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


The service requested $1.65 billion for the Next Generation Air Dominance program, a boost of about $133 million that mostly pays for advanced sensors and resilient communications gear associated with the sixth-generation fighter, Peccia said. The service also included $113 million for “advanced collaborative platforms” — the Air Force’s latest jargon for “Loyal Wingman” style drones that will augment NGAD and the B-21.

It contains $354 million for the Advanced Engine Development program, which includes $286 million for the Adaptive Engine Technology Program and $66 million for the Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion effort.
 
On the Navy’s side of the house.


THE PENTAGON – The Navy is spending more money to develop its sixth-generation fighter program but is keeping the costs classified for the third year in a row, the service said on Monday.

For the last three budget cycles, the Navy has classified the research and development dollars it’s spending on Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) and service officials have provided few details about the program due to the classification. The Fiscal Year 2023 proposal, unveiled Monday, lists NGAD under the aircraft section of its research and development efforts without dollar figures.

“Although NGAD is a classified line, investments do go up over the [Future Years Defense Program] somewhat dramatically for NGAD,” Rear Adm. John Gumbleton, the Navy’s deputy assistant secretary for budget, told reporters during a Monday briefing. Gumbleton was referring to the Pentagon’s five-year budget outlook.

Asked how the Navy justifies the classification and how the service will make the case to the taxpayer that it needs the money despite not revealing the specific cost, Gumbleton said Capitol Hill is looped in on the numbers.

“Our folks on the Hill who monitor this program and approve those budgets are read into these programs and they have full access to understand what we’re requesting and what they cost,” he said.

Pressed on why the program is classified, Gumbleton referred USNI News to the NGAD program manager.

Naval Air Systems Command, where the NGAD program office resides, did not immediately respond to a list of questions from USNI News.

The Navy last disclosed spending lines for NGAD in its FY 2020 budget books, asking for approximately $20.7 million in research and development dollars for the initiative at the time. That year’s budget books projected dollar figures throughout the FYDP, with the amount increasing each fiscal year. At the time, the Navy projected it would ask for $55.05 million in FY 2021, $111.26 in FY 2022, $255.59 in FY 2023, and $371.9 million in FY 2024 for NGAD.

While Navy officials have said little about the NGAD program, the service has acknowledged it will be a family of both manned and unmanned systems centered around a manned fighter, or F/A-XX.

“Bottom line is we see a threat out there that requires capabilities that we do not currently posses, from signature and speed and range capabilities. And so the sixth-generation program is built to solve those problems,” Rear Adm. Andrew Loiselle, who leads the chief of naval operation’s air warfare directorate (OPNAV N98), told USNI News in a December interview.

Loiselle described NGAD as a “highly classified” program, but could not say how long it would be classified.

“I can’t really answer that question. I don’t have a number,” he said at the time. “I would anticipate it’s going to be highly classified for quite some time.”

The Pentagon has kept parts of other fighter programs – like the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter – classified, but it’s rare to classify spending lines.The Air Force’s F-117 Nighthawk program – developed in the 1970s – and the early effort for the Navy’s A-12 Avenger II attack aircraft, which was canceled in the 1990s, were both classified.

The Navy needs NGAD to come online in the 2030s so the family of systems can replace the earliest F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers when they are set to reach the end of their service lives.

In addition to NGAD, the Navy is also developing its next-generation destroyer, or DDG(X), to succeed the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and its next-generation attack submarine, or SSN(X), to succeed the Virginia-class boats. The service is seeking $196 million in research and development funding for DDG(X) in FY 2023 and $237 million for SSN(X).

Aviation Week's reporting from Steve Trimble suggests that the Navy's NGAD/F/A-XX is not as ambitious as the Air Force's.

The U.S. Navy plans to ramp up spending for the classified Next Generation Air Dominance Family of Systems (NGAD) over the next six years, a U.S. Navy official said March 28.

Research and development funding “goes up fairly significantly” through fiscal 2027, says Rear Adm. John Gumbleton, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for Budget.

Gumbleton’s remarks offer a rare glimpse into the Navy’s secret funding plans for the program that intends to replace the Boeing F/A-18E/F fleet in the 2030s.

The Navy previously disclosed the program’s long-term spending plans, but then started classifying that information three years ago.

As of May 2019, Navy officials said they were seeking a new tactical aircraft with different characteristics than sought by the Air Force’s version of NGAD. While the Air Force’s plans called for a penetrating aircraft, the Navy’s requirements did not include an aircraft stealthy enough to penetrate highly contested airspace.

The Navy’s version of the NGAD family is expected to operate alongside the Lockheed Martin F-35C.

Honestly, I think we should have separate threads for the Air Force and Navy NGAD programs. It’s clear that despite the identical names, they’re distinct programs of record.
 
Last edited:
IIRC AF NGAD was to be like F-22 to B-2, an air supremacy platform for B-21.

A case needs to be made on how to handle SEAD and EW. In an A2AD environment is this likely to be handled by F-16's and growlers?

Is there enough advancement in sensor fusion and EW software to offload this capability by reduced workload to variants of unmanned, stealthy (and subsonic), SEAD/EW versions of bomb trucks pre-positioned to accompany a single seat NGAD or perhaps an EW variant of the two seat B-21? For example, instead of sending 50 SEAD jets, can I send 9 piloted jets and 41 or more unmanned, stealthy SEAD bomb trucks carrying decoys, drones, and HARM's? For EW, can I send 3 EW versions of the B-21 airframe and 9 or more unmanned, stealthy EW trucks?

If possible, it seems like this would provide range, loiter, and magazine capacity while reducing the likelihood of loosing pilots in difficult territory. Standardization makes it possible to build many, many unmanned, stealthy bomb trucks, reducing cost and resulting in more persistent pressure on your adversary's air defense, allowing them less time to recover. The manned aircraft can be staggered in and out of the fight while the unmanned trucks keep coming. I could see Navy F-35Cs providing HAVCAP missions for a constant stream of unmanned, stealthy bomb trucks. The SEAD manned aircraft might even be augmented by forward deployed F-35Bs. This may result in, qualitatively, more sorties and be advantageous when dealing with a large adversary.
 
IIRC AF NGAD was to be like F-22 to B-2, an air supremacy platform for B-21.

A case needs to be made on how to handle SEAD and EW. In an A2AD environment is this likely to be handled by F-16's and growlers?

Is there enough advancement in sensor fusion and EW software to offload this capability by reduced workload to variants of unmanned, stealthy (and subsonic), SEAD/EW versions of bomb trucks pre-positioned to accompany a single seat NGAD or perhaps an EW variant of the two seat B-21? For example, instead of sending 50 SEAD jets, can I send 9 piloted jets and 41 or more unmanned, stealthy SEAD bomb trucks carrying decoys, drones, and HARM's? For EW, can I send 3 EW versions of the B-21 airframe and 9 or more unmanned, stealthy EW trucks?

If possible, it seems like this would provide range, loiter, and magazine capacity while reducing the likelihood of loosing pilots in difficult territory. Standardization makes it possible to build many, many unmanned, stealthy bomb trucks, reducing cost and resulting in more persistent pressure on your adversary's air defense, allowing them less time to recover. The manned aircraft can be staggered in and out of the fight while the unmanned trucks keep coming. I could see Navy F-35Cs providing HAVCAP missions for a constant stream of unmanned, stealthy bomb trucks. The SEAD manned aircraft might even be augmented by forward deployed F-35Bs. This may result in, qualitatively, more sorties and be advantageous when dealing with a large adversary.
There is an AARGM-ER in the works for internal carry and also various MALD options, including one with a warhead in the works I think.
 
On the Navy’s side of the house.


THE PENTAGON – The Navy is spending more money to develop its sixth-generation fighter program but is keeping the costs classified for the third year in a row, the service said on Monday.

For the last three budget cycles, the Navy has classified the research and development dollars it’s spending on Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) and service officials have provided few details about the program due to the classification. The Fiscal Year 2023 proposal, unveiled Monday, lists NGAD under the aircraft section of its research and development efforts without dollar figures.

“Although NGAD is a classified line, investments do go up over the [Future Years Defense Program] somewhat dramatically for NGAD,” Rear Adm. John Gumbleton, the Navy’s deputy assistant secretary for budget, told reporters during a Monday briefing. Gumbleton was referring to the Pentagon’s five-year budget outlook.

Asked how the Navy justifies the classification and how the service will make the case to the taxpayer that it needs the money despite not revealing the specific cost, Gumbleton said Capitol Hill is looped in on the numbers.

“Our folks on the Hill who monitor this program and approve those budgets are read into these programs and they have full access to understand what we’re requesting and what they cost,” he said.

Pressed on why the program is classified, Gumbleton referred USNI News to the NGAD program manager.

Naval Air Systems Command, where the NGAD program office resides, did not immediately respond to a list of questions from USNI News.

The Navy last disclosed spending lines for NGAD in its FY 2020 budget books, asking for approximately $20.7 million in research and development dollars for the initiative at the time. That year’s budget books projected dollar figures throughout the FYDP, with the amount increasing each fiscal year. At the time, the Navy projected it would ask for $55.05 million in FY 2021, $111.26 in FY 2022, $255.59 in FY 2023, and $371.9 million in FY 2024 for NGAD.

While Navy officials have said little about the NGAD program, the service has acknowledged it will be a family of both manned and unmanned systems centered around a manned fighter, or F/A-XX.

“Bottom line is we see a threat out there that requires capabilities that we do not currently posses, from signature and speed and range capabilities. And so the sixth-generation program is built to solve those problems,” Rear Adm. Andrew Loiselle, who leads the chief of naval operation’s air warfare directorate (OPNAV N98), told USNI News in a December interview.

Loiselle described NGAD as a “highly classified” program, but could not say how long it would be classified.

“I can’t really answer that question. I don’t have a number,” he said at the time. “I would anticipate it’s going to be highly classified for quite some time.”

The Pentagon has kept parts of other fighter programs – like the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter – classified, but it’s rare to classify spending lines.The Air Force’s F-117 Nighthawk program – developed in the 1970s – and the early effort for the Navy’s A-12 Avenger II attack aircraft, which was canceled in the 1990s, were both classified.

The Navy needs NGAD to come online in the 2030s so the family of systems can replace the earliest F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers when they are set to reach the end of their service lives.

In addition to NGAD, the Navy is also developing its next-generation destroyer, or DDG(X), to succeed the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and its next-generation attack submarine, or SSN(X), to succeed the Virginia-class boats. The service is seeking $196 million in research and development funding for DDG(X) in FY 2023 and $237 million for SSN(X).

Aviation Week's reporting from Steve Trimble suggests that the Navy's NGAD/F/A-XX is not as ambitious as the Air Force's.

The U.S. Navy plans to ramp up spending for the classified Next Generation Air Dominance Family of Systems (NGAD) over the next six years, a U.S. Navy official said March 28.

Research and development funding “goes up fairly significantly” through fiscal 2027, says Rear Adm. John Gumbleton, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for Budget.

Gumbleton’s remarks offer a rare glimpse into the Navy’s secret funding plans for the program that intends to replace the Boeing F/A-18E/F fleet in the 2030s.

The Navy previously disclosed the program’s long-term spending plans, but then started classifying that information three years ago.

As of May 2019, Navy officials said they were seeking a new tactical aircraft with different characteristics than sought by the Air Force’s version of NGAD. While the Air Force’s plans called for a penetrating aircraft, the Navy’s requirements did not include an aircraft stealthy enough to penetrate highly contested airspace.

The Navy’s version of the NGAD family is expected to operate alongside the Lockheed Martin F-35C.

Honestly, I think we should have separate threads for the Air Force and Navy NGAD programs. It’s clear that despite the identical names, they’re distinct programs of record.
Looking at the dollars, that's really not very much money. Tells me that they are long long away away from flying something or they are developing a super super hornet with new wings and engines.
 
Perhaps a relevant comparison would be the ATF funding during the RFI and Dem/Val phases. Don’t have the numbers for the former on hand, but Dem/Val was completed in FY 1991 at $3.8 billion.

That said, there is certainly a vast disparity between the Navy and the Air Force in terms of their respective NGAD budgets. Again, this may point to the Navy’s F/A-XX being not as ambitious as the Air Force’s F-X/PCA; perhaps the Navy would be content with a 5.5 generation analogue of the F-14B/D. Even so, those funding numbers don’t exactly point to the Navy realistically fielding the aircraft by the 2030s.
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • sus3.jpg
    sus3.jpg
    114.6 KB · Views: 227
Perhaps a relevant comparison would be the ATF funding during the RFI and Dem/Val phases. Don’t have the numbers for the former on hand, but Dem/Val was completed in FY 1991 at $3.8 billion.

That said, there is certainly a vast disparity between the Navy and the Air Force in terms of their respective NGAD budgets. Again, this may point to the Navy’s F/A-XX being not as ambitious as the Air Force’s F-X/PCA; perhaps the Navy would be content with a 5.5 generation analogue of the F-14B/D. Even so, those funding numbers don’t exactly point to the Navy realistically fielding the aircraft by the 2030s.
I certainly think with the navy budget dollars published that they are not pursuing a 6 gen platform. I'm seriously expecting a slightly stealthier hornet with recessed missile carriage like the Korean bird. With true stealth you need a bigger airplane for internal fuel and missiles and space is cramped even in the Ford which is counter productive to airframes on the deck. With that budget you're looking at 2035 for entry into the fleet
 
What would be the earliest adoption of a UCAV type? Could that be the target type?
 
What would be the earliest adoption of a UCAV type? Could that be the target type?
If they are fielding a ucav to replace the hornets then goodbye and goodnight to NAVAIR. F35C is a slushdog for towing bombs to target and firing an aim120 along the way if needed.

A real flying cyberdyne systems model 101 is maybe 15 years out from dem val.

What i bet we're getting is a super super hornet with aim 260 and f35c flying ahead in stealth mode illuminating targets for the super super hornet.
 
Do you really need that much aircraft as a missile hauler?
 
Do you really need that much aircraft as a missile hauler?
Depends. Do you want 4 amraams like the 35 or to you want 8 like a raptor? Keep in mind the raptor is also light in fuel for naval missions. So yeah you need a big plane for internal fuel and internal aams. Have you seen the air force concepts? Do you want it to be fast as well? Then you need more fuel. If you want it fast with some super cruise ability to deal with new threats then you can't design a short pudgy 35 again and it will be long and slender for fineness ratio. In full military power at high altitude the 35 can't even break mach 1 clean. That's not the future of air superiority.
 
It might be just as useful to have a drone around carrying the weapons load and leaving the 35 as clean/light as possible. That would work with just about any updated/future airframe.
 
It might be just as useful to have a drone around carrying the weapons load and leaving the 35 as clean/light as possible. That would work with just about any updated/future airframe.


Exactly. Internal munitions as a last resort but primary weapons load from drones.

Whatever it is it's going to be expensive. Even a variant of the Global 7500 from Bombardier - 7,700 nmi range, 51,000ft ceiling, long fuselage, in production - would be between $70-100m.

Flying gas tanks are expensive.
 
Last edited:
It might be just as useful to have a drone around carrying the weapons load and leaving the 35 as clean/light as possible. That would work with just about any updated/future airframe.
That's what the original UCAS-D program was supposed to be, and a derivative of the X-47B/C could have been operational today.
But the program was turned into the questionable MQ-25.
 
F-36 it is Popular Mechanics so pre-apologies (subscription needed)

So an F-16XL then.

Whatever did happen to that Gen 4.5/5- idea that was floated last year? Dead on arrival, presumably?

 
If anything the USAF seems more focused on divesting 4th gen in favor of NGAD spending. I don't see another 4.5+ entering service now that the F-15EX is being bought. As for what the USN is cooking up, I have a hard time believing they'd go for anything less stealthy than an F-35, but I think it will be a much less ambitious project that focuses on mature technology.
 
I never got the point of the clean sheet 4.5 when you have the F-16v, F-15ex, and even potentially the super hornet. What ever benefit a clean sheet design has I can’t imagine going through the long process of getting it into service would be worth it. Buy the F-16v and F-15ex at least makes it attractive to foreign operators which is a much bigger plus having friends with modern weapons.


Shame Falcon 21 never was a thing. That really could have been close to the concept.
 
A new design will have less parts, modern and modular COTS systems. It will also have technology more in line with a 20 years old recruit.

All that is translating in lower sustainment cost, lower upgrade cost and nominal agility when it comes to adapt to new challenges.

The 4th Gen can compete, obviously, albeit by using their inherent mass effect to decrease fixed costs and seeking for a lower manpower cost. That is a direct challenge to reliability. Something, generally, of a strong point to a new design.

A new design will obviously comes with a development and procurement cost. But when an F-35 can be bought for 80M$, there is little doubts that the industry wouldn't be able to capitalize on that, for such a less advanced design, for an even lower price tag.

Now, as hinted above, F-16 upgrade have the benefits to strengthen allied resolve. F-16 are sustained all across the globe, in highly strategical area of the world. They are also the only fighter design that can reach a political consensus without the full drama of a new procurement circus.
 
Last edited:
Hi. Conceptual "CAS" vehicle, showing two different configurations, but could easily pass as NGAD too. Reminded me of the "Need for speed" art by Rob Weiss, sharing things in common like the flush canopy and artstyle. I don't think had seen these before:

As part of internal research conducted in conjunction with the AFRL EXPEDITE program, ESTECO technology was deployed to develop an optimization workflow of a notional close air support vehicle and to exercise several optimization scenarios.
1649910033245.jpeg
montero.jpg

136078-2b8b4f55e75d77ec0ebf445bc9813223.jpg


 
A new design will have less parts, modern and modular COTS systems. It will also have technology more in line with a 20 years old recruit.

All that is translating in lower sustainment cost, lower upgrade cost and nominal agility when it comes to adapt to new challenges.

The 4th Gen can compete, obviously, albeit by using their inherent mass effect to decrease fixed costs and seeking for a lower manpower cost. That is a direct challenge to reliability. Something, generally, of a strong point to a new design.

A new design will obviously comes with a development and procurement cost. But when an F-35 can be bought for 80M$, there is little doubts that the industry wouldn't be able to capitalize on that, for such a less advanced design, for an even lower price tag.

Now, as hinted above, F-16 upgrade have the benefits to strengthen allied resolve. F-16 are sustained all across the globe, in highly strategical area of the world. They are also the only fighter design that can reach a political consensus without the full drama of a new procurement circus.
The price of the 35 is going to rise with inflation. We're seeing it in automotive where parts prices are going up rapidly. So I don't know the $ of the 35 but most certainly the ones not already paid for are going to rise sharply. So the 35 might be 80 million today and for the ones in contract but that's going to change.
 
The F-35, pragmatically, thrives in a world where there are no economics barriers.

The United States is about to experience the post WWI/pre WWII period with Corporate America within the next couple years. It's the inevitable result with having a corporate enterprise so heavily invested in a foreign power.
 
The F-35, pragmatically, thrives in a world where there are no economics barriers.

The United States is about to experience the post WWI/pre WWII period with Corporate America within the next couple years. It's the inevitable result with having a corporate enterprise so heavily invested in a foreign power.
How so?
 
The F-35, pragmatically, thrives in a world where there are no economics barriers.

The United States is about to experience the post WWI/pre WWII period with Corporate America within the next couple years. It's the inevitable result with having a corporate enterprise so heavily invested in a foreign power.
How so?
Corporate America built up Germany post World War I. When Nazi Germany became more assertive pre-WW2 and into WW2, it took a lot anti-trust legislation to break that relationship apart. With China being an economic powerhouse and seeking to undermine US economic policy abroad, the F-35 program with its expansive foreign relationships is a prime target.
 
So you are claiming the F-35 partner nations will be used by China somehow?
It's not a claim, it's a fact. China has trade relationships with everyone, they can hurt or influence anyone they choose at the lowest levels of supply, which are often the overlooked factors.
 
It's not a claim, it's a fact.
I'd like to see your 'facts' in relation to the F-35 program. Supplying into this is not a simple thing and comes with many checks. In fact, i would hazard a guess that any perceived risks would impact US suppliers just as much, if not more so, any non-US suppliers.
 
The F-35, pragmatically, thrives in a world where there are no economics barriers.

On the contrary, there are economic (and even more so now, political) incentives for F-35.

The United States is about to experience the post WWI/pre WWII period with Corporate America within the next couple years.

That's an interesting thought. Politically, I've been thinking this more mimics the pre-WW1 era. Please elaborate.


It's the inevitable result with having a corporate enterprise so heavily invested in a foreign power.

We've just seen at least 500 corporations cease operations in Russia. The Russian economy will contract between 10-20% this year. This will eradicate at least 15 years of gains with perhaps another 5 years of sanctions likely still to come.

Re PRC, many manufacturers have been leaving for a decade bc of rising costs. Recent Trump-era (which Biden kept in force) tariffs and Covid have informed entire industries that manufacturing in North America and Europe offer benefits that were not readily obvious on the balance sheet.

Of the 29 semiconductor fabrication plants under construction, 21 are outside the PRC. Pegatron India is starting iPhone 13 production this month bc of the Shenzhen lockdown and Foxconn is already there. Others are likely to follow. In general, those staying with the CCP are manufacturing for the local population.

I imagine that CCP leaders are as nervous as long-tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs. If there is a set of leaders more scared of their population revolting than the Russians, it's the CCP. And they can't feed their population. What the world is witnessing in Ukraine has not yet translated to the affects of its reliance on the CCP.

I agree there is an over reliance on the CCP. Upsetting that apple cart would disrupt $6T in trade - an order of magnitude greater than Russia. Not something any politician wants to deal with. But if the CCP is perceived as assisting Russia, the world's eye may swing to the East. The body politic and the corporate enterprise you mention may remove the decision from them. In fact, you might say the shift has already begun.

It's just my opinion, but I expect F-35 is fine.
 
That's an interesting thought. Politically, I've been thinking this more mimics the pre-WW1 era. Please elaborate.

Corporate America helped build up Germany after its destruction during World War 1. When Germany began to become more assertive, Corporate America was still doing a lot of business with them and it was difficult for Washington to dissolve those relationships. Eventually it took powerful anti-trust legislation to put an end to it. We still see various industries of America heavily invested in China and fighting to protect their interests by helping fund the politicians that allow them to keep operating there.
 

'Brown brushed that notion aside, however, saying the Next Generation Air Dominance family of systems, intended to operate inside an enemy integrated air defense system (IADS), will have “the range to go where it needs to go” and that an escort tanker is probably not needed. Brown specifically said, “I wouldn’t call [KC-Z] an escort tanker.”'

It sounds like NGAD could be huge (F-111?) or subsonic.
 
Last edited:
I think its quite possible for the NGAD to be the size of an F-111. This is just my speculation, but perhaps it may be a tailless supersonic design, powered by two adaptive cycle engines scaled from the 45,000-lbf class XA100/101. This can have substantial range and persistence, while still allowing for a reasonable level of fighter-like maneuverability with a thrust/weight ratio of ~1 and +7.33 g at combat or loaded gross weight.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom