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

Status
Not open for further replies.
“It doesn't mean though that this is an attritable type of platform, and that's been a common misconception,” he continued. “We're going to reuse these air vehicles, and the decision for risk and the risk that we will take with these types of capabilities will be at the mission command or at the combined forces air component commander level.”

Thank you for posting GTX.
This CCA roles & mission is going to be a complex, never resolved, problem shared w/OMFV and its RSV.

UCAVs went out of favor but the same old risk/cost issues will return as fast as heat.

Deciding exact roles & missions as tech changes or promises to change will be like writing a new constitution for South American country. We have seen how that has gone.

PS: that is why a cannon fighter able to fire numerous UAV/missile/round which each can fullfill a different role depending the setting on the rd still makes sense for a max standoff craft.

being able to toggle energetics is what enables Missile/UAV/rounds to be developed as the future of precision munitions.
 
It’s time.

Air Force solicits source selection proposals for NGAD Platform​

The Department of the Air Force released a classified solicitation to industry for an engineering and manufacturing development contract for the Next Generation Air Dominance Platform with the intent to award a contract in 2024.
 
That is for sure Moose. It has been a long time coming. There are only three aerospace companies left in the US and all that I can say is that one of them is going to be left disappointed at being down-selected.
 
“It doesn't mean though that this is an attritable type of platform, and that's been a common misconception,” he continued. “We're going to reuse these air vehicles, and the decision for risk and the risk that we will take with these types of capabilities will be at the mission command or at the combined forces air component commander level.”

This CCA roles & mission is going to be a complex, never resolved, problem shared w/OMFV and its RSV.

UCAVs went out of favor but the same old risk/cost issues will return as fast as heat.

Deciding exact roles & missions as tech changes or promises to change will be like writing a new constitution for South American country.
 
That is for sure Moose. It has been a long time coming. There are only three aerospace companies left in the US and all that I can say is that one of them is going to be left disappointed at being down-selected.
If Lockheed martin is selected to produce the F-X variant of the NGAD for the Air Force and Boeing the FA-XX for the Navy (since they have more experience on naval fighters), everybody wins, since Northrop already builds the B-21 and probably will also produce the Air Force and Navy next generation UCAV's.
 
So it won't just be one company that wins like what happened in the ATF and JSF competitions. That will stop all the potential legal battles that happens when the US military down-selects.
 
I wouldn’t assume an even divide of projects prevents lawsuits.
 
That is for sure Moose. It has been a long time coming. There are only three aerospace companies left in the US and all that I can say is that one of them is going to be left disappointed at being down-selected.
If Lockheed martin is selected to produce the F-X variant of the NGAD for the Air Force and Boeing the FA-XX for the Navy (since they have more experience on naval fighters), everybody wins, since Northrop already builds the B-21 and probably will also produce the Air Force and Navy next generation UCAV's.

so where does that leave N-G especially with whats been shown subtly or teased in the video. Unless N-G have lost out to the competition and deciding to reveal slowly.

cheers
 
so where does that leave N-G especially with whats been shown subtly or teased in the video. Unless N-G have lost out to the competition and deciding to reveal slowly.

I suspect as long as the EMD-contract is not awarded sometime next year, and maybe also afterwards, those who are still candidates for the EMD-contract won´t reveal much at all (with the exception of additional concept-art) due to the (more) classified nature of the program (when compared to the ATF-program and the YF-22 & YF-23 prototypes). To me, it looks like NG is in those videos - and contrary to what LM and Boeing have done so far - going a small step further then just showing concept-art, though without unveiling a (former) demonstator/prototype 'in the flesh'. Unless in the next weeks or months LM and/or Boeing also start revealing more about the (flying) NGAD-demonstators/prototypes they´re busy with as basis for EMD-phase proposals, my guess would be NG has been eliminated as a candidate for EMD and NG therefore decided (for commercial/publicity reasons) to slowly/partially reveil what it worked on for NGAD-manned and what it´s NGAD-demonstrator looks like.
Or, what NG is showing in the videos maybe has nothing to do with the 'NGAD-platform' at all, perhaps it is/was e.g. some kind of manned testbed for the B-21´s 'unmanned escort/companion', an idea or a plan which has been moved off the table not so long ago, IIRC.
 
Are they still targeting an EMD representative model with ACE engines flying by 2025 as envisioned by Roper? Or was that plan also scrapped along with the Digital Century Series?
 
`Interesting given all those people who kept claiming the platform was already flying. Fools!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are they still targeting an EMD representative model with ACE engines flying by 2025 as envisioned by Roper? Or was that plan also scrapped along with the Digital Century Series?

The "digital century series" is sorta still alive, but it will be the Drones not the full fighters which are rapidly iterated on.
 
`Interesting given all those people who kept claiming the platform was already flying. Fools!!

What do you mean here with 'the flying platform'; an 'X-NGAD', an 'YF-NGAD', an 'EMD F-NGAD' or 'a production F-NGAD'?
 
Are they still targeting an EMD representative model with ACE engines flying by 2025 as envisioned by Roper? Or was that plan also scrapped along with the Digital Century Series?


 
I wonder how cutting edge the manned bird will be, it sounds like they are taking it very seriously given the threat it's going to be designed for.
 
Very cutting edge I would think, so much so I fear that the USAF may stop it‘s export like what they did to the F-22.
 
I for one personally cannot wait to see the contract awarded next year.
 
`Interesting given all those people who kept claiming the platform was already flying. Fools!!

What do you mean here with 'the flying platform'; an 'X-NGAD', an 'YF-NGAD', an 'EMD F-NGAD' or 'a production F-NGAD'?
Any.

When the AF is planning to award an EMD-contract for NGAD next year, you don´t believe at all an 'X-NGAD' has already flown and/or an 'YF-NGAD' could be flying 'right now'? Why?
 

When the AF is planning to award an EMD-contract for NGAD next year, you don´t believe at all an 'X-NGAD' has already flown and/or an 'YF-NGAD' could be flying 'right now'? Why?
Read the article:

This solicitation release formally begins the source selection process providing industry with the requirements the DAF expects for NGAD, as the future replacement of the F-22 Raptor.

I have been in this industry long enough to know that you don't build platforms and then go out and ask people to do so afterwards. anyone who thinks there is already NGAD platforms flying, even prototypes is a fool who has no idea of how things work in reality.
 
I have been in this industry long enough to know that you don't build platforms and then go out and ask people to do so afterwards. anyone who thinks there is already NGAD platforms flying, even prototypes is a fool who has no idea of how things work in reality.

That's kind of brash, it's been out in the open that at least one NGAD demonstrator has been flying.

Who's to say the requirements you cite will be much different than the demonstrator(s)?

“We’ve already built and flown a full-scale flight demonstrator in the real world, and we broke records in doing it,” Will Roper told Defense News in an exclusive interview ahead of the Air Force Association’s Air, Space and Cyber Conference. “We are ready to go and build the next-generation aircraft in a way that has never happened before.”

Roper declined to comment on how many prototype aircraft have been flown or which defense contractors manufactured them. He wouldn’t say when or where the first flight occurred. And he refused to divulge any aspect of the aircraft’s design — its mission, whether it was uncrewed or optionally crewed, whether it could fly at hypersonic speeds or if it has stealth characteristics.
 
Last edited:
Rubbish. If you believe there is a NGAD flying wait one as I get the paperwork for a bunch of bridges to sell you.
 
Rubbish. If you believe there is a NGAD flying wait one as I get the paperwork for a bunch of bridges to sell you.

Do you have something that refutes the article's comments?
 

When the AF is planning to award an EMD-contract for NGAD next year, you don´t believe at all an 'X-NGAD' has already flown and/or an 'YF-NGAD' could be flying 'right now'? Why?
Read the article:

This solicitation release formally begins the source selection process providing industry with the requirements the DAF expects for NGAD, as the future replacement of the F-22 Raptor.

I have been in this industry long enough to know that you don't build platforms and then go out and ask people to do so afterwards. anyone who thinks there is already NGAD platforms flying, even prototypes is a fool who has no idea of how things work in reality.

I´ve read the article more then once, of course with inclusion of the sentence you highlighted.
I´ve also read this sentence: "The Department of the Air Force released a classified solicitation to industry for an engineering and manufacturing development contract for the Next Generation Air Dominance Platform with the intent to award a contract in 2024."
It´s an AF press-release without any mentioning of any date/time-period when exactly this classified solicitation was released to the industry, it just states industry has received such a classified solicitation, what the solicitation entitles, and that the EMD-contract will be awarded (to the winner) in 2024. Imho, but I could be wrong of course, the industry could have received such a classified solicitation yesterday, last week, a month ago, or a year ago.
What I think/believe, and of course I could be wrong again, is that this classified solicitation we now got to know about, has provided industry with the 'refined' or 'up-to-date' requirements and KPPs (Key Performance Parameters) which their EMD-proposals/prototypes should be able to achieve to enable an EMD-contract award next year.

I know YF-23 and YF-22 first flew only about a year (roughly) before the ATF´s EMD-contract was awarded in 1991.
I also know X-32 and X-35 first flew only about a year (roughly) before the JSF´s SDD (System Development and Demonstration) contract was awarded in 2001. But I don´t think timelines and milestones for the NGAD-program should necessarily be the same as those of the ATF- and/or JSF-programs. Especially if they don´t want to repeat the mistakes from the JSF-program/development.

When Will Roper said in Sept. 2020 a 'full-scale demonstrator' had already flown and had broken several records (whatever those records were about), I believe what he said. Having a demonstator and testing it, doesn´t mean such demonstrator has to test all requirements people have in mind (or had in mind in 2020, or earlier) for the NGAD-platform. A company having a demonstator also doesn´t prevent the AF from changing NGAD-requirements over time and it also doesn´t mean any additional requirements could not have been added later on. Remember Will Roper´s 'digital century series'-approach is not valid anymore for the 'platform'-part of the NGAD-program, so several requirements for the manned platform/fighter could have changed since 2020.

Also, Frank Kendall said last year NGAD had 'reached EMD' (or something very similar). A few days or weeks later, he retracted those words and said 'we still have competition'. Maybe he spoke a year too early, maybe not, we don´t know. I wouldn´t exclude something came up and they decided to postpone entering the EMD-competition for a while longer. I also recall some people at the time were asking to first provide 'more evidence' about NGAD-technologies being 'mature enough', before any EMD-decision would go ahead.

So, for a 'generational-leap' NGAD-platform program, I do believe some kind of demonstator will already have flown by now.
Whether that demonstrator would be just an X-plane or maybe something in between an X-plane and a true YF-prototype, I´ll leave that in the middle.
If I´m not mistaking, the AF wants to award an EMD-contract next year for a very, very expensive air-dominance 'platform' that comes with a lot of whistles & bells, and as I have read/understood during the past months, one that will already incorporate as much as possible all of the desired technologies & subsystems at the time the EMD-contract decision has to be made, to avoid (another) prolonged and more complicated development later on. I would assume the AF is taking a similar path with the NGAD-platform as with the B-21; to be able to move from developmental aircraft to production-aircraft as swiftly as possible.
But maybe my thoughts are wrong and indeed foolish, and there isn´t any real-world NGAD demonstrator at all. Maybe the 'demonstrator' Roper talked about is just a mirage and we have to be satisfied with the demonstations performed by a 'mirror-plated' F-22...
Maybe there won´t even be NGAD-prototypes before the EMD-contract gets awarded next year, maybe everything will now be digitally engineered, assembled and tested in a virtual environment and they´ll award a contract to the company which comes up with the best virtual proposal/prototype, without any flight-testing in the real world. (All my fingers crossed and glued together for if that would be the case.)
 
Last edited:
It's more likely that they've flown a systems demonstrator than an actual NGAD prototype.
Exactly. for instance one could classify the Lockheed Martin CATBird as a "full-scale flight demonstrator" and yet if you think that is representative of what the F-35 is other than the systems/software than you are going to be seriously disappointed. The same goes for the reporting here I believe. People are wanting to see things that simply aren't there.

By the way, I can also point out to the following from the same individual:

Roper revealed to Defense News his thinking for how the program might work:
  • Put at least two manufacturers on contract to design a fighter jet. These could include the existing companies capable of building combat aircraft — Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman — as well as new entrants that could bring a unique technology to the table.
  • Have each company create a hyper-realistic “digital twin” of its fighter design using advanced 3D modeling. Use those models to run myriad simulations of how production and sustainment could occur, hypothetically optimizing both and reducing cost and labor hours.
  • Award a contract to a single fighter manufacturer for an initial batch of aircraft. Roper said that industry could build about a squadron’s worth of airplanes per year, or about 24 aircraft. Include options in the contract for additional batches of aircraft. Air Combat Command leadership has told Roper that 72 aircraft — about the number of aircraft in a typical Air Force wing — would be a viable amount for normal operations.
  • While that vendor begins production, restart the competition, putting other companies on contract to begin designing the next aircraft.
 
If people want to believe there is already a NGAD flying then go on and believe...and prepare to be disappointed.
 
They have had 30 years to design a new one, some of the work may already be done by
Lockheed and N.G.
 
Perhaps this is to what Frank Kendall was eluding when he suggested the Century Series process will not likely be used for NGAD.

View: https://youtu.be/R1MS5plD8bM


The first builds will be horrendously expensive. Once production is underway, manufacturing lessons will be learned. If the contract can be written, or the manufacturer incentivized for speed and volume, value can be added quickly.

It will be unfortunate if this airframe is export restricted. I would prefer less sensitivity and greater production speed and volume. Heck, they were talking about Australia getting B-21's.

At this point, speed of production and volume are critical assets if a Pacific kinetic confrontation ensues in the next five to seven years. Once speed and volume are attained, the USAF, USN, and partners have developed tactics and lethality, perhaps then additional US specific capability should be added.

As an analogy, we now have software-defined cars. The bodies don't change much. The processing power required for the rapid advancement of code changes. If there is thermal capacity, compute can be upgraded. Newer sensors can be upgraded on the production line. Perhaps this understanding has contributed to the thought process.

FK is an exceptionally qualified leader. The timelines he's looking at may also demand the process advocated. Pick one, build one, get it done. I would still advocate for no export restrictions, speed of production, and high volume.
 
It's more likely that they've flown a systems demonstrator than an actual NGAD prototype.
Exactly. for instance one could classify the Lockheed Martin CATBird as a "full-scale flight demonstrator" and yet if you think that is representative of what the F-35 is other than the systems/software than you are going to be seriously disappointed. The same goes for the reporting here I believe. People are wanting to see things that simply aren't there.

By the way, I can also point out to the following from the same individual:

Roper revealed to Defense News his thinking for how the program might work:
  • Put at least two manufacturers on contract to design a fighter jet. These could include the existing companies capable of building combat aircraft — Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman — as well as new entrants that could bring a unique technology to the table.
  • Have each company create a hyper-realistic “digital twin” of its fighter design using advanced 3D modeling. Use those models to run myriad simulations of how production and sustainment could occur, hypothetically optimizing both and reducing cost and labor hours.
  • Award a contract to a single fighter manufacturer for an initial batch of aircraft. Roper said that industry could build about a squadron’s worth of airplanes per year, or about 24 aircraft. Include options in the contract for additional batches of aircraft. Air Combat Command leadership has told Roper that 72 aircraft — about the number of aircraft in a typical Air Force wing — would be a viable amount for normal operations.
  • While that vendor begins production, restart the competition, putting other companies on contract to begin designing the next aircraft.

When speaking in the context of a program for a brand-new generation of fighter, I think most people wouldn´t call a CATbird a 'full-scale flight demonstrator', rather 'a flying systems/software test-bed'.

"Have each company create a hyper-realistic “digital twin” of its fighter design using advanced 3D modeling. Use those models to run myriad simulations of how production and sustainment could occur, hypothetically optimizing both and reducing cost and labor hours."

If there (at some point) does not exist some real-world demonstator/prototype of the fighter-design that is being worked on, the 'digital twin' would then not be a twin at all but THE (digital) fighter-demonstator/prototype.
The purpose of having digital twins of aircraft is to be able to predict more accurately real-aircraft performance (though most probably not achievable throughout it´s entire flight-envelope) and as consequence to (hopefully) be able to shorten the real-world experimentation and flight-testing, to experiment with all kinds of design-changes/modifications in a virtual world and to be able to implement any wanted/needed changes/modifications faster and more easily into a real-world aircraft under construction or in testing as to avoid as much as possible substantial modifications (and new problems or delays such modifications may cause) further along in the aircraft´s development and/or also once the aircraft has entered production.

The part about producing some squadrons of one manufacturer´s design and then move on to designing the next aircraft (Roper´s 'digital centuries' approach), has been abandoned for the NGAD manned-aircraft, as has been mentioned multiple times now.
A form of such an approach is still envisioned for the subsystems of the manned platform/fighter, and it is still valid for the unmanned Collaborative Combat Aircraft part of the NGAD-program.
 
Last edited:
so where does that leave N-G especially with whats been shown subtly or teased in the video. Unless N-G have lost out to the competition and deciding to reveal slowly.

I suspect as long as the EMD-contract is not awarded sometime next year, and maybe also afterwards, those who are still candidates for the EMD-contract won´t reveal much at all (with the exception of additional concept-art) due to the (more) classified nature of the program (when compared to the ATF-program and the YF-22 & YF-23 prototypes). To me, it looks like NG is in those videos - and contrary to what LM and Boeing have done so far - going a small step further then just showing concept-art, though without unveiling a (former) demonstator/prototype 'in the flesh'. Unless in the next weeks or months LM and/or Boeing also start revealing more about the (flying) NGAD-demonstators/prototypes they´re busy with as basis for EMD-phase proposals, my guess would be NG has been eliminated as a candidate for EMD and NG therefore decided (for commercial/publicity reasons) to slowly/partially reveil what it worked on for NGAD-manned and what it´s NGAD-demonstrator looks like.
Or, what NG is showing in the videos maybe has nothing to do with the 'NGAD-platform' at all, perhaps it is/was e.g. some kind of manned testbed for the B-21´s 'unmanned escort/companion', an idea or a plan which has been moved off the table not so long ago, IIRC.
I hate to throw water on hopes and dreams, but rest assurd none of the promotional art is representative of the actual designs. They may have elements of the future design but that is about it. If I was going to hang my hat on anything, the oooppppss where a pole model was seen on a truck outside of Helendale may be more representative than any art to date. Remember we are discussing what is probably a special access program. I will more than happy to hear arguments to the contrary because I hope that I am wrong. Like all of you, I would like to believe the art has more validity than what I believe to be.
 
Roper also said within the same breath "We still have to make it real."

There might well be a subscale technological demonstrator flying but its not going to be a NGAD any more than XST was an F-117 or than the X-29 or X-31 showed what ATF and JAST might be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GTX
so where does that leave N-G especially with whats been shown subtly or teased in the video. Unless N-G have lost out to the competition and deciding to reveal slowly.

I suspect as long as the EMD-contract is not awarded sometime next year, and maybe also afterwards, those who are still candidates for the EMD-contract won´t reveal much at all (with the exception of additional concept-art) due to the (more) classified nature of the program (when compared to the ATF-program and the YF-22 & YF-23 prototypes). To me, it looks like NG is in those videos - and contrary to what LM and Boeing have done so far - going a small step further then just showing concept-art, though without unveiling a (former) demonstator/prototype 'in the flesh'. Unless in the next weeks or months LM and/or Boeing also start revealing more about the (flying) NGAD-demonstators/prototypes they´re busy with as basis for EMD-phase proposals, my guess would be NG has been eliminated as a candidate for EMD and NG therefore decided (for commercial/publicity reasons) to slowly/partially reveil what it worked on for NGAD-manned and what it´s NGAD-demonstrator looks like.
Or, what NG is showing in the videos maybe has nothing to do with the 'NGAD-platform' at all, perhaps it is/was e.g. some kind of manned testbed for the B-21´s 'unmanned escort/companion', an idea or a plan which has been moved off the table not so long ago, IIRC.
I hate to throw water on hopes and dreams, but rest assurd none of the promotional art is representative of the actual designs. They may have elements of the future design but that is about it. If I was going to hang my hat on anything, the oooppppss where a pole model was seen on a truck outside of Helendale may be more representative than any art to date. Remember we are discussing what is probably a special access program. I will more than happy to hear arguments to the contrary because I hope that I am wrong. Like all of you, I would like to believe the art has more validity than what I believe to be.
Yes and No, remember the B-21 art before the official presentation , it was like the first art of B-21 and it was a special access program too...
 
so where does that leave N-G especially with whats been shown subtly or teased in the video. Unless N-G have lost out to the competition and deciding to reveal slowly.

I suspect as long as the EMD-contract is not awarded sometime next year, and maybe also afterwards, those who are still candidates for the EMD-contract won´t reveal much at all (with the exception of additional concept-art) due to the (more) classified nature of the program (when compared to the ATF-program and the YF-22 & YF-23 prototypes). To me, it looks like NG is in those videos - and contrary to what LM and Boeing have done so far - going a small step further then just showing concept-art, though without unveiling a (former) demonstator/prototype 'in the flesh'. Unless in the next weeks or months LM and/or Boeing also start revealing more about the (flying) NGAD-demonstators/prototypes they´re busy with as basis for EMD-phase proposals, my guess would be NG has been eliminated as a candidate for EMD and NG therefore decided (for commercial/publicity reasons) to slowly/partially reveil what it worked on for NGAD-manned and what it´s NGAD-demonstrator looks like.
Or, what NG is showing in the videos maybe has nothing to do with the 'NGAD-platform' at all, perhaps it is/was e.g. some kind of manned testbed for the B-21´s 'unmanned escort/companion', an idea or a plan which has been moved off the table not so long ago, IIRC.
I hate to throw water on hopes and dreams, but rest assurd none of the promotional art is representative of the actual designs. They may have elements of the future design but that is about it. If I was going to hang my hat on anything, the oooppppss where a pole model was seen on a truck outside of Helendale may be more representative than any art to date. Remember we are discussing what is probably a special access program. I will more than happy to hear arguments to the contrary because I hope that I am wrong. Like all of you, I would like to believe the art has more validity than what I believe to be.
Yes and No, remember the B-21 art before the official presentation , it was like the first art of B-21 and it was a special access program too...
Keep in mind, the art released for the B-21 was driven by DoD post contract award after construction was well underway. Concerning NGAD, pretty much everything to date are "look what we are going to do" advertising releases by the contractors. With all of that said, I hope you are right, but I would bet against it.
 
Roper also said within the same breath "We still have to make it real."

That was not Roper, but Hinote who said that. By which he meant 'We still have to get it into (a) production (program)'.

There might well be a subscale technological demonstrator flying but its not going to be a NGAD any more than XST was an F-117 or than the X-29 or X-31 showed what ATF and JAST might be.

“If you think we don’t care about physical world results, we do,” Roper said in a slickly produced keynote speech. The Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, meant to complement or succeed the F-22 and F-35, he said, “has come so far that the full-scale flight demonstrator has already flown in the physical world. It’s broken a lot of records in the doing.”
Roper disclosed no further details about when the aircraft flew, who built it, or what records it broke.
...
Roper revealed the NGAD flights to gain “greater credibility in the process,” and convince those members of the acquisition team not “read in” on the secret jet to understand the concept works - and that they need to “get smart on this technology.”



“We’ve already built and flown a full-scale flight demonstrator in the real world, and we broke records in doing it,” Will Roper told Defense News in an exclusive interview ahead of the Air Force Association´s Air, Space and Cyber Conference. “We are ready to go and build the next-generation aircraft in a way that has never happened before.” ...
The importance, Roper said, is that just a year after the service completed an analysis of alternatives, the Air Force has proven it can use cutting-edge advanced manufacturing techniques to
build and test a virtual version of its next fighter - and then move to constructing a full-scale prototype and flying it with mission systems onboard. ...
Roper declined to say how quickly the Air Force could move its next-gen fighter into production, except to say “pretty fast.”
But before the service decides to begin producing a new generation of fighters, it must determine how many aircraft it will commit to buy and when it wants to start purchasing them
.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom