AAMs and EW/recon assets.

What has been surprising me has been the lack of air-to-ground missions.
Click to expand...

Air to ground, or air to ship, would require a UAV with a heavy payload. Where as A2A and ECM/ISR are less weight.
 
When's the last time Boeing was anywhere near on time or on budget (or even meets quality reqs.)?
 
Forest Green said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1782376719027974259
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1782376719027974259
Click to expand...
Interesting. For ATF, LockMart went with the less-radical design as well while Northrop went radical. For JSF, LockMart went with a less radical design (despite the lift fan) while Boeing went pretty radical. And we both know how those two contests went.

For the USAF to be wanting to go radical this time is surprising.

That said, Politics are likely to play into this contest, hard. Giving the USAF NGAD contract to Boeing while LockMart is busy with F35 would not surprise me.

The more interesting question is who is going to win the FAXX contract, but that is several years out now.



sferrin said:
When's the last time Boeing was anywhere near on time or on budget (or even meets quality reqs.)?
Click to expand...
Don't confuse Boeing Military with Boeing Commercial.
 
Boeing military has certainly stumbled as well on a couple projects - KC-46 and Orca spring to mind. But LM is hardly knocking it out of the park with its F-35 fiasco.
 
I’ve wondered how much of this would come down to the government giving work to companies who need it just to keep everyone viable. If Northrop is bowing out to focus on the Navy’s program, and Lockheed still has… what? A thousand more F-35s to go through? Whatever the number is, they’re pretty much set for orders, and maybe the government is looking at an adequate Boeing design and saying, “okay, looks like you’re up.”
 
MrTopaz said:
I’ve wondered how much of this would come down to the government giving work to companies who need it just to keep everyone viable. If Northrop is bowing out to focus on the Navy’s program, and Lockheed still has… what? A thousand more F-35s to go through? Whatever the number is, they’re pretty much set for orders, and maybe the government is looking at an adequate Boeing design and saying, “okay, looks like you’re up.”
Click to expand...
There is probably some truth to that. There is already a lack of competition in military aircraft projects, and as much as Boeing is struggling right now, the USAF probably does not want to see it leave the military aircraft business altogether.
 
sferrin said:
Three of those were McDonnell Douglas so they don't count. As for BoP we don't know the budget or the schedule so that's pure speculation.
Click to expand...
Right, because when one companies merges with another, the institutional knowledge and people only migrate when it comes to the commercial side of the business.
 
lantinian said:
Bird of Prey, X-36, F/A-18E/F, F-15EX
Click to expand...
f-15EX was already developed thru the QA program. Bird of Prey, x-36 are just demonstrators.

Look at the delay of a vastly simpler airplane mq-25 to that of the on schedule b-21 program.

Look at the national sham/shame that is the tanker saga.

E-7 to UK - delayed. An aircraft that was largely already developed for Australia (and even that program once faced delay).

Ground Base Midcourse Interceptor - embarassing test failures. MDA had to go back to drawing board.
 
donnage99 said:
Look at the delay of a vastly simpler airplane mq-25 to that of the on schedule b-21 program.
Click to expand...

MQ-25 is a lot more complicated than it looks. It has to operate in a very hostile EM environment and operating a UAV from a carrier is new territory.
 
sferrin said:
When's the last time Boeing was anywhere near on time or on budget (or even meets quality reqs.)?
Click to expand...
Sadly, the same can be said for Lockheed as well. I mean, how many years is it going to be until we have an F-35 that is fully capable of what has been promised? I don't hold them completely accountable on that, though, as the USAF shares a lot of the blame.
 
sferrin said:
Three of those were McDonnell Douglas so they don't count. As for BoP we don't know the budget or the schedule so that's pure speculation.
Click to expand...
But McDonnell Douglas took over Boeing. It's well known that McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money. That's why the commercial side of Boeing is such a train wreck now. When MAC took over, they got rid of a lot of the management techniques used at Boeing, which were more successful than at MAC. Which is why Boeing was still around and Douglas basically went out of business. But I guess that's what the dip shits at Wall Street wanted and the end results were quite predictable.
 
lantinian said:
Right, because when one companies merges with another, the institutional knowledge and people only migrate when it comes to the commercial side of the business.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's basically what happened in this case. (With management in particular.)
 
To be fair, only NG really seems to keep on time and budget recently. And even they are delaying the Columbia class. They might have skipped the project just because they realized no matter who jumps on that grenade, the amount of new technology is all but certain to cause it to be delayed and have cost overruns.
 
bobbymike said:
Isn’t the AF1 replacement a decade behind schedule as well?

I obviously have zero insider knowledge but NGAD to Boeing seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because they had to basically hyperinspect the aircraft after discovering a bunch of mini liquor bottles stashed in it. (Fault of Boeing Commercial)

And then they could start work on the updates: gut all the old electrical system to install the new USAF one that's EMP shielded. Install additional fuel piping for the Air Refueling receptacle. Probably 5x the generator power.

Oh, and that's after they get all the workers cleared Yankee White to be able to work on Presidential Transports, which takes a year or more.



Josh_TN said:
To be fair, only NG really seems to keep on time and budget recently. And even they are delaying the Columbia class. They might have skipped the project just because they realized no matter who jumps on that grenade, the amount of new technology is all but certain to cause it to be delayed and have cost overruns.
Click to expand...
EB is effectively a separate entity from NG, and it's a USN project. Changing specifications after the area has been built is depressingly normal for the USN...
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
I mean, we could possibly have the discussion on China and US geopolitics elsewhere, but this is supposed to be about NGAD, the fighter :)
Click to expand...
It's a bit difficult to talk about a fighter that is supposedly being designed around a conflict in the Pacific without discussing the types of missions such a conflict would entail for the plane.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's a bit difficult to talk about a fighter that is supposedly being designed around a conflict in the Pacific without discussing the types of missions such a conflict would entail for the plane.
Click to expand...
If the contract is in september the battle is on at this time, now the question is who , Lockheed or Boeing wil built it ?
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's a bit difficult to talk about a fighter that is supposedly being designed around a conflict in the Pacific without discussing the types of missions such a conflict would entail for the plane.
Click to expand...
Mission discussions are fine, this was just a "China is bad / US is badder / No, China is the badderest" snorefest.
 
dark sidius said:
If the contract is in september the battle is on at this time, now the question is who , Lockheed or Boeing wil built it ?
Click to expand...
Politically? I expect Boeing to have a lot of advantages for the manned NGAD plane proper. NG is not bidding, LockMart is eyeballs deep in F-35 and behind schedule.



overscan (PaulMM) said:
Mission discussions are fine, this was just a "China is bad / US is badder / No, China is the badderest" snorefest.
Click to expand...
Understood.
 
Is there a chance that the USAF (not Navy) NGAD might simply not materialize? What would be its niche that the F-35 and B-21 (both likely be relevant for half a century) can't fill?
 
Elysium said:
Is there a chance that the USAF (not Navy) NGAD might simply not materialize? What would be its niche that the F-35 and B-21 (both likely be relevant for half a century) can't fill?
Click to expand...

Only of Congress suddenly decides to defund it, which seems incredibly unlikely.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom