USAF/USN 6th Gen Fighters - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS News & Analysis [2008- 2025]

[Bruno Anthony]

Interesting update since last time we heard anything about F/A-XX AOA's. Anyone got an AWIN subscription here?
https://aviationweek.com/defense-sp...s-navys-secret-fa-xx-concept-refinement-phase

Sounds like a jet version of the Hawkeye and probably not very numerous. This rush to drones sounds like the maginot line

I think it sucks

 

[X-39]

What it might be like for Air Force fighter pilots to command a team of drones in battle​

Collins Aerospace says it can bring cutting-edge avionics, software, sensors, networks and information displays to the nascent NGAD project. To support its claim, Collins Aerospace put a mock fighter cockpit on the showroom floor at the Air & Space Forces Association’s Air Space & Cyber Conference at National Harbor, Maryland last month.

The “Sixth-Gen Fighter Technology Demonstrator,” or 6GFTD, is meant to show how a sixth-generation fighter cockpit layout could look so that pilots can get the most information possible in the easiest, most digestible way possible.

Task & Purpose took the demonstrator for a spin at the Air Space & Cyber Conference, and the first thing this reporter noticed is that the control panels look more like an iPad than the carnival of buttons and switches like the one he saw in the cockpit of a B-52 bomber in Dr. Strangelove. Touchscreen surfaces are not brand-new to military aviation: the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps already use them in the cockpits of their fifth-generation F-35 fighters. Hurst said the 6GFTD allows pilots to easily tailor the information shown on the cockpit’s many touchscreen displays to their individual preferences.

Flashing lights and audio warning tones have been a mainstay in fighter cockpits for decades, but the 6GFTD introduces a new warning system that gives new meaning to the phrase “flying by the seat of your pants.” Included in the demonstrator was what Hurst called a vibrotactile haptic system, which is a fancy name for the cockpit buzzing when something bad happens.

Though the CCA that will work alongside NGAD are still in development, the technology demonstrator cockpit made by Collins Aerospace is meant to help try out new ways of commanding those aircraft and processing information generated by them.

Sending wingmen to do dangerous tasks is something military pilots have done for a long time. The difference here is that the wingmen are robots, the orders and results can be given and displayed on a touch screen with the tap of a finger, and the 6GFTD also calls upon several algorithms to weigh the changing mission variables in order to calculate the chance of mission success.

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/air-force-ngad-cockpit-display/

 

[Reaper]

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/n...Toverlay=2002c2d9-c344-4bbb-8610-e5794efcfa7d

way too long, but interesting content!

 

[piginapoke]

Do we have any further details about the concept demonstrator that flew?

 

[jsport]

https://www.defensenews.com/air/202...ru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=c4-overmatch

 

[raptor82]

Whatever...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1584938549010653186

View: https://twitter.com/beverstine/status/1584938549010653186?s=20

 

[Moose]

That would be more petit than I'm expecting from NGAD

 

[totoro]

If it's a two seater it might be ok sized for the navy's ngad. USAF's is bound to be larger.
Yes i am aware the image is just an artist's wishful thinking.

 

[TomS]

If it's a two seater it might be ok sized for the navy's ngad.

Except a carrier aircraft wouldn't refuel using a boom.

They also posted a lovely up-kilt shot:

 

[Grey Havoc]

Except a carrier aircraft wouldn't refuel using a boom.

Though there have been attempts over the years by the USAF to make the USN / USMC to come around to their way of thinking re. IFR.

 

[TomS]

Except a carrier aircraft wouldn't refuel using a boom.

Though there have been attempts over the years by the USAF to make the USN / USMC to come around to their way of thinking re. IFR.

Until they come up with a boom that fits on a carrier-launched aircraft (and probably in a buddy fueling pod), this is a total non-starter.

 

[Brett Davidson]

It's only an artist's impression, I know, but I notethat it has a silver finish, not the expected matt grey. Maybe this will be a feature of the real plane?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...otted-flying-with-mysterious-mirror-like-skin

 

[bobbymike]

Man I hope it’s something that cool looking although LMs Lady Liberty is still my favourite

 

[Grey Havoc]

Until they come up with a boom that fits on a carrier-launched aircraft (and probably in a buddy fueling pod), this is a total non-starter.

We are living in quite irrational times at the moment, though.

 

[flateric]

hi-res

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/lockheed-martin-says-lmxt-still-a-possibility-for-kc-y-program/

 

[flateric]

it's still the same (second in order) publicity NGAD configuration first released in 2017

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine...dustry-prepping-ai-tech-for-next-gen-aircraft

 

[Ogami musashi]

it's still the same (second in order) publicity NGAD configuration first released in 2017

and here

 

[Skunknotworks]

Man I hope it’s something that cool looking although LMs Lady Liberty is still my favourite

I hope this design is still on the table maybe two variants are still a wishful thinking but Tailless variant for long distance in the Pacific with greater need for stealth against new Chinese Radars & The Tail Airframe for Europe? I even had a custom model done cause I'm just in awe over the LM concept. Credits to Akelafreedom for the Model.

​

 

[Firefinder]

Except a carrier aircraft wouldn't refuel using a boom.

Though there have been attempts over the years by the USAF to make the USN / USMC to come around to their way of thinking re. IFR.

Until they come up with a boom that fits on a carrier-launched aircraft (and probably in a buddy fueling pod), this is a total non-starter.

Then again is the weight penalty for having both a boom receptacle and a Probe?

Many of the Century series era planes, like the F4, did have both and I believe the F14 was to as well before it was cut for budget.

So there is nothing technical that stops you from sticking both systems on a plane.

 

[Josh_TN]

Man I hope it’s something that cool looking although LMs Lady Liberty is still my favourite

I hope this design is still on the table maybe two variants are still a wishful thinking but Tailless variant for long distance in the Pacific with greater need for stealth against new Chinese Radars & The Tail Airframe for Europe? I even had a custom model done cause I'm just in awe over the LM concept. Credits to Akelafreedom for the Model.

​

I don't think there's any chance of a separate European version now. The USAF already has a combat coded 5th gen fighter for every Su-30/34/35 and MiG-31BM the Russians have. Poland, Norway, and Finland will collectively have ~150 F-35s by around 2030; it seems like a total waste of resources to design a fighter just for that theater.

 

[Josh_TN]

Except a carrier aircraft wouldn't refuel using a boom.

Though there have been attempts over the years by the USAF to make the USN / USMC to come around to their way of thinking re. IFR.

Until they come up with a boom that fits on a carrier-launched aircraft (and probably in a buddy fueling pod), this is a total non-starter.

Then again is the weight penalty for having both a boom receptacle and a Probe?

Many of the Century series era planes, like the F4, did have both and I believe the F14 was to as well before it was cut for budget.

So there is nothing technical that stops you from sticking both systems on a plane.

The USN certainly isn't going to start employing tankers with booms on their embarked aircraft. Also the KC-46s, if they ever work right, will have a pair of hoses on top of the boom anyway, so there seems to be little incentive for the USN to add a boom receptacle to their aircraft. The one exception right now I believe is the P-8.

 

[Hydroman]

Except a carrier aircraft wouldn't refuel using a boom.

Though there have been attempts over the years by the USAF to make the USN / USMC to come around to their way of thinking re. IFR.

Until they come up with a boom that fits on a carrier-launched aircraft (and probably in a buddy fueling pod), this is a total non-starter.

Then again is the weight penalty for having both a boom receptacle and a Probe?

Many of the Century series era planes, like the F4, did have both and I believe the F14 was to as well before it was cut for budget.

So there is nothing technical that stops you from sticking both systems on a plane.

The USN certainly isn't going to start employing tankers with booms on their embarked aircraft. Also the KC-46s, if they ever work right, will have a pair of hoses on top of the boom anyway, so there seems to be little incentive for the USN to add a boom receptacle to their aircraft. The one exception right now I believe is the P-8.

The wing refueling pods are not certified yet and when, no one knows. Only the centerline drogue system is.

 

[TomS]

Then again is the weight penalty for having both a boom receptacle and a Probe?

Many of the Century series era planes, like the F4, did have both and I believe the F14 was to as well before it was cut for budget.

So there is nothing technical that stops you from sticking both systems on a plane.

The F-4 had one or the other, not both, I believe.

The only Century fighter that I can think of that had both is the F-105, which was caught in the Air Force's transition away from the hose and drogue.

 

[Bhurki]

hi-res

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/lockheed-martin-says-lmxt-still-a-possibility-for-kc-y-program/

Yeah, try folding these wings..

 

[Skunknotworks]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...neration-air-dominance-program-from-the-start interesting i wonder if this information is corresponding to the recent Model 401 ‘Son of Ares’ mysterious new payload testing for HEL-FAD.

 

[Sferrin]

Then again is the weight penalty for having both a boom receptacle and a Probe?

Many of the Century series era planes, like the F4, did have both and I believe the F14 was to as well before it was cut for budget.

So there is nothing technical that stops you from sticking both systems on a plane.

The F-4 had one or the other, not both, I believe.

The only Century fighter that I can think of that had both is the F-105, which was caught in the Air Force's transition away from the hose and drogue.

F-101 VooDoo as well.

 

[TomS]

F-101 VooDoo as well.

I love the Voodoo but I always forget that feature.

 

[jsport]

https://www.defensenews.com/air/202...ailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dfn-dnr

 

[rooster]

A sad comment that the military can't count on the funding it needs from Congress.

 

[bobbymike]

https://events.defensenews.com/air-forces-strategy-to-maintain-air-dominance/

 

[jsport]

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion...ailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dfn-dnr

 

[X-39]

Variation of Boeing's old concept with slight differences. No canards, inlets moved to the top and clipped wings. But seriously.... Why is the canopy red???

 

[Grey Havoc]

Supposed to represent anti-laser / EM shielding, I think.

 

[flateric]

This is not a 'variation', just stupid fanart. 'Red' canopy should represent fading sun light in metallic coating of canopy.

 

[TomS]

Variation of Boeing's old concept with slight differences. No canards, inlets moved to the top and clipped wings. But seriously.... Why is the canopy red???
View attachment 687355

Because red ones go faster. Duh...

 

[X-39]

This is not a 'variation', just stupid fanart. 'Red' canopy should represent fading sun light in metallic coating of canopy.

Not totally BS Fanart this time, but rather "semi-official" we could say?

 

[flateric]

This is not a 'variation', just stupid fanart. 'Red' canopy should represent fading sun light in metallic coating of canopy.

Not totally BS Fanart this time, but rather "semi-official" we could say?

Nope. Still BS drawn by ASFM staff artist using Boeing art as refrerence. Just like their B-21s 'concept arts'.

 

[Forest Green]

Because red ones go faster. Duh...

Especially with two white stripes.

 

[Hood]

Hood's Rule #1
Never get steamed up about CGI art. Most of the time it's just cool looking graphics and is often replaced by newer cooler looking graphics. (Or in this case rather 90s style blocky graphics with weird shades pasted onto a new background.)