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

The NGAD is being designed to to replace the F-22 not the F-35 Elysium. Though I think that the F-35 will be ultimately be replaced with a sixth generation fighter at some point in the future, or even a 6.5 generation fighter depending on when the Air Force will want to replace the F-35.
 
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...
Air dominance, F-35 is not able to fly mach 2 or supercruise for interception at high speed and altitude , face of SU-57 or J-20 there is a need for a high performance fighter, if your not able to pursuit and intercept this type you lose the dominance of the sky
 
dark sidius said:
Air dominance, F-35 is not able to fly mach 2 or supercruise for interception at high speed and altitude , face of SU-57 or J-20 there is a need for a high performance fighter, if your not able to pursuit and intercept this type you lose the dominance of the sky
Click to expand...
The J-20 will face the Navy NGAD above the Pacfic. As for the USAF, I don't think you need dedicated interceptors when you have powerful AWACS and B-21s that can lob scores of super long range AIM-260s at the enemy. Having a supercruise capable fighter might simply be not worth the trouble for the USAF.
 
Elysium said:
The J-20 will face the Navy NGAD above the Pacfic. As for the USAF, I don't think you need dedicated interceptors when you have powerful AWACS and B-21s that can lob scores of super long range AIM-260s at the enemy. Having a supercruise capable fighter might simply be not worth the trouble for the USAF.
Click to expand...
The current planned production run for the B-21 is at 100. Even if you bump that number up considerably there's not going to be enough of them, especially in theatre, where a commander is going to use his best penetrating bomber for a counter air role. The B-21 is far to premium of an asset and going to be too busy hitting priority targets to be tasked with anti air duties.
 
Shoes31 said:
The current planned production run for the B-21 is at 100. Even if you bump that number up considerably there's not going to be enough of them, especially in theatre, where a commander is going to use his best penetrating bomber for a counter air role. The B-21 is far to premium of an asset and going to be too busy hitting priority targets to be tasked with anti air duties.
Click to expand...
That can't be right, especially since they plan to export it (Austrialians are customers I think). Anyways, I think they will make way more of those.
 
Elysium said:
The J-20 will face the Navy NGAD above the Pacfic. As for the USAF, I don't think you need dedicated interceptors when you have powerful AWACS and B-21s that can lob scores of super long range AIM-260s at the enemy. Having a supercruise capable fighter might simply be not worth the trouble for the USAF.
Click to expand...

The B-21 will not be used for A2A. That is not at all what it was built for.

An argument might be made that CCA will make NGAD perhaps less useful, but that would be a huge bet to make on AI this far out.
 
Last edited:
Elysium said:
Is there a chance that the USAF (not Navy) NGAD might simply not materialize?
Click to expand...
Highly unlikely.

The US has F15Cs and F22s to replace, and F15Cs are literally falling apart.



Elysium said:
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...
Pure air dominance at long range. I'm expecting a combat range in excess of 2000nmi, basically twice the range of an F22 or F15.

The F35 is built as a striker. 2x 2000lb bombs and 2x AMRAAMs.
The B21 is built as a long range medium capacity bomber (~24-30klbs, maybe more).

You don't ask either F35 or B21 to go hunting other aircraft.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Highly unlikely.

The US has F15Cs and F22s to replace, and F15Cs are literally falling apart.




Pure air dominance at long range. I'm expecting a combat range in excess of 2000nmi, basically twice the range of an F22 or F15.

The F35 is built as a striker. 2x 2000lb bombs and 2x AMRAAMs.
The B21 is built as a long range medium capacity bomber (~24-30klbs, maybe more).

You don't ask either F35 or B21 to go hunting other aircraft.
Click to expand...
Not sure, I don't think the NGAD will be an F-15 replacement. Originally the F-22 was supposed to do that, but it was cancelled due to it being more expensive both to procure and operate, leading to an airforce that's less effective dollar-for-dollar than the one that came before it, in cases where the high-end capabilities of the F-22 are not utilized.

Going with an aircraft that's even more expensive than the F-22 would be going in the wrong direction.
The greatly increased range thing also sounds dubious, extra fuel is just pure performance/weight penalty, considering we're entering the range where stealth tanker drones are a thing, it makes less and less sense every day, especially since the Navy NGAD will occupy the long-range niche.

If I would imagine an F-15 replacement, I would think along the lines of the Turkish 5th gen jet - take the F-22 concept, apply major cost savings, and add more range/payload. But I don't think the USAF is going to do that, I think they're thinking in a novel force structure, which might prove itself in practice or not.

From what I gather the NGAD will be, is decidedly not an F-15 replacement, but a blank-cheque aircraft, procured in small numbers, that will demonstrate US technological supremacy and be able to outclass every existing 5th gen aircraft by a healthy margin and give headaches to enemy military planners.
 
Sundog said:
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.
Click to expand...
From the time the X-35 flew until now is longer than the entire production run of the F-4 Phantom from first flight in 1958 until number 5195 rolled off the Japanese line in 1981.

That's an embarrassingly long time to still be “working on it“.
 
Elysium said:
If I would imagine an F-15 replacement, I would think along the lines of the Turkish 5th gen jet - take the F-22 concept, apply major cost savings, and add more range/payload.
Click to expand...
This is slightly off-topic, but Kaan is far from a simply cheaper F-22, in fact it'll come with a 100M price tag per plane and everyone expects it's operating costs to be similar. And if we don't use the good ol' eyeballing techique, we don't know what level of RCS reduction it'll have, my personal expectation is it'll be similar to J-20A (the one with the hump and WS-15) which in my book is also VLO even if it's not exactly close to F-35's level.

They also plan to equip the plane with a huge ass radar and also side arrays, that alone is a major contributing factor to the cost. And this is just the radar, I'm not even talking about other sensors and avionics just so that I can keep this text short.

Kaan is, (to a fault) the materialisation of combining the "Western school of thought™"'s approach to Low Observability with Russian philosophy of simply dumping every sensor in your possession on the aircraft. It'll even have a DIRCM like the Felon.
 
snne said:
This is slightly off-topic, but Kaan is far from a simply cheaper F-22, in fact it'll come with a 100M price tag per plane and everyone expects it's operating costs to be similar. And if we don't use the good ol' eyeballing techique, we don't know what level of RCS reduction it'll have, my personal expectation is it'll be similar to J-20A (the one with the hump and WS-15) which in my book is also VLO even if it's not exactly close to F-35's level.

They also plan to equip the plane with a huge ass radar and also side arrays, that alone is a major contributing factor to the cost. And this is just the radar, I'm not even talking about other sensors and avionics just so that I can keep this text short.

Kaan is, (to a fault) the materialisation of combining the "Western school of thought™"'s approach to Low Observability with Russian philosophy of simply dumping every sensor in your possession on the aircraft. It'll even have a DIRCM like the Felon.
Click to expand...
Well, 100M is roughly in the ballpark of the 90M the USAF is paying for its F15EX planes, and still a far cry from the 200M each F-22 supposedly costs (though estimates vary)
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Highly unlikely.

The US has F15Cs and F22s to replace, and F15Cs are literally falling apart.




Pure air dominance at long range. I'm expecting a combat range in excess of 2000nmi, basically twice the range of an F22 or F15.

The F35 is built as a striker. 2x 2000lb bombs and 2x AMRAAMs.
The B21 is built as a long range medium capacity bomber (~24-30klbs, maybe more).

You don't ask either F35 or B21 to go hunting other aircraft.
Click to expand...
And it si not sure that the B-21 have AA capacity
 
snne said:
AFAIA some C and Ds have been mothballed for a while and lately even Es are starting to suffer the same fate, right?
Click to expand...

Cs still fly in ANG. I think the last fully active squadron was at Kadena and stood down last year.
 
dark sidius said:

USAF Picks Anduril, General Atomics To Continue CCA Development | Aviation Week Network

Anduril and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems will continue to design the first increment of the collaborative combat aircraft (CCA) for the U.S. Air Force.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Anduril and General Atomic for CCA
Click to expand...

I wonder if Fury is the Anduril submission? As an aggressor it has high performance but size wise I do not see how it gets range or payload that CCA would need.
 
Elysium said:
Not sure, I don't think the NGAD will be an F-15 replacement. Originally the F-22 was supposed to do that, but it was cancelled due to it being more expensive both to procure and operate, leading to an airforce that's less effective dollar-for-dollar than the one that came before it, in cases where the high-end capabilities of the F-22 are not utilized.

Going with an aircraft that's even more expensive than the F-22 would be going in the wrong direction.
The greatly increased range thing also sounds dubious, extra fuel is just pure performance/weight penalty, considering we're entering the range where stealth tanker drones are a thing, it makes less and less sense every day, especially since the Navy NGAD will occupy the long-range niche.
Click to expand...
No, the USAF needs even longer range than the USN does to be able to operate from bases in the Pacific. The USN can move their carriers closer, but 1000nmi (500nmi radius) isn't enough to get anywhere in the Pacific. I wouldn't be surprised if the FAXX has a 2000nmi range and NGAD ends up with a 3000nmi range.

NGAD can have a huge range without compromising performance because their engines are making 45klbs thrust each and burn 25% less fuel than F135s do, at the same time. With that much engine power, the NGAD can take off at 110,000lbs MTOW with 40,000+lbs of fuel onboard. Even the F111B only carried 23klbs fuel (and had a range of 1830nmi). 110k MTOW and 40something-k fuel, with 90klbs thrust means that it will have a power:weight ratio of 1:1 at a range of about 1700nmi and a total combat range of about 3400nmi (based on F111B range with 23klbs fuel).

The USN FAXX will presumably use the same engines, but has a MTOW limit of about 88klbs due to the catapults and arresting gear limits. So it'll have a T:W of 1:1 at takeoff. Recovery weight I'm guesstimating at about 55klbs (IIRC that's about the max for arresting gear). The good news is that current air to air missiles are light, so a load of 10x AMRAAMs and 2x Sidewinders is ~3750lbs. Which puts empty weight about 45klbs, landing with ~6000lbs of fuel left in the jet and ~4000lbs of weapons. Fuel load? ~29,000lbs.




Elysium said:
If I would imagine an F-15 replacement, I would think along the lines of the Turkish 5th gen jet - take the F-22 concept, apply major cost savings, and add more range/payload. But I don't think the USAF is going to do that, I think they're thinking in a novel force structure, which might prove itself in practice or not.

From what I gather the NGAD will be, is decidedly not an F-15 replacement, but a blank-cheque aircraft, procured in small numbers, that will demonstrate US technological supremacy and be able to outclass every existing 5th gen aircraft by a healthy margin and give headaches to enemy military planners.
Click to expand...
The newest F-15C/D in the fleet was built in 1985. 39 years old. There are 167 total F15C/Ds in service with the USAF at present (2022 report numbers). The F15EX buy is planned for 104 thus far, so the "interim replacement" for the F15C will probably be the EX at close to 1:1. But it's looking like the F15EX has LESS range than an F15C, at least according to the wiki entries. F15EX is 6000+lbs heavier than a -C empty, and the EX has a MTOW that is 13,000lbs higher than a -C.

The number of NGADs to buy that is getting kicked around is about 200 manned airframes, plus however many CCAs they make. I think that's a poor call, but that's the current number. I'd want more like 400-500 NGADs, to replace the F15s and F22s numbers-wise. But what's likely to happen is that all the F15s and F22s get sent to Europe, while the NGADs are for the Pacific.

Stealthy tanker drones are for the F35s first.
 
To repeat that:

My guesstimates for NGAD and FAXX:

Reasoning:
NGAD can have a huge range without compromising performance because their engines are making 45klbs thrust each and burn 25% less fuel than F135s do, at the same time. With that much engine power, the NGAD can take off at 110,000lbs MTOW with 40,000+lbs of fuel onboard. Even the F111B only carried 23klbs fuel (and had a range of 1830nmi). 110k MTOW and 40something-k fuel, with 90klbs thrust means that it will have a power:weight ratio of 1:1 at a range of about 1700nmi and a total combat range of about 3400nmi (based on F111B range with 23klbs fuel).

NGAD
MTOW: 110,000lbs
Fuel load: 40-50klbs
weapons load: ~4000lbs Air to Air (10x AMRAAM and 4x Sidewinders), ~10klbs air to ground
Empty weight: ~50klbs
Predicted Combat RADIUS: ~1700nmi.


The USN FAXX will presumably use the same engines, but has a MTOW limit of about 88klbs due to the catapult limits. So it'll have a T:W of 1:1 at takeoff. Recovery weight I'm guesstimating at about 55klbs (IIRC that's the arresting gear limits, from conversations about F14s carrying 6x Phoenix). The good news is that current air to air missiles are light, so a load of 10x AMRAAMs and 2x Sidewinders is ~3750lbs. Which puts empty weight about 45klbs, landing with ~6000lbs of fuel left in the jet and ~4000lbs of weapons. Fuel load? ~29,000lbs.

F/A-XX
MTOW: ~88,000lbs
Fuel: ~29,000lbs
Weapons: ~4,000lbs Air to Air, ~10klbs air to ground
Empty weight: ~45,000lbs
Predicted Combat RADIUS: ~900-1000nmi
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Once the US Navy have the UCAS-D in service the massive increase in sortie effectiveness thanks to endurance should make it clear to even the most blighted pro-pilot perspective that their is no future for manned combat aircraft. That is even without factoring in the huge cost savings of having no need for any peactime flying training.
Click to expand...
If you aren’t doing any peacetime flying then where are the people who refuel, rearm and maintain your UCAS going to come from to deliver these sorties, and how will they know what they are doing?

Who is going to be operating the airfield and how will they know what they are doing, and so on for the entire systemic pyramid it takes to put an aircraft in the sky and do something with it?

How are we going to know what is acceptable degradation (i.e. if it can go up or not, and what should be done so it can) in terms of anything from performance to avionics to structure if we arent using them? Where does the usage data that underpins the airworthiness decisions that are fundamebtal to safe operation of aircraft, going to come from?

UAS now fly a lot of the time in peace because they are just a cog in a bigger military machine that needs them to turn so it can train, why would that change?

Equipment is most reliable when it is being used. “Break glass to deploy” is a well known recipie for “break glass and nothing happens. If indeed it is there at all”.

I do this for a living btw, I’d love to engineer out pilots but I have to admit having flying time myself, what they can do in the air is incredible and being neck deep in aviation software these days it is clear to me that AI, ML and any other alphabet soup is not going to replace the buggers in the cockput - although they shouldn’t be able to run or decide anything on the ground. What the next gen will do is further cement the pilot as a system operator and decision maker vs a stick monkey. Already the case a lot of the time for Typhoon/F35 vs legacy, but I know someone who “flew” their F16 on autopilot the entire time and put their capacity into managing the tactical situation. They were regarded as an aberation (albeit brilliant at leading!) a decade ago but not now.

The whole “its all BVR” meme misses that you can end up in a traditional fight through failures and RoE limitations. Platforms which can’t win that are no use, just as an all SAM based air defence force, as predicted by Sandy’s, was fatally flawed because it could only do one thing - shoot something down but didnt really know what that something was, what it was doing or what had happened to it, land if shooting something down wasn’t the answer it was near useless.

Air defence, let alone offence, is a much broader set of tasks and the lesson of history is that flexibility is the key to victory. A human on the spot in something that can manoeuvre buys you that, a higher performance Predator doesnt. History is littered with losers, and winners who paid a high price, because they lacked flexibility.
 
Scott Kenny said:
NGAD can have a huge range without compromising performance because their engines are making 45klbs thrust each and burn 25% less fuel than F135s do, at the same time. With that much engine power, the NGAD can take off at 110,000lbs MTOW with 40,000+lbs of fuel onboard. Even the F111B only carried 23klbs fuel (and had a range of 1830nmi). 110k MTOW and 40something-k fuel, with 90klbs thrust means that it will have a power:weight ratio of 1:1 at a range of about 1700nmi and a total combat range of about 3400nmi (based on F111B range with 23klbs fuel).

NGAD
MTOW: 110,000lbs
Fuel load: 40-50klbs
weapons load: ~4000lbs Air to Air (10x AMRAAM and 4x Sidewinders), ~10klbs air to ground
Empty weight: ~50klbs
Predicted Combat RADIUS: ~1700nmi.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to create a 3D model of your proposal to explore if the volume required for weapons, fuel, engines, intake ducting, systems, etc. would actually result in a feasible aircraft (concept)... Tempting.

Btw, can you elaborate what mission profile is assumed for the 1700 nmi combat radius?
E.g.:
f-20_air_superiority.gif
 
Last edited:
VTOLicious said:
It would be interesting to create a 3D model of your proposal to explore if the volume required for weapons, fuel, engines, intake ducting, systems, etc. would actually result in a feasible aircraft (concept)... Tempting.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see it, I don't have the 3d modeling skills (or hardware)...


VTOLicious said:
Btw, can you elaborate what mission profile is assumed for the 1700 nmi combat radius?
E.g.:
View attachment 726846
Click to expand...
I was assuming the same flight profile/heights as the F22, just longer distances. But otherwise, about what's on that image.
 
GeorgeA said:
Remember that the NGAD and FA-XX engine will be either the GE XA102 or the P&W XA103, not the AETP-derived GE XA100. The XA102 and XA103 will be sized differently than the XA100.

www.airandspaceforces.com

Air Force Propulsion Czar: NGAD Engines Will Have Different Size, Similar Tech to AETP

The NGAD fighter's engines will be a different size than the AETP engines prototyped by GE and Pratt & Whitney, but the tech will transfer.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...
They're still talking about the engines being 45klb class.
 
what_is_that said:
Do you have a cite for that, and is this dry or wet?
Click to expand...
AETP program goals. 10% more thrust with 25% better fuel efficiency than F135, 45klb class.

I'm assuming that's wet/afterburning, because otherwise we're talking about an engine making some 80-90klbs in afterburner if it's a turbofan making 45klbs dry!
 
Scott Kenny said:
AETP program goals. 10% more thrust with 25% better fuel efficiency than F135, 45klb class.

I'm assuming that's wet/afterburning, because otherwise we're talking about an engine making some 80-90klbs in afterburner if it's a turbofan making 45klbs dry!
Click to expand...
We know that NGAP is a different size that AETP, which most publications take to be smaller - sized for a two engine plane. If F119 is 35K class (wet), then I'd expect around 40K for the NGAP. Of course it could be bigger, since most think we're looking at a larger airframe. It could end up being a monster indeed.
 
Scott Kenny said:
AETP program goals. 10% more thrust with 25% better fuel efficiency than F135, 45klb class.

I'm assuming that's wet/afterburning, because otherwise we're talking about an engine making some 80-90klbs in afterburner if it's a turbofan making 45klbs dry!
Click to expand...
When they say 10% more thrust, they mean for a given weight of engine. It doesn't necessarily mean the baseline size is the F135. The mission profile(s) will determine the optimum size of the engine. So, if the T/W ratio of the F135 is 10 (because it's an easy number), then the NGAD engine will have a thrust to weight ratio of 11.
 
Scott Kenny said:
AETP program goals. 10% more thrust with 25% better fuel efficiency than F135, 45klb class.

I'm assuming that's wet/afterburning, because otherwise we're talking about an engine making some 80-90klbs in afterburner if it's a turbofan making 45klbs dry!
Click to expand...
AETP begat the XA100. NGAD engines have similar three-stream adaptive turbofan technology but are a different design (per the Air Force mag article I linked).
 
what_is_that said:
We know that NGAP is a different size that AETP, which most publications take to be smaller - sized for a two engine plane. If F119 is 35K class (wet), then I'd expect around 40K for the NGAP. Of course it could be bigger, since most think we're looking at a larger airframe. It could end up being a monster indeed.
Click to expand...
Except that F135 is also a 45klb class engine, makes about 43k wet (41k for the STOVL version).

And IIRC there was a discussion about sticking F135s into F22s (the mooted F22/F35 hybrid for Japan). To be honest, I'm surprised that hasn't been pushed yet, unless the F135 is not as good for supercruising.

What's been said here about the size of the NGAD tech demonstrators is that they're at least Flanker sized. And of course need range for the Pacific, which drives sizes up.

So I'm fully expecting something Flanker or F111 sized. 110klbs MTOW for the USAF version.



Avimimus said:
F-111 replacement?
Click to expand...
F15Es, which replaced F-111s, will need replacement at some point, with a max life of 16,000 hours assuming a major depot overhaul/rebuild at 8,000 hours. In 2012, the average F15E had 6000hrs over 20-21 years service, flying roughly 300hrs/yr. By 2019, they should have reached 8000 hours and needed to start their depot overhauls. So they'll have flight life left till ~2055.

But I don't think they're going to be viable for interdiction missions then. No airframe that isn't stealthy is likely to be viable for interdiction missions.

And the F35 has very limited payload while retaining stealth. 8x SDBs, or 1x AARGM and 1x 2000lb, or whatever.

So I expect the USAF NGAD to be able to carry 10,000lbs of boom, maybe more. 4x2000lb bombs plus 2x AARGM-ER plus 2x AMRAAMs. Not that it's primarily going to be an interdictor, just that the planes are too expensive to not design in volume for air to ground capacity. Primary mission is carrying something like 10x AMRAAM/AIM260 and 4x AIM9X.
 
Josh_TN said:
I suspect in the future that UAVs take over most of these roles.
Click to expand...
Maybe?

The USAF isn't looking at ground attack for any of their CCA missions right now. You'd be looking at a fairly large airframe to carry 10k+lbs of boom for 3000nmi, so it'd be less attritable. By the time you get to B21 sized aircraft, removing the cockpit and all the habitability pieces doesn't really save you any weight or money.

And I'm also setting aside the nuclear command-and-control issues that may be proving challenging for a ground attack CCA.

  • UAVs for persistent ISR are already happening and have been for years, the question is merely one of how stealthy they are.
  • UAVs for more air-to-air weapons capacity are in the works. They're not capable of maneuvering like a fighter yet, though. I suspect stressing them to +-9gees or more will raise the price beyond the point of attritability.
  • UAVs for tankers are in process.
  • UAVs for EW have kinda been in use for a long time, but they've mostly been one-time-use like Quail or TALD/ITALD/MALD. It'd be nice to be able to recover all those expensive jammer boxes like the EA18Gs have.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom