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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unfortunately, I'm just going with the most likely answer of the planners not knowing what they're doing. I'm sure they have the bean-counters breathing down their necks second guessing any option because some reformer transformational buzzword salesmen are promising some wunderwaffe that will do everything the USAF needs for dirt cheap just on the horizon.

I don't see what sort of relevant technology has matured faster than anticipated that is some sort of game-changer. If the CCA program is progressing well that is good news, but the laws of physics haven't changed here. The long ranges of the Pacific that are a concern did not get any smaller. Having some CCAs that can operate from trailers, conex containers, or whatever else you might hide on small islands could be very useful, but they're going to suffer a significant attrition rate and won't be enough to shift the outcome of any conflict in that region on their own. Once you start looking at bigger, faster, and more capable CCAs that price tag is going to move closer to that of a manned fighter of similar capability. That's not to say such designs wouldn't be useful, but they'll be significantly less useful if they aren't working alongside manned NGAD fighters.
 
WatcherZero said:
So China is where Europe was 15 years ago with projects like Taranis and Neuron and the US with the RQ-170?
Heck even Iran got a stealthy flying wing UCAV into service 10 years ago with the Shahad 171 Simorgh, so China is 10 years behind Iran.
Click to expand...

No -- the GJ-11s as an aircraft type is a well known quantity. The first prototype of GJ-11 flew back in late 2013 after all.

What's more notable about GJ-11 is that its progression from initial flight test a decade ago to now seems consistent with an intent to actually operationalize the aircraft. The hard work to actually develop the bespoke hardware and software to enable operationalization as well as the TTPs, is what no one seems to have been able to do for these higher end stealthy UCAVs yet (at least in the public space), so seeing GJ-11s show hints of progression (as well as seemingly intending to field it as a key part of the PLAN's CATOBAR carrier and 076 airwing) is indeed somewhat eyebrow raising despite the relative secrecy over the course of its development.

Of course none of this is to suggest that it's worthy of "sky is falling"-esque panic, but it's perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that the PLA has its own high end UCAV developments ongoing (including many efforts that aren't discussed often or openly), in a manner which would justify why the US describes China as the "pacing threat".


In context of US NGAD efforts and pursuits, the manner in which the USAF is being more careful and selective about what they actually want can of course partly be explained by fiscal limitations as well as technological changes, but they also haven't been secretive about the need to try and define what they need to face the PLA.
With the pace and scale of PLA modernization, the room for error, delays and mistakes is shrinking so understandably the USAF would be more cautious as well before committing to a big ticket program that will be hard to extract itself from if things went sideways.




snne said:
Sorry to wake you up from hibernation (jk) but most of the Chinese fleet is composed of old Russian Flankers (Su-30MKKs and J-11As), their much improved Chinese derivatives (J-11B(G), B(G)H (MLU AESA upgrade), J-15 and J-16), J-10A,B,C,S and JH-7A. Those J-7s and J-8Fs that you think of haven't been relevant since 2016-17 and most have been retired already.

At least some of the J-10As and (probably?) S' are receiving air cooled AESA radars as well.

As a matter of fact, China fields more AESA-equipped fighters than the whole combined fighter force of European NATO and they're producing roughly 170 aircraft per year, the majority of them being J-20s.

On the other hand, SAC (with its J-15B and J-35) is building a new plant that is comparable to Locheed's Forth Worth facility.
Click to expand...

Listing the "old Russian Flankers" first is probably a bit misleading because it unintentionally creates the appearance that they are most numerous or significant.
Even among PLA Flankers in service, the old Russian types (Su-27SK/J-11A, Su-30MKK/MK2) are probably among the least significant in number and easily the least capable of course.
J-16 > J-11B family (including G and twin seaters) > J-11A, MKK etc is probably more representative.

That said, I agree that quantifying the number of AESA equipped fighters for the PLA as well as quantifying how many new fighters they've produced since say, 2016 is probably useful for people to get a gauge as to the pace of contemporary PLA tacair modernization.



kqcke for you said:
His point was that most of there fleet was 80s fighter (designs as i understood it) which china also got. Thoses Flankers and all there children are not really newer
Click to expand...

In terms of airframe lifespan, the PLA's fighters are absolutely newer -- J-11Bs, J-16s, J-10A/B/Cs were all produced in the mid 2000s onwards, with J-16s and J-10Cs produced beginning since the mid 2010s.
In terms of technological sophistication of "80s fighter designs" -- that is highly variable, after all there are many 4.5th gen fighter aircraft today which are derived from 70s and 80s era fighter "designs" but have either received MLUs or had new variants developed and produced which make them many times more capable than their original forefathers. In the case of the PLA, the scale of their 4.5th gen fighter development and procurement pace in the last decade or two has been at a scale that is only rivalled by that of the US.
 
edit: link removed
(I linked the same article as Bobbymike, he was a split-second faster then me.)
 
Archibald said:
Total B.S
Click to expand...
You are BS , are you sure that Rafale or Eurofighter are equal to the J-20 ? Both are eighties plane , there is nothing in the hypersonic in Europe , China have the capacity Europe don't so yes Europe is behind China in military capacity, Missile , Tanks , Plane , space well behind China.
 
dark sidius said:
You are BS , are you sure that Rafale or Eurofighter are equal to the J-20 ? Both are eighties plane , there is nothing in the hypersonic in Europe , China have the capacity Europe don't so yes Europe is behind China in military capacity, Missile , Tanks , Plane , space well behind China.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah, entitled to your (wrong) opinion, and now on my IGNORE list.
 
dark sidius said:
You are BS , are you sure that Rafale or Eurofighter are equal to the J-20 ?
Click to expand...
Do they only got J20 or what? And what happend to a shit load of F-35 that Europe has in your mind?
dark sidius said:
Both are eighties plane , there is nothing in the hypersonic in Europe , China have the capacity Europe don't so yes Europe is behind China in military capacity, Missile , Tanks , Plane , space well behind China.
Click to expand...
Europe is behind but thats primary for production capability and capacity. Hypersonics are not an unstoppable system.
Yes there mutch further into ballistic missile systems or atleast they have a very modern technology level but for example i don't see them in anyway better on the ground except for mass. Anyway this is not what this thread is about so lets stop this
 
Last edited:
kqcke for you said:
Do they only got J20 or what? And what happend to a shit load of F-35 that Europe has in your mind?

Europe is behind but thats primary for production capability and capacity. Hypersonics are not an unstoppable system.
Yes there mutch further into ballistic missile systems or atleast they have a very modern technology level but for example i don't see them in anyway better on the ground except for mass. Anyway this is not what this thread is about so lets stop this
Click to expand...

Archibald said:
Blah blah blah, entitled to your (wrong) opinion, and now on my IGNORE list.
Click to expand...
Europe by herself is unable to win any war with out the USA , so this is a reason too that the NGAD Fighter is so important too , it make a form of deterence for the enemy , like the F-22 done. Yes for the F-35, so it is a USA plane , Europe is unable with the politics we have to develop a European 5th Gen fighter, keep my words you will never see any 5th or 6th gen Euopean fighter.
 
dark sidius said:
Europe by herself is unable to win any war with out the USA , so this is a reason too that the NGAD Fighter is so important too , it make a form of deterence for the enemy , like the F-22 done. Yes for the F-35, so it is a USA plane , Europe is unable with the politics we have to develop a European 5th Gen fighter, keep my words you will never see any 5th or 6th gen Euopean fighter.
Click to expand...
Kaan and SU-57 disagree (okay kaan only). We also got both 5 and 6th gen in development. Maybe FCAS fail but will also GCAP? Whats with swedens FCAS?
 
Don't know about Sweden's FCAS have not heard or seen much news about it recently. Is it in the early design stages?
 
There is no political wish to drive this project well , and the economy in Europe is in a bad direction so instead of the F-35 we will not seeing another type of fighter before a very long time.
 
FighterJock said:
Don't know about Sweden's FCAS have not heard or seen much news about it recently. Is it in the early design stages?
Click to expand...
Yes because there is no news, there is no budget , France is near of the recession and German economy is not in a good health too , I don't see how they can lead a 5th/6th gen fighter program, the only country able to do that is the USA and China. If NGAD is going well on a new fighter I hope they will sell it to the near allies.
 
I agree with you dark sidius I would not think that the US would not do the same mistake again and ban the sale of the NGAD to allies as they did with the F-22.
 
Last edited:
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/09...ng-the-air-forces-future-drone-program-video/

What's the operational concept for how CCA's will fight with manned fighters? "They don't know yet." Which is why the Air Force needs to stop screwing around the go to production with the NGAD platform. Another nugget. I thought Frank Kendall was an engineer? Well, he was also a human rights lawyer. That explains everything.
 
Northrop shows signs of interest to potentially rejoin NGAD competition as program's goals are altered:

“If they determine that there will be a material change to the program, we would go back and re-evaluate, just as we would any new opportunity, whether we think that it is a program that we’re well-differentiated to perform, whether we view the business case as one that makes sense for our company and our investors, and we would look at new alternatives. So we’re monitoring that one,” Kathy Warden said today during Morgan Stanley’s 12th Annual Laguna Conference.
Click to expand...

www.defenseone.com

Northrop might jump back into NGAD competition: CEO

Bids are in—but USAF’s “pause” may open new opportunities.
www.defenseone.com www.defenseone.com
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • Northrop-Grumman-NGAD-concept.jpg
    Northrop-Grumman-NGAD-concept.jpg
    566.8 KB · Views: 89
Ozair said:
How about another option.

3) USAF development of CCA has progressed further than thought and replaced manned NGAD mission sets that were previously thought to require a manned aircraft.
Click to expand...

IMO this is more likely than PRC aircraft being unexpectedly good or bad in a materially significant way.

I think the core problem with NGAD is that technology now accelerates so fast that a manned fighter program simply cannot be developed without the end product being obsolescent. The USAF has already hinted at this with the B-21: they are already indicating that within a decade the platform may not be sufficiently survivable in the face of new technology. They do not mention a specific technology, but two things immediately spring to mind: inexpensive, prolific UCAVs, of which the USAF effectively has four different prototypes in the ~10,000 lb MTOW class; and orbital MTI radar. The USAF has already stated it wants to have not just a GMTI, but also Air GMI system in place by the middle of the next decade, and there really does not seem to be a technical reason why they could not. The PRC is almost certainly right behind. The prospect of a downward looking radar on a wide flying wing shape presents a potential huge vulnerability. Add to that in the case of NGAD that a super cruising platform might also be detectable by low earth orbit IR missile tracking satellites, the first of which launch in a matter of months. Finally, throw in a huge number of datalinked IRST equipped platforms that can triangulate thermal targets and carry a pair of AAMs to engage them. And those are just the things we know about. These are US future capabilities but it seems clear China will keep up or at least quickly follow.

It may be that supersonic targets in general or sufficiently large plane forms can be tracked, or at least initially detected, on almost a global scale (at least in peacetime) within a decade. If so, the large, supersonic F-111 sized platform most of us were envisioning for manned NGAD would be DOA practically when it enters service. My guess is that the USAF is leaning towards cheaper and unmanned. I think there will still be one last manned fighter, but I think it is about to be drastically redesigned into something less ambitious that is closer to the USNs more traditional fighter like requirements.
 
Last edited:
dark sidius said:
Europe by herself is unable to win any war with out the USA , so this is a reason too that the NGAD Fighter is so important too , it make a form of deterence for the enemy , like the F-22 done. Yes for the F-35, so it is a USA plane , Europe is unable with the politics we have to develop a European 5th Gen fighter, keep my words you will never see any 5th or 6th gen Euopean fighter.
Click to expand...

If you believe that Great Britain, Italy, France, Germany, Sweden, Spain, etc will let Dassault, BAE, Leonardo, Airbus, MBDA, Rolls Royce, Snecma, MBDA, Hensoldt, Thales, Indra and a few other chaps close dozens of production facilities, kill hundreds of thousands of jobs, lose hundreds of billions in industrial output, destroy almost half of the continent defense industry this while Russia is going full Assyrian in Ukraine... you are completely out of it.

There´s nothing in the European politics today dissimilar to what gave us the Jaguar, Tornado, Eurofighter, etc.
What´s NOT happening is a 2024 fall of the Berlin Wall; the political/budget problems faced by SCAF and GCAP today are peanuts compared with the hell hole that the EFA program found itself circa 1989/90.

Amusing that anyone might believe that Russia, Turkey or South Korea can build their own next generation Fighters but somehow the Western European Countries cant do the same... Because?

About Hypersonics... V-MAX first flight was... June, last year.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
IMO this is more likely than PRC aircraft being unexpectedly good or bad in a materially significant way.

I think the core problem with NGAD is that technology now accelerates so fast that a manned fighter program simply cannot be developed without the end product being obsolescent. The USAF has already hinted at this with the B-21: they are already indicating that within a decade the platform may not be sufficiently survivable in the face of new technology. They do not mention a specific technology, but two things immediately spring to mind: inexpensive, prolific UCAVs, of which the USAF effectively has four different prototypes in the ~10,000 lb MTOW class; and orbital MTI radar. The USAF has already stated it wants to have not just a GMTI, but also Air GMI system in place by the middle of the next decade, and there really does not seem to be a technical reason why they could not. The PRC is almost certainly right behind. The prospect of a downward looking radar on a wide flying wing shape presents a potential huge vulnerability. Add to that in the case of NGAD that a super cruising platform might also be detectable by orbital IR missile track satellites, the first of which launch in a matter of months. Finally, throw in a huge number of datalinked IRST equipped platforms that can triangulate thermal targets and carry a pair of AAMs to engage them. And those are just the things we know about. These are US future capabilities but it seems clear China will keep up or at least quickly follow.

It may be that supersonic targets in general or sufficiently large plane form can be tracked, or at least detected, on almost a global scale (at least in peacetime) within a decade. If so, the large, supersonic F-111 sized platform most of us are envisioning would be DOA practically when it enters service. My guess is that the USAF is leaning towards cheaper and unmanned. I think there will still be one last manned fighter, but I think it is about to be drastically redesigned into something less ambitious that is closer to the USNs more traditional fighter like requirements.
Click to expand...
There will be a need for a high end platform with supersonic capability, UCAV are not they are subsonic and unable to do the mission the F-22 did with the high altitude Chinese balloon for exemple , look at the Ukraine war drone don't give the victory for any parts, at a time you must built something fast powerfull and with a big destruction capability. The Grail could be a big , supersonic platform with direct energy able to fry anything in the sky around it with light year timing fire.
 
dark sidius said:
There will be a need for a high end platform with supersonic capability, UCAV are not they are subsonic and unable to do the mission the F-22 did with the high altitude Chinese balloon for exemple , look at the Ukraine war drone don't give the victory for any parts, at a time you must built something fast powerfull and with a big destruction capability. The Grail could be a big , supersonic platform with direct energy able to fry anything in the sky around it with light year timing fire.
Click to expand...

There is no reason future UCAVs could not be supersonic and no reason manned aircraft could not be retained in the air policing role.
 
Last edited:
If the requirements of NGAD were to move toward FA-XX (my personal suspicion), then it makes sense for NG to chase it. If the USAF is going for something simpler, lighter and shorter ranged, then that dramatically changes the playing field. Even more so if they are interested in short runway capability - a CV oriented airframe would already have a much shorter run out just by nature of USN stall speed and control surface requirements. F-35C has something like half the runway requirement of the A version. If rough, short airstrip capability is being substituted for brute range, FA-XX with a little lightening of the internal structure might drop in well with the revised requirements. Hell even the tailhook might be useful using mobile land based arrestors; I think the USMC trains for that with its hornets.
 
I still suspect NGAD was morphing into a 6th gen super-plane that cost too much for a conventional war against China. USAF needs a reasonable cost 6th gen fighter that can be purchased in F-15C/E numbers, 500-1000 total airframes. That pushes towards the smaller, STOL focused design that gives up some stealth.

Space Based aircraft tracking, I think, makes supersonic dash more valuable. If nearly anything of a useful size can be seen and tracked, speed alone offers protection. Yes, supersonic aircraft can be seen, but if nobody can get to them in time, they'll be able to complete their mission.
 
Josh_TN said:
I don’t see any reason a UAV optimized for A2A needs two engines.
Click to expand...
The issue is at this point no CCA we have seen matches the performance, sensor capability and magazine depth of manned aircraft other than in range and that range comes from subsonic optimised airframes. It seems likely that to match that mix would require a platform that costs similar to a manned platform, until such point that volume production may bring that comparatively down.
 
Imho I think there is still a role for a large capacity aircraft that cruises efficiently at high altitude with as LO a profile as possible, the ability to rapidly accelerate through the transonic regime to launch its missiles with the friendliest energy state possible and continue its supersonic profile to rapidly egress from the threat environment. By large capacity I mean a high fuel fraction as well as the ability to internally carry ideally eight AMRAAM class weapons like -120D3 or -260 with the ability to accommodate two larger weapons internally should the USAF ever field such a thing. I would overspec power and cooling and only uses avionics, radar/EM/sensor systems and comms that will be fielded in TR3 or beyond F-35s and in B-21, with of course SWAPC headroom for future upgrades. Im not sure what cool variants of existing powerplants PW and GE have on the shelf, but there has to be something that can be used without investing in a new powerplant per se but allows the achievement of the mission parameters described crudely earlier.

If simplified enough, the is an airframe that even a non traditional prime might credibly compete for a contract. Given the reveal of the manned Model 437, the airframe described above might actually be readily adaptable for manned/unmanned options. Less emphasis on dogfighting and maneuvering, no lasers or DEW, no gun. Only thing you really splurge on is on EOTS and passive targeting and awareness.
 
Josh_TN said:
The prospect of a downward looking radar on a wide flying wing shape presents a potential huge vulnerability. Add to that in the case of NGAD that a super cruising platform might also
Click to expand...
Thw whole point of low observability is to avoid getting locked on; to make it harder for the enemy to get a missile lock; and avoid getting detected (if possible) in the first place but the former always has the priority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom