• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,230
Reaction score
405
AF is looking a terminating whole systems 15 &16 most likely so keeping hot lines is in the opposite direction.
"15 & 16" What is that? It can't be F-15 & F-16 as the USAF is buying more F-15s and the F-16 will probable be around for at least another decade.

Okay. Were go going to show me something that supports your claim? Nowhere in the 5 minute video (time I can't get back) did they say, "we're retiring the F-15 & F-16 fleets".
at 49 sec mark acting AF Sec Matt Donovan said Sec Esper is open to in quote "divesting in legacy capabilities that simply arent suited for future battlefields". What else could being refering to F-100s.
KC-135s, A-10s, C-130s, KC-10s, Predator As, Global Hawk, etc. etc. The fact they're buying NEW F-15s should be enough evidence that they're not getting rid of them. And it'll be years before all current F-16 units will have switched over to F-35s.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,336
Reaction score
32
AF is looking a terminating whole systems 15 &16 most likely so keeping hot lines is in the opposite direction.
"15 & 16" What is that? It can't be F-15 & F-16 as the USAF is buying more F-15s and the F-16 will probable be around for at least another decade.

Okay. Were go going to show me something that supports your claim? Nowhere in the 5 minute video (time I can't get back) did they say, "we're retiring the F-15 & F-16 fleets".
at 49 sec mark acting AF Sec Matt Donovan said Sec Esper is open to in quote "divesting in legacy capabilities that simply arent suited for future battlefields". What else could being refering to F-100s.
KC-135s, A-10s, C-130s, KC-10s, Predator As, Global Hawk, etc. etc. The fact they're buying NEW F-15s should be enough evidence that they're not getting rid of them. And it'll be years before all current F-16 units will have switched over to F-35s.
Transports and tankers and even RSTA are barely future battlefield systems and are not upgraded often at a significant cost as mentioned. The reference was addressing the constant call to update combat craft. Sure, know all about new buys, the latest 15s 16s and are sh-t hot and great (am for it) but what cost to continue to upgrade. Of course Fleet replacements are unlikelyto happen, and ideally need money to keep and speed new craft, but at least someone of DoD high leadeship has mentioned the the unthinkable as an option.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
955
Reaction score
56
I understand the fear raised by the similitudes with the old soviet system but then, their problems was with built quality, designer level of maturity and... Generalized corruption. All of these are off-range in the present situation and within the US.
If we adopt a critical look into the soviet experience, fact is that despite an improper economy, a lack of industrial base and the effective absence of senior designers and managers, they went in 3/4 years from fabric covered biplane-like airframe to the superior aluminium built Yak-3U.
That's what might be the spirit to look in it, if there is anything.

Add the fact that shareholder driven aerospace mega companies are often lacking the capital structure to offer long term financially rewarding career plan for all their senior designer and, conversely, the junior graduates and you see that there is a void to fill where small business units could prosper aggregating talents without the burden of decades of a force structure plan. I am myself totally convinced that this has all the chances to succeed (combined with larger more conventional procurement programs, let's not forget) while also offering more resiliency to the system (think of the damages large company closure has induced to the defense industry in overall) and augmenting the dynamics of this sector.
 
Last edited:

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,054
Reaction score
211
More from the USAF

 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
42
While I understand what they are attempting, as an engineer, I have problems with it. Mainly because when you run into problems on the first build it's nice to be able to walk to the floor and see the issue. Solid Modeling has made my job much better, but you still run into design issues. Then again, they probably are using software to actually simulate building and manufacturing these vehicles as well.

But, to me, the aircraft design has always been the "easy" part. It's the systems and the propulsion that are the truly long lead items. As long as they are going plug and play on the systems and using a family of modular engines to design around, while having certain steps in thrust isn't ideal, no more rubber engine sizing, it will allow for much quicker airframe designs to be completed and flown. I think the most difficult part of that problems will be the airframe/propulsion integration.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,336
Reaction score
32

From the best USAF name ever Hawk Carlisle
"Acquisition milestones don’t, and shouldn’t, apply. Congress considered changing how it appropriates dollars for software acquisition and sustainment and will likely take it up again next year, but the bottom line is the dollars must look less like milestone-driven hardware development and procurement dollars and more like the yearly loop of operations and maintenance dollars. " This idea sounds like an invitiation to open ended contractor money grabs (yearly unquantified O&M) ie worse than current procurement contracts. Milestones on a cost plus fixed fee is a good start. OTAs could, however be implemented for a design, but if the AF decides on a particular design, they (AF) should own the design both before and after the final build. The builders get paid or penalized regardless of subcontrators performance, as stated in previous posts,
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,054
Reaction score
211

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,336
Reaction score
32

"The CSBA study does not recommend procuring the F-15EX and instead proposes replacing the F-15C/Ds with F-35As in the interim and an unspecified “family of capabilities” for air superiority in the future. "
how about skipping the F-35A buy;) and going straight to the “family of capabilities” and for more than air superiority,
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
37
How about skipping the "family of capabilities" and going for the "extended family of capabilities" for the post 2050 timeframe?
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
973
Reaction score
95
They have to do something better, currently the situation is a Horlicks of a cock up.
 

In_A_Dream

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
33
Reaction score
5
I think it's difficult for them to forecast what their future fighter will be. It's kind of a chess match with China, what is China planning for their 2030+ Air Force? What kinds of capabilities will they have? Will they rely on cheap drones to do the fighting for them against 6th gen A/C?

I definitely agree US fighters of the future will certainly need much longer legs. Nimbleness and tactical maneuverability may not be necessary in the future if they just need to stand back and let a bunch of loyal wingmen do the fighting for them. Maybe a larger carrier aircraft will be part of the future, something able to deploy multiple recoverable or expendable drones across long distances into combat environments.

Who knows!
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,070
Reaction score
34
And why should the USAF be hurried into going 6th Generation, they still have plenty of F-22s left despite loosing some to accidents, plus they also have the F-35 coming on stream now as well.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,230
Reaction score
405
And why should the USAF be hurried into going 6th Generation, they still have plenty of F-22s left despite loosing some to accidents, plus they also have the F-35 coming on stream now as well.
Because if they start RIGHT NOW it might be into service in 20 years. If they decide in 10 years, "hey we need a new one NOW" they'll be SOL. The other guy will be building their NEXT one by then.
 
Top