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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Forest Green said:
www.twz.com

Top Air Force Officer Doubles Down On Aerial Combat Drones With Short Life Spans

It is becoming critical for the USAF to overcome familiar procurement practices in order to realize its collaborative combat aircraft ambitions.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
I don't see CCA doing air/air with their poor speed and acceleration with commercial turbojet, they better use the B-21 in air/air mode charging with a lot of Amraam instead. The Airbus choice for UCAV look way better for air/air battle and it will be supersonic with this EJ-200 engine.. They look too much for the Ukraine war and for now, nobody win with the low cost drone. USAF is doing a real strategical mistake for the futur, there is the Turkish KAAN futur fighter too with the high end futur UCAV. USAF will stay only with no stealth F-15EX 80s fighter and a hypothetical better F-35......
 
Last edited:
Altogether, the Air Force looks to still intend to bet big on programs like CCA to keep the tough budget choices it has to make to a minimum, while still working to acquire the capabilities it sees as essential to winning future fights.

I say you with this strategy you will lose the futur fights.....Where are the billions and billions of dollars? of NGAD budget since 10 years?
 
TomcatViP said:
And what if LM offered an improved 35 that matched most of the NGAD KPI (think F4D to F5D)?
Click to expand...
I would wager that the airframe is too small for the required range, payload and capability. Also, while the F35 is very stealthy, its common knowledge that its inferior to the F22 especially on side and rear aspects. Its been 30-40 years since the development of the of the ATF/F22 program, I'm certain stealth has made significant progress.

Perhaps an F35"D" variant that's been upscaled, but after the debacle of the F35 development attempting a 3 in 1 jet, I really don't see anyone in either the pentagon or congress willing to signoff on a 4th variant.
 
Tool_Shed_Toker said:
I would wager that the airframe is too small for the required range, payload and capability. Also, while the F35 is very stealthy, its common knowledge that its inferior to the F22 especially on side and rear aspects. Its been 30-40 years since the development of the of the ATF/F22 program, I'm certain stealth has made significant progress.

Perhaps an F35"D" variant that's been upscaled, but after the debacle of the F35 development attempting a 3 in 1 jet, I really don't see anyone in either the pentagon or congress willing to signoff on a 4th variant.
Click to expand...
I agree totaly NGAD fighter is vital, it is impossible to win China with low cost UAV, why? because Chinese industry can build a lot and a lot with the low cost price impossible to overmatch this. The only way to win with us is the edge of the technology being the more advanced possible to overmatch the technology. F-35 is in a bad way Lockheed is unabble to build the block 4 for now...
 
dark sidius said:
I don't see CCA doing air/air with their poor speed and acceleration with commercial turbojet, they better use the B-21 in air/air mode charging with a lot of Amraam instead. The Airbus choice for UCAV look way better for air/air battle and it will be supersonic with this EJ-200 engine.. They look too much for the Ukraine war and for now, nobody win with the low cost drone. USAF is doing a real strategical mistake for the futur, there is the Turkish KAAN futur fighter too with the high end futur UCAV. USAF will stay only with no stealth F-15EX 80s fighter and a hypothetical better F-35......
Click to expand...

If you get close enough to a CCA to shoot at it, then it is probably close enough to shoot at you. And you have to find it first: the designs all seem to be relatively low radar cross section, and a 3000-8000 lb dry thrust engine is not going to present a very large IR signature compared to a fighter. I think large numbers of subsonic but inexpensive A2A platforms is quite workable. If you give it fighter performance then you pay fighter prices.
 
dark sidius said:
I agree totaly NGAD fighter is vital, it is impossible to win China with low cost UAV, why? because Chinese industry can build a lot and a lot with the low cost price impossible to overmatch this. The only way to win with us is the edge of the technology being the more advanced possible to overmatch the technology. F-35 is in a bad way Lockheed is unabble to build the block 4 for now...
Click to expand...

The Chinese likely have a dearth of off the shelf engines in this thrust class, given the absence of a small commercial aircraft industry (or even full sized for that matter). I question their ability to produce aircraft in this size/performance/price range in quantity without a serious development effort, even assuming PLAAF AI and control software is/will be equivalent to USAF systems.
 
Elysium said:
Honestly, my definition of a true 6th gen fighter is simple - a jet that has overwhelming advantage in air combat against a 5th gen, trading with them in combat with ratios in excess of 10 to 1. If we consider the opponent an F-22 upgraded with state of the art electronics, the only you could build such a plane would be:
  • Some basic science breakthrough (like stealth was)
  • Some radically novel technological approach
  • A completely new doctrine (like drone swarms)
I'm not sure the technology to do that exists yet and if it does, it's so secret that speculating on it would be useless as we'd be unlikely to get it right.
Click to expand...
I think that's the foundation. Whatever the techs it has, it need to have a 10 to 1 ratio against a 5th gen.

IRST21 on the superhornet is a distributed infared sensor that allows search track and target beyond visual range. Multiple platforms all pointing at target while sharing data allows calculation of distance. They successfully used it to guide a AIM-120. I think 6th gen fighter will be able to use something similar but much more powerful sharing data with its drone wingmen and greater angle of coverage.

Better signature management against low frequency radars, infared and optical sensors will be logical defensive approach.

The ability to have greater supercruise and altitude ceiling is still desirable to allow disengagement/re-engagement on the aircraft's own term. This ties back with the heat signature management as well.

Morphing wings pairing with adaptive cycle engine for effective combat range and greater flexibility of missions.

Electronic warfare that is increasingly more software based much like Angry Kitten jamming pods.
 
Josh_TN said:
The Chinese likely have a dearth of off the shelf engines in this thrust class, given the absence of a small commercial aircraft industry (or even full sized for that matter). I question their ability to produce aircraft in this size/performance/price range in quantity without a serious development effort, even assuming PLAAF AI and control software is/will be equivalent to USAF systems.
Click to expand...
Strategical defeat, when Alvin will build 100 of his magical CCA , China will build 500 of them , you never win by the number with China you will win by tehcnology advance. They are doing the biggest error since the F-22 stop at 190 built, F-35 problems will never stop this plane is bad born and will never be a air dominant plane. But I asked my self where the dollars of programs are going? , in hypersonic nothing still operational, SR-72 is still a urban legend after 12 years , the only program working well is the B-21. The choice of Anduril is a mistake too , they never flew nothing and they win a CCA contract instead of Lockheed or Boeing with a design of the years 70s another big mystery. The USAF budget is bigger than all the European country and the fleet is the oldest possible with nothing realy new in the sky. European Airbus company show a futur fighter UCAV , Dassault is building Rafale F5 and a stealth UCAV with a lot more thin budget than USAF...
 
Last edited:
donnage99 said:
@dark sidius whatever you smoked tonight to make you write that while thinking somehow it was a logical counter argument I want some of that too. Been really stressed with work.

​

Click to expand...
The argument is don't cancel the NGAD in a time of the security on the planet is in danger , F-35 built are in a stock because Lockheed is unable to do the TR-3 working well , the Block 4 it is worse , and a general think that a low cost UAV is the solution of the problems woaw , it is not what I m smoking , but what the USAF Generals are smoking too..After spending billions and billions of dollars with nothing new in the sky.
 
dark sidius said:
The argument is don't cancel the NGAD in a time of the security on the planet is in danger , F-35 built are in a stock because Lockheed is unable to do the TR-3 working well , the Block 4 it is worse , and a general think that a low cost UAV is the solution of the problems woaw , it is not what I m smoking , but what the USAF Generals are smoking too..After spending billions and billions of dollars with nothing new in the sky.
Click to expand...
An argument is a statement with evidence to back up said statement.

You stated that china will be able to outproduce US when it comes to low cost UAV. @Josh_TN countered with evidence that China does not have a commercial sector to fall back on for economy of scales when it comes to engine production. You simply responded by repeating your opinion with zero counter evidence to the point he brought up. That's not what a sober mind would normally do.

Second, you criticize US for spending billions with nothing in the sky, yet cite European programs that produced no physical hardware in the sky (yet) accept for mockup and desk models. Where's the sober thinking in that?
 
donnage99 said:
An argument is a statement with evidence to back up said statement.

You stated that china will be able to outproduce US when it comes to low cost UAV. @Josh_TN countered with evidence that China does not have a commercial sector to fall back on for economy of scales when it comes to engine production. You simply responded by repeating your opinion with zero counter evidence to the point he brought up. That's not what a sober mind would normally do.

Second, you criticize US for spending billions with nothing in the sky, yet cite European programs that produced no physical hardware in the sky (yet) accept for mockup and desk models. Where's the sober thinking in that?
Click to expand...
European are doing thing with real thin budget, French Rafale for exemple is upgraded to F3, now F4 ,and an evolution F5 is in the work in time and few budget , a wingman derivative based on the stealth Neuron is in the work too. We awaiting NGAD contract with billions spend on it since years this summer , and insteed a General start talking that may be it will never come to the light it ask questions ?
 
dark sidius said:
European are doing thing with real thin budget, French Rafale for exemple is upgraded to F3, now F4 ,and an evolution F5 is in the work in time and few budget , a wingman derivative based on the stealth Neuron is in the work too. We awaiting NGAD contract with billions spend on it since years this summer , and insteed a General start talking that may be it will never come to the light it ask questions ?
Click to expand...
you're changin the goal post. We're talking about putting 6th gen in the sky why are we talking about Rafale upgrades? That's just F-15EX and block III super hornets. Yes France is doing this on a smaller budget but that's why they have just a fraction of the size of the US air force navy and marine fighter fleet.

As for stealth Neuron, yes it's a program just like NGAD neither are in production phase. I don't see how you can praise one and criticize another. No amount of mental acrobat changes the fact that you criticize NGAD for not having a flying aircraft and brought up programs with only mockup and desk models to show. Stop this!
 
donnage99 said:
you're changin the goal post. We're talking about putting 6th gen in the sky why are we talking about Rafale upgrades? That's just F-15EX and block III super hornets. Yes France is doing this on a smaller budget but that's why they have just a fraction of the size of the US air force navy and marine fighter fleet.

As for stealth Neuron, yes it's a program just like NGAD neither are in production phase. I don't see how you can praise one and criticize another. No amount of mental acrobat changes the fact that you criticize NGAD for not having a flying aircraft and brought up programs with only mockup and desk models to show. Stop this!
Click to expand...
I criticize the CCA program not the NGAD fighter , the Allvin speaking is the same than in 2009 they stop product of F-22 because F-35 was the holy grail , look at now where is the F-35 program ? , problems after problems and few than expected in the inventory. Everybody say it was a mistake to halt the F-22 production, and the CCA holy grail will live the same way of the F-35 idea in 2009. Will Roper century series was the very right way to build the fighter of futur, they fly a demonstrator, all was in the right way, this was the way to follow. If they stop NGAD fighter what will be in the inventory ? a never finish F-35 and a renovated F-15 for decades to come , face to China it will never be enough, look they have near 200 J-20 ? They start to modernise it and they have a 6th gen in idea, I m passionate by USAF and I don't want to see China be the master of the air in the futur. ICBM budget can wait but not the NGAD fighter one, nobody will never use ICBM, B-21 nuclear Bomber , LRSO and Submarine are enough for the job. And for answer the Neuron program is way more ambitious than the CCA one, and built by a worldwide aerospace company reference Dassault.
 
dark sidius said:
And for answer the Neuron program is way more ambitious than the CCA one, and built by a worldwide aerospace company reference Dassault.
Click to expand...
But the CCA programme is actually funded and happening vs. the "ambition" to maybe use some of the learning from the Neuron tech demo to develop and acquire a UCAS
 
red admiral said:
But the CCA programme is actually funded and happening vs. the "ambition" to maybe use some of the learning from the Neuron tech demo to develop and acquire a UCA
Click to expand...
French UCAV is funded too with the new Rafale F-5, CCA is funded but with Anduril company , they never built any airplane , why don't chose Boeing , Lockheed or Kratos who are flying UAV ? Or the Hermeus promising start up ? USAF chose Anduril realy ? General Electric built UAV no problem but Anduril instead of Lockheed , and other majors ?
 
Is it clear to anyone whether or not "NGAD" is the portfolio program with "Penetrating Counter Air" as the manned fight and CCA as the unmanned component?

CCA seems like its in bad shape. The other competitor is general atomics. But it is my understanding that the two designs are quite different, indicating that air force doesn't even know what they want. And if they don't know what they want, then thats a program ready to be cut.
 
zevets said:
Is it clear to anyone whether or not "NGAD" is the portfolio program with "Penetrating Counter Air" as the manned fight and CCA as the unmanned component?

CCA seems like its in bad shape. The other competitor is general atomics. But it is my understanding that the two designs are quite different, indicating that air force doesn't even know what they want. And if they don't know what they want, then thats a program ready to be cut.
Click to expand...
I agree with you it is what I try to explain, Allvin don't know what he want , Kendall say NGAD is vital I trust him. Realy ICBM need to be cut there is no utility with it, B-21 nuclear and submarine are enough for deterence, it don't affraid the dictator who know that nobody will launch this kind of weapon. A good article but sorry it is in French need to traduct https://www.avionslegendaires.net/2024/06/actu/le-ngad-a-t-il-deja-du-plomb-dans-laile/
 
Hermeus is promising? Really?
My self I saw only a garage demo a couple of years ago and a bunch of freaky tin mannequins shaped like airplanes.
 
Last edited:
Alvin will have no say in what the future USAF will look like. If congress funds P-51Xs that’s what will get built.
 
dark sidius said:
They work for.. Anduril what they build ? Quadcopters ?https://www.hermeus.com/press-release-mk1-unveil...
One build a plane....
www.anduril.com

Anduril

Transforming US & allied military capabilities with advanced technology.
www.anduril.com www.anduril.com
The other not
Click to expand...
You have to view Anduril as a private equity play. They're building a portfolio of small contractors, and hoping to edge out one of the big contractors and get a foothold as a new prime.

The existing primes already do this, buying smaller companies that win the early rounds of a competition. Except now they can't do that because the corporate leadership is absolutely braindead, and they lack access to cheap venture capital like the upstarts.
 
Last edited:
Seems to me sadly that with all those side steps, there is nothing left pointy and shiny for the current administration to show to the American public before the November elections*...

*The narrative from the opposing line might then be simpler: all that money spent abroad for allied defense with nothing new to protect the people.
 
Last edited:
The problem is simple:
1. The technology gap to China doesn't seem big enough to rely on a sheer technological over-match
2. The US Military does not have enough money
3. The US aerospace industry lacks the skill to deliver good products on time and the US industrial base is too small to support any production rate above boutique.

Any one of those could be fixed in isolation, two problems are manageable, barely, but all three? That's very serious trouble.
 
DrRansom said:
The problem is simple:
1. The technology gap to China doesn't seem big enough to rely on a sheer technological over-match
2. The US Military does not have enough money
3. The US aerospace industry lacks the skill to deliver good products on time and the US industrial base is too small to support any production rate above boutique.

Any one of those could be fixed in isolation, two problems are manageable, barely, but all three? That's very serious trouble.
Click to expand...
The B-21 is a success ; they have jut to do the same with NGAD , for the money USAF have the biggest air Force budget in the world they must not change of priority all the time , Allvin must battle to have the better warplane possible this is his job, the priority in my opinion are B-21, NGAD fighter and a good tanker, the ICBM must be canceled there is no need of it they are just sleeping in a silo for decades, nuclear bomber, and nuclear submarine do the job very well.
 
dark sidius said:
French UCAV is funded too with the new Rafale F-5, CCA is funded but with Anduril company , they never built any airplane , why don't chose Boeing , Lockheed or Kratos who are flying UAV ? Or the Hermeus promising start up ? USAF chose Anduril realy ? General Electric built UAV no problem but Anduril instead of Lockheed , and other majors ?
Click to expand...

Anduril has not won the final contract. GA is in it and iMO the favorite. Their CEO claims they can reduce the production time frame 50%, so I think Anduril needs to pull a rabbit out of its hat. Unless contracts are made with two companies.

But either way, the CCAs are going to be cranked out a hundred a year or more. GA can do that. So can Kratos. I suspect the interest in Anduril is growing the industry capacity, in the same manner that the new SDA constellation is split between seven companies including some smaller non prime contractors. It is a long term bet on growing the small-medium’s industrial base.
 
Last edited:
dark sidius said:
I criticize the CCA program not the NGAD fighter
Click to expand...
Nope you also criticize NGAD for spending billions with nothing to show. You're criticizing a program that is still classified (that have at least flying demonstrator breaking some sort of record(s) per USAF) for not showing anything and cite other programs that literally have nothing to show yet as well.

dark sidius said:
2009 they stop product of F-22 because F-35 was the holy grail , look at now where is the F-35 program ?
Click to expand...

Once again you detracting from the point, we're not arguing about the cutting of F-22. Though I agree with your general concern when hearing top USAF dude not giving a straight answer committing to NGAD there's no wiggling your way of making ridiculous point on your way to get to that sentiment.

dark sidius said:
They work for.. Anduril what they build ? Quadcopters
Click to expand...
You understand that what they won isn't the final phase of the program right? Once the phase completes the big boys northrop, lockheed, boeing can jump back in to bid for the next phase. It seems Air Force is trying to foster smaller companies so they can diversify the suppliers of their aircraft in this phase, assuming that the big boys have enough money of their own to continue in R&D in preparation for the next phase of bidding.

Also the bid that won Anduril is really Blue Force Technology's bid which won the adversary drone contract before. That tells me the techs they pitching with Fury is quite promising. Small companies like this, if somehow, won a large contract, often partner up with one of the big boys in production phase. However, again, the current phase of CCA is nowhere there yet. All the big boys still have a shot at the next phase.
 
DrRansom said:
3. The US aerospace industry lacks the skill to deliver good products on time and the US industrial base is too small to support any production rate above boutique.
Click to expand...
Planning a war economy in advance would alleviate that aspect.
 
donnage99 said:
Nope you also criticize NGAD for spending billions with nothing to show.
Click to expand...
I take your words, we can be agree that the F-22 production stop was a bad mistake. The NGAD fighter contract could be in October ? with the work on year 26 budget ?
 
Last edited:
dark sidius said:
I take your words, we can be agree that the F-22 production stop was a bad mistake.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a great idea no, but then by the time it was cut, the final number was down to 240 or 200 or something only marginally better anyway. They needed at least 500 really, even if the later ones were updates based on F-35 technology and a modular avionics architecture, a sort of F-22C if you like.
 
TomcatViP said:
And what if LM offered an improved 35 that matched most of the NGAD KPI (think F4D to F5D)?
Click to expand...
I immediately heard the voice of John Cleese: "Mate, this bird wouldn't voom if you put four million volts through it."

The plan was to use the adaptive engine on the F-35. It was killed because (1) the B couldn't use it, so the upgraded engine would have to be developed anyway, (2) the USAF did not push hard for it, which is interesting in itself, and (3) since GE was in the competition, it threatened RTX's license-to-print-money monopoly on F-35.

But with no F-35 re-engine program and F/A-XX adjourned sine die, NGAD would be carrying all of NGAP cost and risk, for what? 400 engines?

More here: https://valkstrat.com/ngad-we-hardly-knew-ye/

NGAP Plan.png
 
LowObservable said:
I immediately heard the voice of John Cleese: "Mate, this bird wouldn't voom if you put four million volts through it."

The plan was to use the adaptive engine on the F-35. It was killed because (1) the B couldn't use it, so the upgraded engine would have to be developed anyway, (2) the USAF did not push hard for it, which is interesting in itself, and (3) since GE was in the competition, it threatened RTX's license-to-print-money monopoly on F-35.

But with no F-35 re-engine program and F/A-XX adjourned sine die, NGAD would be carrying all of NGAP cost and risk, for what? 400 engines?

More here: https://valkstrat.com/ngad-we-hardly-knew-ye/

View attachment 732080
Click to expand...
How come AETP technology gives more improvement for the F-35 than for older aircraft/engines?
 
Notice @LowObservable that I wrote we should think something like an F5D, hence a disinhibited upgrade that do away with the core JSF requirements and impulse 20 years of tech innovation.
 
Forest Green said:
How come AETP technology gives more improvement for the F-35 than for older aircraft/engines?
Click to expand...
Maybe it's not that the AETP is more effective, but that those are issues with the F-35. The promised "2.5x low-alt dash time" is suggestive of such. But also, the engine for "legacy" aircraft may be an advanced fixed-cycle type.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom