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

[Scott Kenny]

I totally get it and agree. The F-35 isn't going anywhere though I am sure they will stop well short of the 1.6K plug they've been using for a couple of decades.

As of September 2023, the USAF still had 726x F-16Cs in service, 418x of them Active USAF, 258x Air Guard, and 50x in Reserve units. Plus another 126x F-16Ds that are nominally trainers but combat capable. So I expect at least 1250 total F-35s, just to replace all the F-16s in the USAF.

Question then becomes what else do they replace? There are 260x A-10s in inventory, 145x F-15Cs (and 24x F-15Ds), and 218x Strike Eagles. The F-35 is not really a replacement for the A-10, mission wise, the F-35 is really a stealthy A-7. But that'd get us to 1.5k F-35s. I'm pretty sure the F-15EX is supposed to replace the F-15Cs and -Ds, while the Strike Eagles don't need to be replaced till the 2040s.

Personally, I hope that the NGAD is designed with bays large enough to hold at least 12klbs of bombs so that a "Strike NGAD" would be possible to replace the Strike Eagles. The other option is the USAF buying the FAXX to replace Strike Eagles and putting up with the reduced range compared to NGAD.

So, no - the next big thing isn't going to be seen in some CGI youtube video - it's gonna be in real life. My bet for NGAD? FAXX? heat distorted spotter photos from ground tests or a first flight, or some type of b-21 like reveal.

Agreed.

Though that radar intrigues me. It's exactly the kind of thing that the ground-attack systems complex needs. Side note, I doubt that there'd be a converted Bizjet flying JSTARS missions, not when you can stuff that radar into a CCA that is the equivalent of the TACIT BLUE. Your strike complex is going to have a recon CCA with radar and EOTS eyeball passing data to the manned planes, then probably some ground-attack CCAs to go in for the maximum risk.

Frankly, I expect the systems complex to look more like an entire strike package with only one manned plane in it!

 

[Ozair]

Except that the USAF isn't willing to lose the engine commonality with the F-35Bs, you'd need to design an adaptive engine that plays nice with the LiftFan.

The USAF wasn't willing to fund a separate parts/maintenance stream itself but would happily go it alone with the XAs if the funding was available. The USAF and combined global A fleet will likely number five times the Bee fleet by the time all are delivered. If even half of those A went to XA powerplants then the program would be worth it. The USAF today operates plenty of PW and GE F-16s with no issues and operates F-15s with two different engines.

It's not hard if you're willing to throw nukes around. A 10MT surface blast will delete the entire airfield, replacing it with a crater.

Let's come back to reality shall we... Were China to lob a nuclear warhead of any flavour into the conflict there is no winner and China most certainly loses.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The USAF wasn't willing to fund a separate parts/maintenance stream itself but would happily go it alone with the XAs if the funding was available. The USAF and combined global A fleet will likely number five times the Bee fleet by the time all are delivered. If even half of those A went to XA powerplants then the program would be worth it. The USAF today operates plenty of PW and GE F-16s with no issues and operates F-15s with two different engines.

Yet it didn't happen.

As to the F-15s, IIRC the USAF is trying to retire all those with the lower-powered engine type (IIRC the PW), and the F-16s are all getting replaced by F-35s when their airframes age out.

Let's come back to reality shall we... Were China to lob a nuclear warhead of any flavour into the conflict there is no winner and China most certainly loses.

While I certainly hope that China is not among the Nuclear Utilization Theorists, their lower ranking Generals and Colonels have put out quite a few papers advocating the use of nukes.

 

[dark sidius]

I totally get it and agree. The F-35 isn't going anywhere though I am sure they will stop well short of the 1.6K plug they've been using for a couple of decades.

But the point is still that if there are no more funds forthcoming and the AF unable to keep pace with rapidly advancing technology, then someone has to suggest a path forward even if that means something radical. You can't just keep on the path they are presently on which is neither modernizing nor rapidly fielding new technologies in core mission areas. It's like the worst of both worlds.

I agree the F-35 is going nowhere, it is unable to supercruise and it have no long legs to fight and win over something like the J-36 who can fly sustaining mach 2 , the CCA of Anduril and GA are away to what China show us this week , this time there is a hurry to invest in new program, NGAD and B-21 must be the high priority, instead of that China have win the air dominance , don't make the same mistake than 2010 , China are not building paper plane. The F-35 is a chasm of money for not having the superior capacity USAF need to match China.

 

[dark sidius]

The USAF wasn't willing to fund a separate parts/maintenance stream itself but would happily go it alone with the XAs if the funding was available. The USAF and combined global A fleet will likely number five times the Bee fleet by the time all are delivered. If even half of those A went to XA powerplants then the program would be worth it. The USAF today operates plenty of PW and GE F-16s with no issues and operates F-15s with two different engines.


Let's come back to reality shall we... Were China to lob a nuclear warhead of any flavour into the conflict there is no winner and China most certainly loses.

Nuclear weapon is a non sense nobody will never use it in a conflict.

 

[TomcatViP]

I agree the F-35 is going nowhere, it is unable to supercruise and it have no long legs to fight and win over something like the J-36 who can fly sustaining mach 2 ,

Any source you'd dare to share?

 

[dark sidius]

Any source you'd dare to share?

Any source you'd dare to share?

Just watching the performance of the F-35 , "can fly at Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles (240 km) " way away of the supercruise capacity of the F-22 or the announced J-36 capacity. F-35 ceiling of 50000 ft is way less than the F-22 capacity of up to 60000 ft , and surely less than something like the J-36, the block 4 is years away to be ready, if it work a day don't need to be a high general to see that the F-35 is not the air dominance of the years after 2030. The European are not in a better situation , unable to build a 6th Gen together, the FCAS is no where, the France and German economic situation is catastrophic, so FCAS will never see the day of light, the only real European fighter will be the Tempest if all going well.

 

[Ozair]

Yet it didn't happen.

Because the funding wasn't available...

As to the F-15s, IIRC the USAF is trying to retire all those with the lower-powered engine type (IIRC the PW), and the F-16s are all getting replaced by F-35s when their airframes age out.

Not quite, older PW -220 powered F-15Es, not the newer -229 powered. The 229 are around for the next 15 years. EX are GE for the first I think four lots and then will be recompeted.

While I certainly hope that China is not among the Nuclear Utilization Theorists, their lower ranking Generals and Colonels have put out quite a few papers advocating the use of nukes.

I wouldn't put a lot of credence in those.

 

[Airbus A340]

LockMart for NGAD, because NG dropped out and Boeing is a fustercluck.

NG for FAXX. Boeing is a fustercluck, and NG dropped out of NGAD to focus on FAXX.




The problem is that there's only so many welders willing to work in shipyards that can get a security clearance.

There's only so many nuclear-certified welders available, and it takes a year or more to get new welders certified and cleared. (This is for the long-lead items in the engineroom.)

There is just flat no way to speed up the process of clearing new workers.

There is a way to speed up clearing workers. The Snowden, Manning, and Schulte cases show what happens when they do though.

 

[Airbus A340]

That would ruin a heap of movie plots though if the US no longer had a land based missile force...

Being serious, makes a lot of sense to me. Fixed land based sites don't make a lot of sense today. The US would probably get better value out of space based kinetic projectiles. Get Musk to deploy some bigger satellites launched via starship that host the projectiles and then the USAF/Space Force could move to precision orbital deterrence without the fallout while remaining backed up by the subs/bombers.

I'm still sitting on the fence between manned NGAD or just going all in on CCA and using F-35 as the primary control platform. So much faster to iterate across the CCA and continue building and upgrading a manned platform that the US is already investing in.

Fred Kaplan wrote a book called "The Bomb" about US nuc policy. A lot of nuc policy is just plain irrational. The USAF will never let the USN have a monopoly on nucs. If the sponge model were to be put to the test, the fallout would result in immense casualties. The sponge model also assumes that the USA's enemies think like the US does. It also assumes the enemy is doing a first strike. Take away those assumptions and the sponge model is wasteful. On the other hand, if the Russians and Chinese are foolish enough to get into a nuclear arms race with the US, the land based missiles are a relatively cheap way to try and bankrupt them.

 

[quellish]

As to the F-15s, IIRC the USAF is trying to retire all those with the lower-powered engine type (IIRC the PW), and the F-16s are all getting replaced by F-35s when their airframes age out.

The Air Force is not planning to "replace" F-16s with F-35s. They are in the process of upgrading F-16s and plan to keep flying them into the late 2040s, when the airframes will be worn out. The F-16 will actually be doing some tasks that were going to be assigned to the F-35 at one point. There is no plan, currently, to replace the F-16s with F-35s in the 2040s.

They are retiring F-15s and buying new F-15EXs to "replace" them. I believe this is not nearly a 1-1 replacement, there are not going to be that many EX models introduced.

They are (trying) to retire the A-10 completely.

As of 2022 they planned to retire 646 ("fighter") aircraft and buy 246 aircraft over the next 5 years (400 aircraft "shortfall"). As of 2024, the plan is to have a much smaller fighter force, with less diversity. F-16, F-15EX, F-35, F-22, and eventually NGAD.

 

[djfawcett]

"and win over something like the J-36 who can fly sustaining mach 2 ," - only in the dreams of those that wish for this performance

 

[dark sidius]

"and win over something like the J-36 who can fly sustaining mach 2 ," - only in the dreams of those that wish for this performance

Another paper plane ? Don't minimise the Chinese product they are running very fast.

 

[FlyGuy369]

Another paper plane ? Don't minimise the Chinese product they are running very fast.

I agree with that, always overestimate and outperform, never turn your eyes away from an adversary you think lesser. As for Topic's sake, I have a feeling Lockmart has NGAD with NG having another Naval Fighter revival in the F/A-XX. Call it a fever dream, "Tomcat II" has a ring to it!

 

[Josh_TN]

If nothing else, NG seems to have a much better project record as of late. If it comes down to them and Boing!, it’s hard to see how they get the short end of that stick unless the decision is entirely political.

 

[FlyGuy369]

If nothing else, NG seems to have a much better project record as of late. If it comes down to them and Boing!, it’s hard to see how they get the short end of that stick unless the decision is entirely political.

Boeing needs to be in the penalty box for all of their issues as of late, even looking at the patents on their low speed lift solutions for their delta configuration seem bandaid like to me

 

[NMaude]

Nuclear weapon is a non sense nobody will never use it in a conflict.

That is a highly premature and naive assessment to make, it could still happen.

 

[Sferrin]

Payload can be offloaded to CCAs as a way to rein in size, weight, and cost. I think Kendall, et. al has alluded to something like this when discussing the rationale behind the NGAD pause.

Don't know that I'd want to put all my eggs in one basket. All it takes is the datalink being jammed, or otherwise compromised, and that's that.

 

[Josh_TN]

Don't know that I'd want to put all my eggs in one basket. All it takes is the datalink being jammed, or otherwise compromised, and that's that.

Assuming MADL or something similar, that would probably negate the manned force’s effectiveness as well. I am all for some healthy paranoia, but at some point assuming the worst crosses over into a hopeless situation regardless of planning or resources.

If CCA cannot be made to work, the USAF is going to lose anyway, IMO.

 

[djfawcett]

Another paper plane ? Don't minimise the Chinese product they are running very fast.

I am not suggesting that J-36 or 50 are paper planes. What I am saying is that with the data that has been presented, the j-36 is not a Mach 2 cruiser. Depending on which drawing you use, the max Mach number is anywhere between Mach 1.8 and 2.1. And I will guarantee the vehicle is not going to cruise at its max Mach unless the Chinese have an engine that makes the F135 look like it is running cool. As for the thrust vectoring, there is no reason unless the aircraft needs it for stability and control. A big delta bird like the J-36 would be dead meat in a "yank and bank" engagement.

The J-36 could very well be a heavy interceptor, or maybe even a pretty cool arsenal aircraft. I would hate to be confronted with a J-20 or J-50 with this big beast sitting behind them. But with all of this being said, we just need to wait to see what this bird really is and can do.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Nuclear weapon is a non sense nobody will never use it in a conflict.

Are you willing to bet the lives of your loved ones on that?

I wouldn't put a lot of credence in those.

If it's being published, that is with the permission of the Party.

Which means that enough people in the Party also think that way to convince the others to allow those statements to be published.

There is a way to speed up clearing workers. The Snowden, Manning, and Schulte cases show what happens when they do though.

Exactly.

(Though I will note that Snowden is likely on the right side of history, much of what he leaked is what the NSA was NOT supposed to be doing!)

"and win over something like the J-36 who can fly sustaining mach 2 ," - only in the dreams of those that wish for this performance

I mean, I kinda expect the US NGAD to be able to cruise at ~M2ish for the same distance that it can fly subsonic. If not farther supersonic than subsonic. We've known how to optimize planes for that since the 1950s, with the Blackbird, XB-70 Valkyrie, and even the Boeing 2707. High cruise speeds means more long-range sorties per day.

Look, it takes the US Bombers 10 hours or so to fly 6,000nmi. Maybe more like 12 hours, since I'm doubting the ability of a B-52 to average 600 knots ground speed without one hell of a tail wind. If you can cruise at 1200 knots, you cover that same distance in 5 hours and fly at least two sorties per day. Shorter distance, more sorties. 3000nmi round trip? That's possibly 4 sorties a day.

 

[djfawcett]

HI Scott, I agree with you, but it has to be designed to do just that. Please read my post above to further understand what I am saying.

 

[Ainen]

I mean, I kinda expect the US NGAD to be able to cruise at ~M2ish for the same distance that it can fly subsonic. If not farther supersonic than subsonic. We've known how to optimize planes for that since the 1950s, with the Blackbird, XB-70 Valkyrie, and even the Boeing 2707. High cruise speeds means more long-range sorties per day.

To be fair, this among everything else meant they really, really sucked while subsonic.
Flying such distances while supersonic will take a good theater bomber-sized aircraft(at least!), then or now regardless.

 

[quellish]

I mean, I kinda expect the US NGAD to be able to cruise at ~M2ish for the same distance that it can fly subsonic.

There are a whole lot of reasons cruising at that speed is unlikely. It’s a lot of additional effort for little gain. F-22 supercruise speed is probably still the sweet spot. They can probably improve the amount of time it can spend at those conditions through cooling and new manufacturing processes.

 

[_Del_]

There are a whole lot of reasons cruising at that speed is unlikely. It’s a lot of additional effort for little gain. F-22 supercruise speed is probably still the sweet spot. They can probably improve the amount of time it can spend at those conditions through cooling and new manufacturing processes.

I think IR detection technology is a bit overrated at the moment, but it's worth noting you made detection a lot more likely at those speeds. There has to be a pretty good reason to burn that much gas, afterburner or no.

 

[quellish]

I think IR detection technology is a bit overrated at the moment, but it's worth noting you made detection a lot more likely at those speeds. There has to be a pretty good reason to burn that much gas, afterburner or no.

They need to keep the skin cool to preserve RF stealth.

 

[_Del_]

They need to keep the skin cool to preserve RF stealth.

And other reasons to keep cool in certain JSF variants...

 

[Scott Kenny]

There are a whole lot of reasons cruising at that speed is unlikely. It’s a lot of additional effort for little gain. F-22 supercruise speed is probably still the sweet spot. They can probably improve the amount of time it can spend at those conditions through cooling and new manufacturing processes.

So it cruises at M1.7 or whatever the F-22s supercruise speed is. That's what the squiggly line and the -ish was for. Error bars. Though I was expecting M1.8-2.2 as the error range.

The point was that whatever the supersonic cruise speed is, the plane is optimized to fly at that speed and burns the same or less fuel as flying subsonic the same distance.

 

[Ainen]

The point was that whatever the supersonic cruise speed is, the plane is optimized to fly at that speed and burns the same or less fuel as flying subsonic the same distance.

It's a reality of ca.1960 torbojet world - it was possible to make an optimized afterburning jet, so inefficient at any other speed that it could barely even match supersonic range(flight time was still much longer).
That reality is long gone, since then turbofans became a thing and they're better overall.

Even then, it was (1)super expensive and (2)rather ineffective option, because bomber isn't pax carrier. It wasn't any good loitering, it wasn't any good at any other altitude.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

The point was that whatever the supersonic cruise speed is, the plane is optimized to fly at that speed and burns the same or less fuel as flying subsonic the same distance.

That's also probably the reason why the USAF is pushing so hard for the adaptive cycle engine, as that unlocks that ability from the start.

 

[dark sidius]

I am not suggesting that J-36 or 50 are paper planes. What I am saying is that with the data that has been presented, the j-36 is not a Mach 2 cruiser. Depending on which drawing you use, the max Mach number is anywhere between Mach 1.8 and 2.1. And I will guarantee the vehicle is not going to cruise at its max Mach unless the Chinese have an engine that makes the F135 look like it is running cool. As for the thrust vectoring, there is no reason unless the aircraft needs it for stability and control. A big delta bird like the J-36 would be dead meat in a "yank and bank" engagement.

The J-36 could very well be a heavy interceptor, or maybe even a pretty cool arsenal aircraft. I would hate to be confronted with a J-20 or J-50 with this big beast sitting behind them. But with all of this being said, we just need to wait to see what this bird really is and can do.

I agree with you , my said of a mach 2 cruise is a little provocation , but there is a need now for NGAD or whatever to cruise the same way F-22 do ,

 

[dark sidius]

That's also probably the reason why the USAF is pushing so hard for the adaptive cycle engine, as that unlocks that ability from the start.

And it seem to be in a good way , for what we read the XA-100 seem to work well, now all is in the political decision, the US company are ready to build the NGAD so now the new administration must take their responsibility If Republican speak about America great again time to prove it with the budget to build the edge of the technology.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

Agreed, once the airforce refines the requirements for the NGAD (which may have already happened), it will be a political decision.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think IR detection technology is a bit overrated at the moment, but it's worth noting you made detection a lot more likely at those speeds. There has to be a pretty good reason to burn that much gas, afterburner or no.

For either NGAD or the Boxer/J-36, their moment will be end of decade (probably later for NGAD). The U.S. at least will have an orbital network of missile tracking satellites in multiple orbital altitudes with the LEO segment entering its third iteration. The PRC is presumably not far behind. These aircraft obviously are not at the speeds and altitudes of the hypersonic weapons that this network is intended to track, but they are a lot larger. The U.S. is also quite clearly experimenting with small inexpensive networked UAVs with IR, not just CCA sized aircraft but also more attritable platforms like air launched UTAP-22 (likely just surrogate but likely representative in size/scale of future NGAD components). I think supercruise at Mach 1.5 - 2 is likely the upper practical limit for both reasons of fuel consumption and IR detection.

 

[Kat Tsun]

That's also probably the reason why the USAF is pushing so hard for the adaptive cycle engine, as that unlocks that ability from the start.

I think they just want to get away from Pratt tbf.

 

[Airbus A340]

There is a study of high speed bombers from the 1990's or early 2000's. There is a longer version but I did not find it. This is the short version. The thing to keep in mind here is that the entire system needs to be optimized, not 1 parameter. RAND looked at building a supersonic bomber not to be more survivable in the air, but to make the air bases more survivable by keeping them in CONUS.

1. The bombers still need RCS reduction to be survivable (obvious).
2. The bombers cannot be low IR emissions. Not a problem then, a huge problem now.
3. The bombers deliver low cost shorter range munitions.
4. The bombers need F-22 and tanker support.
5. The bombers are more efficient than subsonic bombers because they complete more sorties per unit time.
6. The study seems to ignore the entire history of supersonic flight, ie that whenever an air force or an airline has a choice, they choose subsonic. It can be said that USAF moved back to subsonic to increase bomber survivability (low altitude) but the airlines never went supersonic. In the end, the bomber is a delivery system. A study that trades off R&D cost, production cost, operating cost, munitions delivery per unit time, survivability, and the types of munitions that can be delivered due to that level of survivability has, to my knowledge, not been released. No RAND or CNA study that I have seen looks at this issue. It is germane to the issue we are discussing here though. A further complication is the fact that capabilities can be offloaded to other platforms much more easily than when the RAND study appeared. I suspect that the complexity of this study is why NGAD has been paused. I suspect that a technological development occurred that caused the USAF to redo the study of the type described here, a study they must have performed. The results of this study will not be available to us although we will see the results in NGAD. A further complication is that NGAD has to have A2A capability, a capability ignored in the RAND study. I think the sheer difficulty of developing a model, then crunching numbers while factoring in tech changed over the life of NGAD that will need to be accommodated in the program makes this vastly more complex than anything we have ever seen before.

The study below is a good start to see why speed is a good idea though.

RAND Supersonic Bomber Study

 

[Josh_TN]

It’s worth noting that there were a rather small number of supersonic bombers that actually entered service, and almost all were only briefly supersonic on afterburner (Tu22, Tu-22M, Tu-160, F-111, B-1B marginally). The only exception I can think of is the B-58.

 

[Airbus A340]

The RAND study called for a flight profile that was supersonic except for takeoff, climb, descent, and aerial refueling. When I read the study, it just screamed "unrealistic".

 

[dark sidius]

There is a study of high speed bombers from the 1990's or early 2000's. There is a longer version but I did not find it. This is the short version. The thing to keep in mind here is that the entire system needs to be optimized, not 1 parameter. RAND looked at building a supersonic bomber not to be more survivable in the air, but to make the air bases more survivable by keeping them in CONUS.

1. The bombers still need RCS reduction to be survivable (obvious).
2. The bombers cannot be low IR emissions. Not a problem then, a huge problem now.
3. The bombers deliver low cost shorter range munitions.
4. The bombers need F-22 and tanker support.
5. The bombers are more efficient than subsonic bombers because they complete more sorties per unit time.
6. The study seems to ignore the entire history of supersonic flight, ie that whenever an air force or an airline has a choice, they choose subsonic. It can be said that USAF moved back to subsonic to increase bomber survivability (low altitude) but the airlines never went supersonic. In the end, the bomber is a delivery system. A study that trades off R&D cost, production cost, operating cost, munitions delivery per unit time, survivability, and the types of munitions that can be delivered due to that level of survivability has, to my knowledge, not been released. No RAND or CNA study that I have seen looks at this issue. It is germane to the issue we are discussing here though. A further complication is the fact that capabilities can be offloaded to other platforms much more easily than when the RAND study appeared. I suspect that the complexity of this study is why NGAD has been paused. I suspect that a technological development occurred that caused the USAF to redo the study of the type described here, a study they must have performed. The results of this study will not be available to us although we will see the results in NGAD. A further complication is that NGAD has to have A2A capability, a capability ignored in the RAND study. I think the sheer difficulty of developing a model, then crunching numbers while factoring in tech changed over the life of NGAD that will need to be accommodated in the program makes this vastly more complex than anything we have ever seen before.

The study below is a good start to see why speed is a good idea though.

RAND Supersonic Bomber Study

I don't understand the link between a supersonic bomber study and the NGAD ? Lockheed built a supersonic cruiser with the F-22 , I don't see why it could be more complicated for the NGAD.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think the post was a response to contentions that an aircraft could be optimized for higher speeds given an optimized airframe for said speed. You can supercruise, but the faster you go, the steeper the cost in other speed ranges, and historically very few operational aircraft flew that way (SR-71 and?).