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

Status
Not open for further replies.
If they're not progressing with NGAD, they need to build more F-22s in the meantime.
 
Not to be repetitive but this seemed to come with the confluence of

F-15EX
Very long range AAMs
CCAs

And maybe thinking “do we need a $300 million stealth fighter?”
 
bobbymike said:
And maybe thinking “do we need a $300 million stealth fighter?”
Click to expand...

More like how long can we wait for a new fighter.

Some of the capabilities they really want, like CCAs, are not really mature yet.
 
bobbymike said:
Not to be repetitive but this seemed to come with the confluence of

F-15EX
Very long range AAMs
CCAs

And maybe thinking “do we need a $300 million stealth fighter?”
Click to expand...
I can't say I really agree with such logic. The F-15EX has uses for sure, but it also has a large RCS and might have to worry about evading shots from those long-range AAMs you speak of. Similar missiles have existed before the AIM-174, but they're often not great at hitting fighters, let alone when those fighters have minimal RCS and quality ECM gear. CCAs are still relatively immature, and even if their capabilities were fully realized tomorrow, I'd still want manned fighters that can operate closer to their unmanned wingmen.
 
quellish said:
More like how long can we wait for a new fighter.

Some of the capabilities they really want, like CCAs, are not really mature yet.
Click to expand...
Perhaps new capabilities have been found that they feel need to be integrated into the aircraft. I don't know if that's a good guess, but it's wild to me to pause this right at the end.
 
Or, conversely, unmature technology with a low impact on how the war in the Pacific could be fought tomorrow are about to be deleted from the airframe, leaving room for a more efficient aircraft in that very context.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
The F-15EX has uses for sure, but it also has a large RCS
Click to expand...

I did hear that it was nicknamed 'The Magnet' in some quarters because of its tendency to attract metal.

Still, an F-1EX with CCAs (assuming some are mature soon) and a specialist wrangler in the back seat might plug a gap.

This article looks at the possibility:

https://www.twz.com/air/usaf-should-look-at-chinas-future-multi-crew-fighter-model-for-f-15ex
Meanwhile, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) advocates for multi-seat configurations to manage data-rich combat environments effectively. USAF plans, on the other hand, currently exclude utilizing the F-15EX’s rear cockpit, limiting its role to air-to-air missions and possibly limited air-to-ground missions sometime in the future.

In this era of transformative air combat, as the PLAAF pioneers new operational concepts with multi-seat fighters, the USAF stands at a crossroads, balancing legacy strategies with the imperative for adaptive, integrated command and control of unmanned systems and network-centric operations. With the F-15EX, however, the USAF has an opportunity to lead the way regarding future air combat by fully embracing the Eagle II’s two-crew capability.
 
I for one think long range AAMs are destined for the EX. Perhaps it’s as simple as validating the 174B, but I suspect the USAF would like much much faster and potentially more longer-ranged stand off missiles. Couple with six CCAs, four of which carry D3s or AIM-260As, this creates the ability to create formidable anti air bubbles provided air refueling and the requisite resilient/agile basing can be assured. Can also be used as hunter killer assets for high value ISR and tanker targets. In a vacuum this isn’t much, but a multiship EX formation sharing sensor CCAs, allowing for more effector CCAs, becomes especially intriguing if USAF have some sort of Project Mayhem type unmanned asset to keep red forces on their back foot.

Putting that aside, I believe there’s a lot more going on here with the recent bubbling of NGAD issues culminating w SecAF comments today - I’m not convinced that this announcement is just because the deciders had an oh sh*t moment on the cost per capability of the Boeing and LMs NGAD proposals in a vacuum where the only thing that changed was someone did basic counting math on the salvo generation of PRC forces across both island chains vs US ground base launches and VLSs, and what that meant for runway availability in an all-out shooting war. That’s nuts. There must be better ways of deploying $50bn+ to impose US policy in the west pacific than 150 aircraft that quite honestly might only be marginally better than F-22 or -35 at solving dilemmas a future PRC IAD systems might impose in 203x when NGAD protection might be at full tilt.
 
On second thought maybe this is pretty easy.

Merge the USN and USAF NGAD programs.

Let carrier ops define the baseline specs.

Use as much F-35 stuff as possible including awarding GE a contract for an adaptive powerplant that will be backward compatible with A/C F-35 models.

Develop external weapons and tank pylons that can be jetistoned and restore a totally undisturbed surface for incoming EM emissions.

Develop an airframe with highly efficient high subsonic speed with low IR emissions but with excellent transonic and climb performance, even a the expense of a high top speed. Supercruise would be nice but not a dealbreaker.

Design capacious and thoughtful weapons bays that emphasize medium to very long range weapon sizes vs bespoke cubby holes for 9Xs or AMRAAMs.

Space for future power generation, cooling, sensors, etc

All in all design a new airframe and use as much currently existing tech to populate its innards, similar to B-21, which now that you look back on it, might have been the template for NGAD hiding in plane sight (haha) all along.

Develop a rapidly deployable EMALS and arrest system that can be deployed rapidly and integrate into the ACE deployment scheme.

Not sure the US can afford the cost of separate USN and USAF programs and unlike the F-35 and the STOVL requirement, NGAD might be a program where true efficiencies might be harvestable, especially if you can diversify the power plant benefits to the congressional boondoggle that is the F-35 (sorry marines, but you can still fly Cs off carriers). Plus, if the USAF is so worried about long run ways, perhaps approaching things like a naval aviator might actually be useful for future conops. But what do I know, I just write checks to the government and pay for stuff.
 
Last edited:
Training_Dummy said:
Putting that aside, I believe there’s a lot more going on here with the recent bubbling of NGAD issues culminating w SecAF comments today - I’m not convinced that this announcement is just because the deciders had an oh sh*t moment on the cost per capability of the Boeing and LMs NGAD proposals in a vacuum where the only thing that changed was someone did basic counting math on the salvo generation of PRC forces across both island chains vs US ground base launches and VLSs, and what that meant for runway availability in an all-out shooting war. That’s nuts. There must be better ways of deploying $50bn+ to impose US policy in the west pacific than 150 aircraft that quite honestly might only be marginally better than F-22 or -35 at solving dilemmas a future PRC IAD systems might impose in 203x when NGAD protection might be at full tilt.
Click to expand...
I think something is definitely going on that has nothing to do with their stated reasons why they are taking a pause. It really seems Kendall and his surrogates are throwing stuff at a wall and hope it sticks. We had variations of the budget, the cost of NGAD, a need for more range for NGAD, the exploding cost of Sentinel, a sudden change in the threat from the Chinese, and recent advances in AI. They have spent ten years and billions of dollar on research, analysis, demonstrators, production representative prototypes, and wargames and now they decide to take a pause to regroup? There is something else going on.

The budget situation has remained challenging, Sentinel overruns notwithstanding. The Pacific Ocean didn't get larger over the last few years. The threat from the Chinese has remained constant.

You are correct about the challenge facing the stand in force with basing. According to AF officials, you cannot defeat the Chinese from stand off ranges. You need to be able to operate from bases within the First Island Chain. NGAD doesn't have to have the range of B-21 to be valuable. By increasing the combat radius of NGAD above the F-35 and F-22 to 1,000 to 1,200 nm opens up a lot more bases to operate from in First Island Chain without the need for air to air refueling. The assumption was that the manned NGAD platform would be close in size to an F-111 and have similar range. Or were they looking at something smaller with less range and that is what the issue is? Kendall says they need more time to make sure they get this right. Then speculates that it may be unmanned, or optionally manned? Make up your mind already. Despite the efforts at damage control this looks like a big screw up by Kendall.
 
The USN program probably proceeds as is, but I cannot imagine the USAF ever buying it. They have totally different requirements. Typically that only happens when Congress forces the services to do so.
 
Josh_TN said:
The USN program probably proceeds as is, but I cannot imagine the USAF ever buying it. They have totally different requirements. Typically that only happens when Congress forces the services to do so.
Click to expand...
Or SecDef forces them to.

However, the first time that happened, it resulted in one of the greatest fighters of the generation: the F-4 Phantom II. The third time it happened, the USAF-demanded engine swap improved the type so much that the USN replaced all their older A7s with Spey-engined and M61 gunned A-7Es. The second time it happened, the carrier requirements were not held as critical, so the F-111B was rejected hard.
 
Josh_TN said:
The USN program probably proceeds as is, but I cannot imagine the USAF ever buying it. They have totally different requirements. Typically that only happens when Congress forces the services to do it
Click to expand...

Budget crunch is real.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The second time it happened, the carrier requirements were not held as critical, so the F-111B was rejected hard.
Click to expand...

Well the F-111B could've worked but the requirements were set during the Vietnam war where the USN, USAF and USMC discovered the hard way that they needed dogfighting interceptors with internal guns so they wanted the shit-hot F-14A Tomcat not the F-111B Turkey supersonic LR missile-truck (Even though I'm sure it would've done an adequate job defending the CVBG from AS-4 Kitchen toting Tu-22Ms).
 
Scott Kenny said:
Or SecDef forces them to.

However, the first time that happened, it resulted in one of the greatest fighters of the generation: the F-4 Phantom II. The third time it happened, the USAF-demanded engine swap improved the type so much that the USN replaced all their older A7s with Spey-engined and M61 gunned A-7Es. The second time it happened, the carrier requirements were not held as critical, so the F-111B was rejected hard.
Click to expand...
Great historical perspective/reminder.

Look we all know how much powerplant & associated systems plus sensor suites are combined a major fraction of an aircraft’s cost. BTW carrier specific gear coupled with thrust reversers is a feature not a bug. As is folding wings if you want to maximize hardened shelters.

It shouldn’t be a dealbreaker. It’s worth looking at. Besides, we all know we are looking for interim solutions that provide step and not incremental improvements given the huge per airframe costs, but this is all prelude to a radically different form of aerial warfare both at the personal level (drones) and beyond.
 
Training_Dummy said:
Great historical perspective/reminder.

Look we all know how much powerplant & associated systems plus sensor suites are combined a major fraction of an aircraft’s cost. BTW carrier specific gear coupled with thrust reversers is a feature not a bug. As is folding wings if you want to maximize hardened shelters.

It shouldn’t be a dealbreaker. It’s worth looking at. Besides, we all know we are looking for interim solutions that provide step and not incremental improvements given the huge per airframe costs, but this is all prelude to a radically different form of aerial warfare both at the personal level (drones) and beyond.
Click to expand...
Yup. and personally, I hope that the USAF NGAD has two seats, because I don't think the CCAs are going to be single-pilot-friendly for a decade or more.

I'm guessing that the USN version will have two seats, since it's taking over the Fleet Air Defense role. It's just flat useful to have a spotter working your long range sensors while the pilot works the short range sensors like the Mk1 eyeball.

My mental model for the USAF NGAD has it roughly the size of an F111 or larger (105klbs MTOW), due to the range desired. Also has a variant that is a Strike Eagle replacement with a ~20,000lb increased MTOW for bombload. The NGAD payload is honestly only about 3000lbs as 8x AMRAAM and 2x Sidewinders.

The USN FAXX cannot be more than about 85,000lbs MTOW due to catapult limits, and can't weigh more than about 46,000lbs empty due to arresting gear limits. Even the new AAG in the Ford has the upper limit of ~55,000lbs. The AAG is capable of handling much lighter aircraft (drones) than the older gear on the Nimitz.
 
Forest Green said:
If they're not progressing with NGAD, they need to build more F-22s in the meantime.
Click to expand...
Since the reason they've been touting is that they nees a reevaluation of priorities in requirements and what they nees in fighting in the Pacific, I think it's quite clear that F-22, the plane which they deemed inadequate for those requirements, wouln't cut it.

Josh_TN said:
NGAD is almost a decade away.
Click to expand...
Going by how thinga are progressing, I'd say it would take well over a decade at the earliest.

B2Blain said:
The Pacific Ocean didn't get larger over the last few years. The threat from the Chinese has remained constant.
Click to expand...
First part is definitwey true geography-wise, but from operations perspective, safe-zone for the US and allied forces shrank, whereas Chinese are of operatiom/their "bastion" significantly grew.

The second part I definitely can't agree. Their A2AD capabilities as well as C4ISR within the theatre have constantly improved, none-stop, every year.

Though I'd agree that the chanhe is incremental, not revolutionary, and it's not something the USAF would not have been able to anticipate and change their minds on NGAD all of the sudden.
 
I think this crucially gives time not only for the USAF themselves but for LM (and maybe Boeing) to un-fuck themselves. Before anything, if I'd be in charge I'll also want to get things sorted out for the F-35 before embarking on a highly technologically advanced fighter development.

Especially considering a lot of the major problem caused during JSF was due to technology immaturity and concurrent technology research and aircraft development. Those technologies which are touted as next-gen don't really seem mature enough either.

Well at least they wouldn't have shortage of programmers unlike how it used to be just a few years ago.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
Since the reason they've been touting is that they nees a reevaluation of priorities in requirements and what they nees in fighting in the Pacific, I think it's quite clear that F-22, the plane which they deemed inadequate for those requirements, wouln't cut it.
Click to expand...
And 'absolutely nothing' cuts it even less well...
 
No recent rumours of Navy Fighter 2017 in this country.

(When translated this means they apparently have not made a choice between the low end and the high end. The high clearly might be feasible with the American tech level in 10 years time, as noted in a post above)
 
bobbymike said:
Not to be repetitive but this seemed to come with the confluence of

F-15EX
Very long range AAMs
CCAs

And maybe thinking “do we need a $300 million stealth fighter?”
Click to expand...
And also manned or unmanned.
 
On May 31, 2022, Safran Landing Systems Canada Inc. announced receiving a contract from Lockheed to design and qualify a landing gear structure for a “future aircraft.” Most flying demonstrators borrow landing gear from existing aircraft. The expense required to design a new landing gear generally is reserved for programs of record, not one-offs. At the time, Safran and Lockheed declined to elaborate on the announcement.
Click to expand...

I see it was mentioned here in 2022.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...-a-xx-f-x-ngad-pca-asfs-news.3536/post-536623
What other non NGAD aircraft would be mass produced?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom