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

So... in terms of official NGAD, F/A-XX, and F-X concepts... are there any I'm missing?

Also - does anyone know of an attempt to draw profiles of the existing concepts? Or is everyone waiting until after the official competition completes? I haven't found any yet.
3 & 4 are not official ones

Makes sense. That particular tailless canard layout always felt wrong to me.

This one is my personal favourite

I always liked that layout - the McDD/Northrop/BAe JSF and Checkmate... but for a sixth generation design I'm hoping for a pure tailless/flying-wing design. This is one of the few places where the requirements and funding might be sufficient to produce a supersonic flying wing.

So... in terms of official NGAD, F/A-XX, and F-X concepts... are there any I'm missing?

The two from Lockheed (I think they've come out with two though there could be more). More if you want to include the art floated around by the likes of Raytheon, BAE and others.
Never worked out this one, posted as NG NGAD on ATS awhile back and no one commented on it.
Also - does anyone know of an attempt to draw profiles of the existing concepts? Or is everyone waiting until after the official competition completes? I haven't found any yet.

Thanks for the replies!
 
They speak about a modified and modernised F-22 for NGAD, is it a sign that Lockheed is the contractor ?
 
I think the author is just misinformed; the quote below is just silly given that stealth, payload capacity and range better than the F-22's are critical for the USAF's NGAD program, with the effort required to retrofit the F-22's design for these requirements being comparable to a clean-sheet effort (possibly even greater as at least a clean-sheet gives you more freedom):
The F-22 will transition to the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter. NGAD will use the F-22 airframe, but will add better technology and sensors.
 
Perhaps an indicator, Boeing acquired the F-18 after all. I know, simplified but the main point is valid.
 
I think the author is just misinformed; the quote below is just silly given that stealth, payload capacity and range better than the F-22's are critical for the USAF's NGAD program, with the effort required to retrofit the F-22's design for these requirements being comparable to a clean-sheet effort (possibly even greater as at least a clean-sheet gives you more freedom):
The F-22 will transition to the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter. NGAD will use the F-22 airframe, but will add better technology and sensors.

Pretty sure that the author either misunderstood, or an editor mangled it.

Here's Air Force Magazine writing about the same speech:

USAF wants to modernize the F-22 Raptor until the Next Generation Air Dominance platform comes online;
 
They speak about a modified and modernised F-22 for NGAD, is it a sign that Lockheed is the contractor ?
I predicted it more than 2 months ago, when they started talking about first and second iteration of NGAD, European theater NGAD not really needing so much range, them having a flying demonstrator already and so on. They are going to cover up the urgent replacement of USAF's 5G and the development of 6G proper under the guise of NGAD and digital engineering's fast development cycle, so they get two programs approved with the political excuse of developing just one. It is a nice PR effort, but they have become predictable.
 
They speak about a modified and modernised F-22 for NGAD, is it a sign that Lockheed is the contractor ?
I predicted it more than 2 months ago, when they started talking about first and second iteration of NGAD, European theater NGAD not really needing so much range, them having a flying demonstrator already and so on. They are going to cover up the urgent replacement of USAF's 5G and the development of 6G proper under the guise of NGAD and digital engineering's fast development cycle, so they get two programs approved with the political excuse of developing just one. It is a nice PR effort, but they have become predictable.
Ah but why did the USAF not restart the 22 line 5 years ago when they came up with the 55B figure to build 200 modernized raptors? It seemed the 55B made it a nonstarter.
 
'Progressing Per Plan' does not preclude pancaking into the ground at high speed, unfortunately.
 
Ah but why did the USAF not restart the 22 line 5 years ago when they came up with the 55B figure to build 200 modernized raptors? It seemed the 55B made it a nonstarter.
Back then the priority was to avoid threatening F-35, but it was clear from the beginning that F-22 needs attention and is the most logical basis for improving USAF's air superiority capabilities. They can use the name and approach they want, be it restarting the production line with some upgrades, the F-22/F-35 hybrid or a first iteration NGAD, they need to do something, and do it rather quick.

Digital engineering is here to stay, so the new working methods will be used but what is in discussion is whether the platforms are going to be cycled in reduced periods, right? It is unsurprising that CAPE sees the costs of that not being cheaper but actually more expensive, it looked rather an excuse to justify the two iteration approach to NGAD than a valid argument.
 
Very interesting though unlikely to have been a pole model of a working design. No way would they be that sloppy. Could be an intentional leak.
A highly classified test program yet they cannot afford a tarpaulin to throw over a test model. Seems unlikely.
 
Very interesting though unlikely to have been a pole model of a working design. No way would they be that sloppy. Could be an intentional leak.
A highly classified test program yet they cannot afford a tarpaulin to throw over a test model. Seems unlikely.
Don’t underestimate general incompetence
 
Very interesting though unlikely to have been a pole model of a working design. No way would they be that sloppy. Could be an intentional leak.
A highly classified test program yet they cannot afford a tarpaulin to throw over a test model. Seems unlikely.
Don’t underestimate general incompetence
Or just blow mind of China with lost picture :D I don't believe it is on Tik Tok for mistake
 
Ah but why did the USAF not restart the 22 line 5 years ago when they came up with the 55B figure to build 200 modernized raptors? It seemed the 55B made it a nonstarter.
Back then the priority was to avoid threatening F-35, but it was clear from the beginning that F-22 needs attention and is the most logical basis for improving USAF's air superiority capabilities. They can use the name and approach they want, be it restarting the production line with some upgrades, the F-22/F-35 hybrid or a first iteration NGAD, they need to do something, and do it rather quick.

Digital engineering is here to stay, so the new working methods will be used but what is in discussion is whether the platforms are going to be cycled in reduced periods, right? It is unsurprising that CAPE sees the costs of that not being cheaper but actually more expensive, it looked rather an excuse to justify the two iteration approach to NGAD than a valid argument.
I have been around long enough to remember designing cars the old fashioned way. Digital engineering still takes 3 years to design and build a passenger vehicle. It never got us down to the 2 year wet dream. And actually its a little more than 3 years because of powertrain development. I would say digital engineering shaved 20% time. That's it. I imagine with military aircraft its about the same. I will also say that digital engineering has enormously complicated lengthy security protocols that actually make it worse than the old days from the 90s. Digital engineering isn't a panacea.
 

Using new digital methods to design a future Air Force fighter costs more than the traditional approach, but subsequent iterations could be done faster and less expensively, senior Air Force officials said Sept. 22. They also cautioned that the “Digital Century Series” is not synonymous with the Next Generation Air Dominance program and that no decision has been made about whether to take the approach on an NGAD successor.

The results of the Air Force’s business case analysis of the Digital Century Series approach to combat aircraft design differs from that developed by the Pentagon’s Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation shop, top uniformed USAF acquisition official Lt. Gen. Duke Z. Richardson told reporters Sept. 22. The CAPE’s numbers were higher than the Air Force’s but were highly subjective anyway, he said, because assumptions play a central role in defining costs.

“The differences … are in assumptions about [operations and sustainment] costs, and O&S cost avoidance,” Richardson said. “Another one is in the area of O&S cost growth; in other words, how much you project … the sustainment costs [will be], including manpower. The third area would be the time period of analysis.” The results of any business case analysis are “really sensitive to those assumptions,” he added, and “the assumptions are hard to make; … where do you stop? A traditional program might be on a 30-year-plus cycle, whereas the Digital Century Series system might be on a 16-year cycle. So these are multiples of each other.”

The Digital Century Series was a coinage of former Air Force acquisition executive Will Roper, who suggested that quick-turn design and production of new combat aircraft every few years—produced in lots of 50-100 before being superseded by the next design—would keep the fleet fresh and hold down sustainment costs, because the aircraft would be rapidly retired when their technology grew stale.

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told Air Force Magazine that Roper’s ideas of what could be saved with the Digital Century Series were “highly optimistic” and agreed that CAPE’s estimate was higher than the Air Force’s, but the two organizations also applied different assumptions about the sustainment period. The CAPE’s analysis was that traditional methods cost “about 10 percent less” than digital. But digital allowed a quicker revisit of the design, and future iterations were less costly, he said.

Richardson acknowledged that CAPE’s cost estimates were higher, but added that the exercise wasn’t without value.

The Digital Century Series approach was “not an order of magnitude more expensive” than traditional methods, Richardson said. Roper’s approach also aimed to “keep the industrial base active and refreshed, being in the … design phase all the time.” There’s a “performance bump-up you get if you’re constantly refreshing your platforms. So, we think it has merit … We’re not flushing it.”

The CAPE results verified “that there’s merit to the idea,” he said. “What I like about the Digital Century Series approach—and the way we’re approaching [the Next-Generation Air Dominance program]—is that there’s always an option of doing that. That’s the beauty of it. It’s a few years out … The good news is, it’s not a decision we would need to make right away, but those assumptions do drive a lot of the results.”

In the near term, “we continue to focus on that first NGAD ‘mission design series,’ if you will, and we’ll make that other decision later.” Richardson noted, “The threat gets a vote, and also I would guess that if we were to start that second series, we would certainly look at the threat and … whether the threat warranted starting a second series early.”

To be frank, I’m not quite convinced that the “Digital Century Series” is the right approach, especially the Century Series part. From the perspective of logistics and support, it may be very difficult or expensive to operate so many disparate aircraft types, especially when USAF’s goal is to reduce the number of aircraft types in order to rein in costs. I can understand trying to emulate the rapid development of aircraft types that’s associated with the Century Series, but a digital engineering repeat of that? Eh, have my doubts.
 
Last edited:
To be frank, I’m not quite convinced that the “Digital Century Series” is the right approach, especially the Century Series part. From the perspective of logistics and support, it may be very difficult or expensive to operate so many disparate aircraft types, especially when USAF’s goal is to reduce the number of aircraft types in order to rein in costs. I can understand trying to emulate the rapid development of aircraft types that’s associated with the Century Series, but a digital engineering repeat of that? Eh, have my doubts.

What approach would you suggest for an adversary that will be much more well funded and educated than the Soviet Union was? At some point China's investments in STEM will result in an explosion in modernization/R&D, we're behind on that front (STEM investment), so being able to rapidly develop aircraft to maintain an asymmetric advantage is paramount.

Edit: The cost effective talking point I don't think is feasible for what they are proposing, given the extreme unpredictability of the future in regards to US & China.
 
Last edited:
To be frank, I’m not quite convinced that the “Digital Century Series” is the right approach, especially the Century Series part. From the perspective of logistics and support, it may be very difficult or expensive to operate so many disparate aircraft types, especially when USAF’s goal is to reduce the number of aircraft types in order to rein in costs. I can understand trying to emulate the rapid development of aircraft types that’s associated with the Century Series, but a digital engineering repeat of that? Eh, have my doubts.

What approach would you suggest for an adversary that will be much more well funded and educated than the Soviet Union was? At some point China's investments in STEM will result in an explosion in modernization/R&D, we're behind on that front (STEM investment), so being able to rapidly develop aircraft to maintain an asymmetric advantage is paramount.

Edit: The cost effective talking point I don't think is feasible for what they are proposing, given the extreme unpredictability of the future in regards to US & China.
I think the way that the LRS-B was conducted under the Rapid Capabilities Office provides a better model to follow in terms of more quickly fielding a new platform. Admittedly the RCO is largely a way to sidestep much of the DOD’s procurement bureaucracy and gives more freedom to the program, but I think that may be what’s needed at this point.
 
The digital century series approach as explained by the USAF at the time (my understanding) wasn't just about rapidly fielding a program (what the RCO may do on certain programs) but also about having multiple designs in development and ready to enter production so that design teams get multiple shots instead of designing for the mission once competing and then not going back to that mission for another few decades.

The lack of competition is getting out of hand on several fronts and the focus on COIN only made it worst. Raytheon has a virtual monopoly on anything that goes inside a Navy VL cell. Lockheed is the only 5th gen game in town. It wasn't until 2015 that we competed an air to air missile (since the 1980s) and we still haven't competed a WVR weapon for nearly half a century. The DCS was also about making design associated IR&D viable.. If you know you have a shot at production every 5-8 years you may have large and well funded design teams. At least that's what I thought they were trying to solve via that approach.

But the tagline of new fighter every 5 years and a wings worth of production each is probably what made it a lot less cost effective than what it could have been. To get to that five year/new design entering production phase probably requires billions to spool up industrial design capacity. And it also doesn't solve the problem of sustaining disparate small fleets (partly why the AF wants to retire the F-22 as soon as NGAD is ready to take over). Organizational culture also likely plays into this. The USAF is taking longer than five years to operationalize the F-15 EX (FY-20 decision, and FY24-25 IOC) which isn't even a completely new design. So even if you can design and produce something new in five years, the AF may not be able to absorb it effectively into its operational fleet without some serious cultural shift.

This type of approach may work better on unmanned and on weapons.
 
Last edited:
I don't see the digital century series as being something that will really work for manned aircraft, but on the other hand I could easily see that working for UAVs. Think how many different drones of different sizes could be off the shelf plug ins for the NGAD program, so long as you worked with a common control software (something the USAF is doing under skybord)?
 
Yes exactly, and the added benefit of that is that you don't need to be a huge prime to be competitive. You can either be a relatively small design shop and partner for production, or be a small-medium sized company. Kratos, Blue Force et al can play in that space and still be competitive with the LM's, Boeing's and NG's of the world.
 
To be frank, I’m not quite convinced that the “Digital Century Series” is the right approach, especially the Century Series part. From the perspective of logistics and support, it may be very difficult or expensive to operate so many disparate aircraft types, especially when USAF’s goal is to reduce the number of aircraft types in order to rein in costs. I can understand trying to emulate the rapid development of aircraft types that’s associated with the Century Series, but a digital engineering repeat of that? Eh, have my doubts.

What approach would you suggest for an adversary that will be much more well funded and educated than the Soviet Union was? At some point China's investments in STEM will result in an explosion in modernization/R&D, we're behind on that front (STEM investment), so being able to rapidly develop aircraft to maintain an asymmetric advantage is paramount.

Edit: The cost effective talking point I don't think is feasible for what they are proposing, given the extreme unpredictability of the future in regards to US & China.
Imagine China takes Taiwan and then says to the West, "no more chips for you".
 
Sadly, the race in airframe capabilities is there to stay. The advantages that was fielded with the introduction of the F-4E in the ME, the F-15 & F-14 or the F-16 and F-22 were real and way beyond the small number of aircraft initially put into service. See what the small fleet of F-22 can achieve today. See what Eagles and Falcons did over the Beqaa valley.

With a focus on great power competition, loss rate will become paramount since length of conflict will be cut short (fire power and industry capability to restore lost capacity). Hence, IMOHO, a small fleet of advanced airframe able to dominate the fight will impart an effect well beyond their small number, inducing losses an order of magnitude over their loss and opening determining gaps in a competitor defense (think at the increased lethality of systems today).

The drawback is that we live an age where the cycle of innovation has drastically shortened and, especially, if we speak about China at war (there is no reason today to not expect a similar improvement in effectiveness as what was witnessed with the USA during WWII). If then we admit that everyone should target that capability to produce advanced fighters and aircraft that could have a transformational effect on the battlefield, the shortened cycles lead to reduced numbers at each iteration.

The Century vision famously shared by W. Roper is not an artifice or a philosophy. It's an effect.
 
Imagine China takes Taiwan and then says to the West, "no more chips for you".
The US has the tech to set up manufacturing here, although it would take a lot of time and money spent. But more to the point, I honestly don't think the US would allow that to happen - at a minimum, I think they'd blast the infrastructure of Taiwan's chip industry if they couldn't defend it.
 
What approach would you suggest for an adversary that will be much more well funded and educated than the Soviet Union was? At some point China's investments in STEM will result in an explosion in modernization/R&D, we're behind on that front (STEM investment), so being able to rapidly develop aircraft to maintain an asymmetric advantage is paramount.
That is a logical contradiction, because more STEM graduates and effort in China will result in faster, more disruptive digital engineering being implemented over there, it is not as if only US can use that, while the rest are locked in the classical approach. For instance, Sukhoi states that they have just designed the LTS in roughly one year, so by now the cat is out of the bag and everyone is going to use those new methods as intensively as they can.
 
Last edited:
That is a logical contradiction, because more STEM graduates and effort in China will result in faster, more disruptive digital engineering being implemented over there, it is not as if only US can use that, while the rest are locked in the classical approach. For instance, Sukhoi states that they have just designed the LTS in roughly one year, so by now the cat is out of the bag and everyone is going to use those new methods as intensively as they can.

I don't know about logical contradiction, I think it's going to be a very competitive environment on both sides of the ocean. And chances are, what we see publicly will already be yesterday's news as both work to maintain an advantage over one another. The only ones who will be left at the mercy of the classical approach will be smaller players like the EU or Russia.
 
Sukhoi states that they have just designed the LTS in roughly one year, so by now the cat is out of the bag and everyone is going to use those new methods as intensively as they can.
Sure they may have designed it one year but I bet they haven't written line of software code in one year or shrunk the certification process and paperwork to have it flown and in the hands of service pilots within another year.

The Digital Century series allegedly has a prototype that was built/produced in record time but we haven't seen it and we don't know if it exists as hardware or on someone's cloud storage. The quotes by US officials have been vague with references like "We still have to make it real, and there’s a lot to do in the program."

There is no doubt design and certification is speeding up, but there is going to be some kind of minimum possible time limit. Even 5 years can be a big gulf in technology by the time it leaves the CAD system and enters front line service. If you just miss incorporating 'Breakthrough Tech X' you still have another 5 year wait until NGAD Mk.2 arrives on the flightline. As others have said, it may work much better for unmanned aircraft.
 
The only ones who will be left at the mercy of the classical approach will be smaller players like the EU or Russia.
Russia has been the first to officially present an aircraft designed using digital engineering, just saying...

At the end of the day these technologies allow to save time and money in the development of platforms, so the result may be that more players may be enabled in a business which is rather restrictive today.

Sure they may have designed it one year but I bet they haven't written line of software code in one year or shrunk the certification process and paperwork to have it flown and in the hands of service pilots within another year.
Sure, there are aspects that can be optimized and others not so much. A low risk approach is to develop based on components and systems that have already been validated by the classical method like in LTS/Su-57, so virtual methods find a very strong backing of real world data for validation. But I think many other steps of the development process will still need to be done and cannot really see how low rate production of different models of different suppliers is going to be cheaper, if all you could argue an evolutionary approach could benefit greatly of these technologies, but not when systems and airframes with different origins are used. And of course, the logistics / training / sustainment of such a fleet does not promise anything good.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom