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

Status
Not open for further replies.
In_A_Dream said:
More stirring the pot.

www.defenseone.com

What will happen to the Air Force’s next-gen fighter jet?

The service may be waffling on NGAD because it’s dealing with a “truly miserable choice,” one analyst said.
www.defenseone.com www.defenseone.com
Click to expand...

$300m is the Lockheed number and the Lockheed concept isn’t as interesting.

The Boeing number and concept are more interesting to USAF but…. Boeing. Lasers are great guys but we doubt your ability to execute even more than Lockheed.

The Air Force isn’t convinced they can convince the hill to fund this outside of a SAP because neither contractor has been convincing lately.

The Air Force has still not realized the degree of scrutiny they are facing regarding their use of SAPs to fund improbable programs will affect everything they do. Remember what the Church committee did to the intelligence community? The last 40 years of classification policy are about to haunt the Air Force.
 
After losing the ATF contract Northrop were right to jump ship to the naval F/A-XX program instead, and they are now justified in their actions because of what is going on behind the scenes in the Air Force.
 
FighterJock said:
After losing the ATF contract Northrop were right to jump ship to the naval F/A-XX program instead, and they are now justified in their actions because of what is going on behind the scenes in the Air Force.
Click to expand...
I think more and more that the FA/XX program will be better execute than the NGAD one , Northrop is the best company today for built it. May be they know that the NGAD program will face big problems before to be executed and instead they focus on FA/XX. Northrop built the 6th gen B-21 bomber , they built the YF-23 who was in fact in advance and may be better than the F-22. Today Lockheed are overtake by the F-35 program and surely this is the reason of the doubt about NGAD.
 
Surely the best idea for the USAF is to do a joint program with the US Navy and use the F/A-XX as a starting point. Obviously the NGAD was starting to get financial problems and that is why the USAF are starting to have issues with the whole program.
 
FighterJock said:
Surely the best idea for the USAF is to do a joint program with the US Navy and use the F/A-XX as a starting point. Obviously the NGAD was starting to get financial problems and that is why the USAF are starting to have issues with the whole program.
Click to expand...
Sure the CCA is not able to compensate the NGAD capacity , or USAF could build a UCAV with high supersonic capacity to do the intercept mission , there is a need for a plane with supersonic capability to do the sky police and intercept ennemy fighter CCA actual program is unable to do this mission, like the intercept of the Chinese balloon and the other mystery objects intercepted past years.
 
I think overall that a supersonic UCAV was what the USAF was wanting ultimitely for the NGAD but decided for a manned fighter for part of the mission instead, and that manned fighter is what is causing the problems currently.
 
dark sidius said:
I think more and more that the FA/XX program will be better execute than the NGAD one , Northrop is the best company today for built it. May be they know that the NGAD program will face big problems before to be executed and instead they focus on FA/XX. Northrop built the 6th gen B-21 bomber , they built the YF-23 who was in fact in advance and may be better than the F-22. Today Lockheed are overtake by the F-35 program and surely this is the reason of the doubt about NGAD.
Click to expand...
The same Navy that screwed the pooch on the A-12 Avenger II AND turned UCLASS from a strike / ISR drone into a refueling drone of which they have yet to bring to carriers? The same Navy that has let their carrier air force atrophy down to just three types of airframes severely limiting range and options? Remember the Navy changed their requirements on the JSF late in the game requiring a rework of Boeings design.

Also, the Navy is slow rolling F/A-XX and has proposed delaying funds for it for other near term investments. If I had to pick whats likely to be a better run program for the 6th gen fighters, I'd pick the Air Force 100%.

Smart play IMO would be for NGAD and F/A-XX to use the same engines and basic sensor package but different air frames. Let the services get the airframes they need but have them share some high dollar equipment for economy of scale.
 
FighterJock said:
I think overall that a supersonic UCAV was what the USAF was wanting ultimitely for the NGAD but decided for a manned fighter for part of the mission instead, and that manned fighter is what is causing the problems currently.
Click to expand...

That's probably the hardest pill to swallow for the fighter jocks - the end of manned fighters. Maybe it's coming sooner than they hoped.
 
In_A_Dream said:
That's probably the hardest pill to swallow for the fighter jocks - the end of manned fighters. Maybe it's coming sooner than they hoped.
Click to expand...

I doubt that happens anytime soon, but it is remotely possible that the last manned fighter is already in production as the costs in time and money of manned fighters spiral outside of any practical war planning.

But more likely NGAD sees the light of day at some point in some form, just probably a lot later than anyone would have liked. The CCAs on the other hand look like they will be cranked out in several years. GA has come out and said they can beat the USAFs schedule by as much as 50%, which is somewhat believable given that XQ-67 is already flying and their CCA is a derivative.

General Atomics Expects To Beat USAF’s Schedule With CCA Design | Aviation Week Network

The U.S. Air Force announced April 24 that it selected General Atomics and Anduril to continue designs for the first phase of its CCA program.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
 
In_A_Dream said:
That's probably the hardest pill to swallow for the fighter jocks - the end of manned fighters. Maybe it's coming sooner than they hoped.
Click to expand...
Horrific.
That will be when I personally check out of any interest in military aviation projects.
“The robot, launched a robot, that launched a robot…”
Not interested in that at all.
 
quellish said:
$300m is the Lockheed number and the Lockheed concept isn’t as interesting.

The Boeing number and concept are more interesting to USAF but…. Boeing. Lasers are great guys but we doubt your ability to execute even more than Lockheed.

The Air Force isn’t convinced they can convince the hill to fund this outside of a SAP because neither contractor has been convincing lately.

The Air Force has still not realized the degree of scrutiny they are facing regarding their use of SAPs to fund improbable programs will affect everything they do. Remember what the Church committee did to the intelligence community? The last 40 years of classification policy are about to haunt the Air Force.
Click to expand...
“Whether it's driven by concerns over the budget, or concerns over technology, or uncertainty on the future of manned fighter designs—there's a bunch of open questions here,” Royce said.

China doesn’t seem to conflicted at all. They’re doing all of the above.

The US?
Hamlet. A sea of Hamlets.
All hoping they can take a nap and wake up and it’s 2006 again where the threat could be handled by TSA.
 
According to JJ Gertler from the Defense and Aerospace podcast, the issue is not necessarily funding but the environment and the way the AF intends to fight has changed. They are supposedly thinking about a pause to re spec NGAD.

After spending billions and building three or more demonstrators the AF has now decided the design is inadequate? For me, this makes me question their whole concept of operations regarding the manned/unmanned teaming concept. Could they not have come to this conclusion four years ago? What exactly has changed?

According to General Clinton Hinote, the USAF is pursuing an inside/out strategy. The AF needs to be prepared to fight within the First Island Chain as well as projecting power from outside of it with long range assets. You could theoretically operate CCAs, may be even runway independent ones, along with manned fighters from the Ryukyus and the Philippines. Hinote acknowledged that this will be a difficult environment, but they have no choice. How did NGAD fit within this concept? Did it have the range to operate from the Second Island Chain? At minimum it should have had greater range than the AF's current fighters, providing more basing options especially on the Japanese mainland. Would you need CCAs with similar range or would they join NGAD at some point?

This kicks the can down the road further. The F-22s get older. The longer the AF waits the more difficult and the more expensive it will be to upgrade the Block 20s. Unless they are going to rely on CCAs to fill the gap? How much confidence does the XQ-67 or Fury give you? Allvin and Kendall seem to be brainstorming in public without any real idea of where to go.
 
B2Blain said:
According to JJ Gertler from the Defense and Aerospace podcast, the issue is not necessarily funding but the environment and the way the AF intends to fight has changed. They are supposedly thinking about a pause to re spec NGAD.

After spending billions and building three or more demonstrators the AF has now decided the design is inadequate? For me, this makes me question their whole concept of operations regarding the manned/unmanned teaming concept. Could they not have come to this conclusion four years ago? What exactly has changed?

According to General Clinton Hinote, the USAF is pursuing an inside/out strategy. The AF needs to be prepared to fight within the First Island Chain as well as projecting power from outside of it with long range assets. You could theoretically operate CCAs, may be even runway independent ones, along with manned fighters from the Ryukyus and the Philippines. Hinote acknowledged that this will be a difficult environment, but they have no choice. How did NGAD fit within this concept? Did it have the range to operate from the Second Island Chain? At minimum it should have had greater range than the AF's current fighters, providing more basing options especially on the Japanese mainland. Would you need CCAs with similar range or would they join NGAD at some point?

This kicks the can down the road further. The F-22s get older. The longer the AF waits the more difficult and the more expensive it will be to upgrade the Block 20s. Unless they are going to rely on CCAs to fill the gap? How much confidence does the XQ-67 or Fury give you? Allvin and Kendall seem to be brainstorming in public without any real idea of where to go.
Click to expand...
The XQ-67 design mean poor speed and unable to fight in the air it is not fitting for that and realy the Fury don't seem to be better you can't base air dominance on UAV like that, or there is something else we don't know? a new technology appear ? A new kind of UCAV build in the black who can change the game? There is something happening behind the wall may be ? USAF can't change radicaly his mind on air dominance like that, this mission is vital for a war. F-22 start to be old and too costly to retrofit, F-35 is a nightmare never ending , USAF don't choose to put a new variable cycle in it because too costly and need money for NGAD. So if USAF stop NGAD fighter it will leave them with zero option in a near futur in face off China. I can't imagine that USAF generals are so madness to leave USAF falling behind the China Air Force. Or something in the black can give a new option for USAF who know ? I f there is something to cancel this is the F-35 this program is a nightmare since the start, Lockheed seem to be completly surpassed by this plane, it live problems after problems, F-35 B and C was unable to sustain supersonic , problem with hardware , problem with engine etc....May be it is time to stop waste money on it.
 
Last edited:
Alex Hollings from Sandboxx has put out a video concerning the NGAD's financial issues:


America’s next stealth fighter, slated to replace the F-22 Raptor by the close of this decade, may no longer be a sure thing, as Air Force officials struggle to balance the ledger amid a long list of high-profile modernization programs.
Click to expand...
Let's talk about what we know, and what this could mean for American Defense.
Click to expand...
Read our full write-up on this topic here: https://www.sandboxx.us/news/the-futu...
Click to expand...
 
I had assumed that the CCAs would be relatively short ranged but also have low runway requirements. RATO and drag chutes, if not something like XQ-58 that was totally runway independent. I was always surprised Kratos was not part of the Incr 1 competition. I interpreted the role of the UAVs as functioning as a forward passive sensor net (IRST, ESM), stand in jammer/decoy, and perhaps most importantly off board firing platform, since launching a missile is a huge IR event that cannot be concealed. To perform these roles, I assumed CCA would have to have a low enough radar and IR signature to get within easy AIM-120 range, since the bulk of the AAM stockpile would still be AMRAAM for the foreseeable future and CCAs would be numerous.

I figured NGAD itself would be very long ranged with a large payload and supercruise, with the goal of being the primary sensor and command platform. It possibly would also have a capability to internally carry very large, long range AAMs for use against high value targets (AEW, tankers) while the CCAs focused on fighters.

All of this is purely guesswork on my part and should not be taken as USAF requirements or strategy.

If I were to guess, I would say that perhaps the USAF has come to question whether a fast, long range fighter is a necessary or cost effective part of air dominance - other platforms might fill the sensor and command roles for less cost (B-21? RQ-180? Something else black?). Alternatively, the demonstrators might not have achieved sufficient increases in range to make NGAD more viable than conventional aircraft - it would need almost a 2000 mi /3500 km combat radius just to operate from the second island chain without tanker support. And this assumes that one thinks the second island chain will be a lot less vulnerable than the first, and assumption that might not have panned out.

USAF might be rescoping the project to be less ambitious to reduce costs and increase numbers. We do not know enough about the requirements to do more than guess.
 
Josh_TN said:
I had assumed that the CCAs would be relatively short ranged but also have low runway requirements. RATO and drag chutes, if not something like XQ-58 that was totally runway independent. I was always surprised Kratos was not part of the Incr 1 competition. I interpreted the role of the UAVs as functioning as a forward passive sensor net (IRST, ESM), stand in jammer/decoy, and perhaps most importantly off board firing platform, since launching a missile is a huge IR event that cannot be concealed. To perform these roles, I assumed CCA would have to have a low enough radar and IR signature to get within easy AIM-120 range, since the bulk of the AAM stockpile would still be AMRAAM for the foreseeable future and CCAs would be numerous.

I figured NGAD itself would be very long ranged with a large payload and supercruise, with the goal of being the primary sensor and command platform. It possibly would also have a capability to internally carry very large, long range AAMs for use against high value targets (AEW, tankers) while the CCAs focused on fighters.

All of this is purely guesswork on my part and should not be taken as USAF requirements or strategy.

If I were to guess, I would say that perhaps the USAF has come to question whether a fast, long range fighter is a necessary or cost effective part of air dominance - other platforms might fill the sensor and command roles for less cost (B-21? RQ-180? Something else black?). Alternatively, the demonstrators might not have achieved sufficient increases in range to make NGAD more viable than conventional aircraft - it would need almost a 2000 mi /3500 km combat radius just to operate from the second island chain without tanker support. And this assumes that one thinks the second island chain will be a lot less vulnerable than the first, and assumption that might not have panned out.

USAF might be rescoping the project to be less ambitious to reduce costs and increase numbers. We do not know enough about the requirements to do more than guess.
Click to expand...
Or with the B-21 testing there is capability who don't know or USAF discover to be useful and it can serve for air dominance too... b-21 like a mothership with UCAV in air/air role..
 
Quite honestly if the decision is that the USAF has no choice but to fight the first island chain, the best option is to adopt F-35B instead of playing the range game.
 
dark sidius said:
The XQ-67 design mean poor speed and unable to fight in the air it is not fitting for that and realy the Fury don't seem to be better you can't base air dominance on UAV like that, or there is something else we don't know? a new technology appear ? A new kind of UCAV build in the black who can change the game? There is something happening behind the wall may be ? USAF can't change radicaly his mind on air dominance like that, this mission is vital for a war.
Click to expand...
There must be some kind of vision behind Increment I. You would think that it would not be revealing too much if they could at least say if it was intended to extend the sensor reach of manned fighters? May be a munitions truck to increase the magazine depth of the F-35 and F-22? The Chinese probably have a good idea of the specs of the XQ-67 and Fury. Speed, range, sensor type payload, size of the weapons bay?

I am just skeptical, and do not have much confidence in the CCA advocates. What do we have to go on besides the pronouncements of officials regarding how the AI comes close or is superior to a human pilot? Has there been any operational testing during an exercise to prove the concept?

They haven't even nailed down the specs. Runway independence? Do you include AR capability? Range, speed, payload, size of weapons bay? If CCAs carry their weapons externally, doesn't that expose the low observable fighters they are teamed with?

Even the concept of removing CCAs from front line service after 10 years doesn't make sense. The AF is going to spend $20-30 million for a CCA and then withdraw it from service after 10 years? Where are they going to find the money to maintain the CCA force structure? I don't think they even do this with munitions, which are much less expensive.
 
B2Blain said:
There must be some kind of vision behind Increment I. You would think that it would not be revealing too much if they could at least say if it was intended to extend the sensor reach of manned fighters? May be a munitions truck to increase the magazine depth of the F-35 and F-22? The Chinese probably have a good idea of the specs of the XQ-67 and Fury. Speed, range, sensor type payload, size of the weapons bay?

I am just skeptical, and do not have much confidence in the CCA advocates. What do we have to go on besides the pronouncements of officials regarding how the AI comes close or is superior to a human pilot? Has there been any operational testing during an exercise to prove the concept?

They haven't even nailed down the specs. Runway independence? Do you include AR capability? Range, speed, payload, size of weapons bay? If CCAs carry their weapons externally, doesn't that expose the low observable fighters they are teamed with?

Even the concept of removing CCAs from front line service after 10 years doesn't make sense. The AF is going to spend $20-30 million for a CCA and then withdraw it from service after 10 years? Where are they going to find the money to maintain the CCA force structure? I don't think they even do this with munitions, which are much less expensive.
Click to expand...

My personal guess, based on the products being looked at/down selected, is that USAF is looking for something just large enough to carry two BVR AAMs (threshold), maybe four with external carriage (objective), such that it is capable of a single attack against an opponent fighter with a decent chance of success. Defensively these would be mixed with a combination of smaller sensor/jammer only UAVs either air or rocket launched (UTAP-22 for example) and expendable decoys (MALD and follow on types). The goal is to create a wide sensor network and missile sponge that is also sufficiently combat capable that no target can be ignored as harmless. These platforms would range from expendable to attritional to it-would-be-nice-to-get-back-but-I-would-trade-it-for-an-opponent-fighter-any-day. Some of the smaller lower end UAVs might be optionally bomber launched to increase flexibility, and expendable air to air solutions like DARPA Long Shot might supplement such an effort.

I think manned NGAD is/was to be primarily a manned control and sensor node with high survivability, but perhaps existing platforms can fill the role. Alternatively, perhaps modern satellite datalinks and relay UAVs can simply offboard control to the CONUS via the future LEO communications constellation which will have much lower latency than traditional GEO com sats. Dedicated sensor UAVs like the OBSS could provide a lower cost radar solution than a manned platform and data link its info locally or even into orbit. Something like “RQ-180” or some other high altitude platform might easily have a direct laser link to the new satellite constellation, bypassing UHF links. Automation may reduce the amount of direct control that is necessary well within the expected delivery timeframe of a new cutting edge manned platform: high performance manned fighters take so long to develop that it might be that they simply cannot compete in the compressed technology cycles we live in, compared to UCAVs that can be built with lower performance, longevity, and survival requirements.

Those are my rough thoughts on the subject. High performance manned aircraft might have priced themselves out of the market, not so much in terms of money cost, but in development time cycle cost. Whatever you think about XQ-58 or 67, they are being produced now and can be built in the low hundreds per year with a relatively modest infrastructure investment (Kratos says they can do 200/year given a large enough order). And in several years, a whole different aircraft from another manufacturer can be developed in another increment. The CCA/UCAV market among small to mid sized companies might swell, and if CCA is anything like PWSA, the goal of some of these contracts is not just to produce products but to grow the industry (I’m looking at you Anduril and York systems).

As for performance, eventually the UCAV market will drive light weight augmented versions of commercial turbo fans that allow supersonic speeds and better acceleration. But even subsonic, it’s not like you can just ignore a BVR armed UCAV, particularly if a number of them are carrying AIM-260 (which a USAF general already hinted at).
 
Last edited:
One further thought: CCA/UCAVs also handle a couple of the highest reoccurring costs of aircraft: maintenance and training. AI does not need training flight hours per year. You would only need to fly UAVs with manned aircraft to allow pilots to continually train with their wingmen (assuming the UAVs were not fully autonomous or controlled via other platforms), and high mileage aircraft can be taken off the training rotation and just stored as a semi expendable store. Maintenance should also be minimized: just stop using it before it needs a major overhaul and plug in a fresh one. I imagine some brisk business might even be done with high mileage commercial engines for initial production: the CCAs do not need anything like the lifespan of a biz jet engine, so maybe just grabbing high miles equipment returned to the manufacturer for overhaul and installing them on aircraft expecting to die inside several missions is completely practical and cost effective. Regardless, USAF might keep high hour, “old” CCAs around for years or decades as an expendable store that can still take AI software updates and has a compatible data link. Having a large force of aircraft that effectively do not have to routinely fly at all removes huge overhead for USAF.
 
Last edited:
Bruno Anthony said:
Hamlet. A sea of Hamlets.
Click to expand...
Pedant mode activated:

To be fair to the Danish prince, audiences of Shakespeare's time would have seen him as not indecisive but trapped in an unresolvable dilemma, or dilemmas.

Today we (mostly) don't believe in ghosts, and we don't believe in the divine right (and appointment) of kings, so the regicide that his father demands is not an affront to cosmic order to us but it is to him. We just don't have that theological context today. As a specific example, at one point Hamlet finds Claudius at prayer and has the opportunity to kill him but if he did so, because he is praying, Claudius would go to Heaven - something he definitely doesn't want while his own father suffers in Purgatory.

According to the commandments, he must honour his father but he must not kill and this is further compounded by the royal nature of the main characters, which brings further obligations that are placed in opposition.

Thus, what Hamlet is commanded and bound by filial duty to do is right but it is also wrong. He'd have no problem choosing between chicken or fish (take the chicken... or the lasagne!) but in this case the stakes are eschatological. 'To sleep, perchance to dream...' sums up not only his choice, but also the fact that since suicide is a mortal sin, he cannot even get out of the game. Only when he discovers that he is poisoned and dying is he free to act.

Pedant mode off.

Anyway, the allusion to Hamlet may be kind of appropriate, according to the Defense One article:

The Air Force may be waffling on NGAD because it’s dealing with a “truly miserable choice,” said Richard Aboulafia, managing director for AeroDynamic Advisory, an aerospace consulting firm.

Bill Sweetman might be having a grim smile over this:

Since the Air Force probably doesn’t trust Boeing enough to handle NGAD, and Lockheed is the only game in town for next-generation combat aircraft, the service could be telling the F-35 builder to “give us something to work with here on Block 4. When you've cleared up that absurd mess, you'll get this too. But we don't like it and we don't like your execution on things,” he said.
 
Rhinocrates said:
Wouldn't it be ironic, if after having dropped out of the NGAD competition, Northrop was awarded a contract for the FB-21?
Click to expand...

If things went that way, it would not be a separate product: it would be a B-21 with the same kit, just loaded with Long Shot type UAVs or very long range AAMs. It would be a training/software update, not a different platform. IF that is the way things go.
 
Last edited:
Amazing how quickly (well, ok, it took 167 electronic pages, so you got me there on the semantics/rhetorics) this discussion degenerated into a cartoon snippet. To be honest, if AI were actually to take over any intellectual discourse going forward, it might actually be an improvement...
 
martinbayer said:
Amazing how quickly (well, ok, it took 167 electronic pages, so you got me there on the semantics/rhetorics) this discussion degenerated into a cartoon snippet. To be honest, if AI were actually to take over any intellectual discourse going forward, it might actually be an improvement...
Click to expand...

To be fair, I posted some rather long winded content on where I thought the NGAD program was going and only then posted a one liner for a bit of levity.

When an AI can do that, I’ll retire.
 
In regards to B-21 air to air concept. Let's assume USAF, by means of stealth and EW, maintains monopoly on first look first shot first kill for the next 40 years, air to air engagement is still not 1 on 1 battle. Every time you shoot you also make yourself vulnerable. The enemy gets x amount of data on you because 1) you open your weapon bays 2) your missile isn't stealthy in infared. At some point, maybe after your 5th kill, the enemy can zero in on you to force engagement. The need for beyond visual range to maneuver out of enemy's no escape zone is still important in order to disengage and re-engage on your own terms. That requires speed and agility.

I'm not buying this subsonic bomber carrying massive amount of air to air missiles concept.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom