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

Status
Not open for further replies.
What would be the earliest adoption of a UCAV type? Could that be the target type?
 
Foo Fighter said:
What would be the earliest adoption of a UCAV type? Could that be the target type?
Click to expand...
If they are fielding a ucav to replace the hornets then goodbye and goodnight to NAVAIR. F35C is a slushdog for towing bombs to target and firing an aim120 along the way if needed.

A real flying cyberdyne systems model 101 is maybe 15 years out from dem val.

What i bet we're getting is a super super hornet with aim 260 and f35c flying ahead in stealth mode illuminating targets for the super super hornet.
 
Do you really need that much aircraft as a missile hauler?
 
Foo Fighter said:
Do you really need that much aircraft as a missile hauler?
Click to expand...
Depends. Do you want 4 amraams like the 35 or to you want 8 like a raptor? Keep in mind the raptor is also light in fuel for naval missions. So yeah you need a big plane for internal fuel and internal aams. Have you seen the air force concepts? Do you want it to be fast as well? Then you need more fuel. If you want it fast with some super cruise ability to deal with new threats then you can't design a short pudgy 35 again and it will be long and slender for fineness ratio. In full military power at high altitude the 35 can't even break mach 1 clean. That's not the future of air superiority.
 
It might be just as useful to have a drone around carrying the weapons load and leaving the 35 as clean/light as possible. That would work with just about any updated/future airframe.
 
Foo Fighter said:
It might be just as useful to have a drone around carrying the weapons load and leaving the 35 as clean/light as possible. That would work with just about any updated/future airframe.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Internal munitions as a last resort but primary weapons load from drones.

Whatever it is it's going to be expensive. Even a variant of the Global 7500 from Bombardier - 7,700 nmi range, 51,000ft ceiling, long fuselage, in production - would be between $70-100m.

Flying gas tanks are expensive.
 
Last edited:
Foo Fighter said:
It might be just as useful to have a drone around carrying the weapons load and leaving the 35 as clean/light as possible. That would work with just about any updated/future airframe.
Click to expand...
That's what the original UCAS-D program was supposed to be, and a derivative of the X-47B/C could have been operational today.
But the program was turned into the questionable MQ-25.
 
Forest Green said:
bobbymike said:
F-36 it is Popular Mechanics so pre-apologies (subscription needed)

www.popularmechanics.com

This Is the F-36 Kingsnake. It Could Be the Air Force's Next Fighter Jet.

Meet the new, non-stealthy fighter that may replace the F-16.
www.popularmechanics.com www.popularmechanics.com
Click to expand...
So an F-16XL then.
Click to expand...

Whatever did happen to that Gen 4.5/5- idea that was floated last year? Dead on arrival, presumably?

nationalinterest.org

The F-35 Is Not Enough: Why the Air Force Wants an F-16 Replacement

Here’s What You Need to Remember: Beyond his rebuke of ongoing efforts to keep the F-16 platform alive with a fresh round of iterative updates, Brown’s comments are an implicit admission that Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II has been unable to meet the needs of the Air Force in a...
nationalinterest.org nationalinterest.org
 
If anything the USAF seems more focused on divesting 4th gen in favor of NGAD spending. I don't see another 4.5+ entering service now that the F-15EX is being bought. As for what the USN is cooking up, I have a hard time believing they'd go for anything less stealthy than an F-35, but I think it will be a much less ambitious project that focuses on mature technology.
 
I never got the point of the clean sheet 4.5 when you have the F-16v, F-15ex, and even potentially the super hornet. What ever benefit a clean sheet design has I can’t imagine going through the long process of getting it into service would be worth it. Buy the F-16v and F-15ex at least makes it attractive to foreign operators which is a much bigger plus having friends with modern weapons.


Shame Falcon 21 never was a thing. That really could have been close to the concept.
 
A new design will have less parts, modern and modular COTS systems. It will also have technology more in line with a 20 years old recruit.

All that is translating in lower sustainment cost, lower upgrade cost and nominal agility when it comes to adapt to new challenges.

The 4th Gen can compete, obviously, albeit by using their inherent mass effect to decrease fixed costs and seeking for a lower manpower cost. That is a direct challenge to reliability. Something, generally, of a strong point to a new design.

A new design will obviously comes with a development and procurement cost. But when an F-35 can be bought for 80M$, there is little doubts that the industry wouldn't be able to capitalize on that, for such a less advanced design, for an even lower price tag.

Now, as hinted above, F-16 upgrade have the benefits to strengthen allied resolve. F-16 are sustained all across the globe, in highly strategical area of the world. They are also the only fighter design that can reach a political consensus without the full drama of a new procurement circus.
 
Last edited:
Hi. Conceptual "CAS" vehicle, showing two different configurations, but could easily pass as NGAD too. Reminded me of the "Need for speed" art by Rob Weiss, sharing things in common like the flush canopy and artstyle. I don't think had seen these before:

As part of internal research conducted in conjunction with the AFRL EXPEDITE program, ESTECO technology was deployed to develop an optimization workflow of a notional close air support vehicle and to exercise several optimization scenarios.
Click to expand...
1649910033245.jpeg
montero.jpg

136078-2b8b4f55e75d77ec0ebf445bc9813223.jpg


The EXPEDITE program and the benefits of VOLTA as a server based MDO framework

As part of internal research conducted in conjunction with the AFRL EXPEDITE program, ESTECO technology was deployed to develop an optimization workflow of a notional close air support vehicle and to exercise several optimization scenarios. The paradigm shift of moving MDO from a desktop to a...
www.esteco.com www.esteco.com
 
TomcatViP said:
A new design will have less parts, modern and modular COTS systems. It will also have technology more in line with a 20 years old recruit.

All that is translating in lower sustainment cost, lower upgrade cost and nominal agility when it comes to adapt to new challenges.

The 4th Gen can compete, obviously, albeit by using their inherent mass effect to decrease fixed costs and seeking for a lower manpower cost. That is a direct challenge to reliability. Something, generally, of a strong point to a new design.

A new design will obviously comes with a development and procurement cost. But when an F-35 can be bought for 80M$, there is little doubts that the industry wouldn't be able to capitalize on that, for such a less advanced design, for an even lower price tag.

Now, as hinted above, F-16 upgrade have the benefits to strengthen allied resolve. F-16 are sustained all across the globe, in highly strategical area of the world. They are also the only fighter design that can reach a political consensus without the full drama of a new procurement circus.
Click to expand...
The price of the 35 is going to rise with inflation. We're seeing it in automotive where parts prices are going up rapidly. So I don't know the $ of the 35 but most certainly the ones not already paid for are going to rise sharply. So the 35 might be 80 million today and for the ones in contract but that's going to change.
 
The F-35, pragmatically, thrives in a world where there are no economics barriers.

The United States is about to experience the post WWI/pre WWII period with Corporate America within the next couple years. It's the inevitable result with having a corporate enterprise so heavily invested in a foreign power.
 
In_A_Dream said:
The F-35, pragmatically, thrives in a world where there are no economics barriers.

The United States is about to experience the post WWI/pre WWII period with Corporate America within the next couple years. It's the inevitable result with having a corporate enterprise so heavily invested in a foreign power.
Click to expand...
How so?
 
Forest Green said:
In_A_Dream said:
The F-35, pragmatically, thrives in a world where there are no economics barriers.

The United States is about to experience the post WWI/pre WWII period with Corporate America within the next couple years. It's the inevitable result with having a corporate enterprise so heavily invested in a foreign power.
Click to expand...
How so?
Click to expand...
Corporate America built up Germany post World War I. When Nazi Germany became more assertive pre-WW2 and into WW2, it took a lot anti-trust legislation to break that relationship apart. With China being an economic powerhouse and seeking to undermine US economic policy abroad, the F-35 program with its expansive foreign relationships is a prime target.
 
GTX said:
So you are claiming the F-35 partner nations will be used by China somehow?
Click to expand...
It's not a claim, it's a fact. China has trade relationships with everyone, they can hurt or influence anyone they choose at the lowest levels of supply, which are often the overlooked factors.
 
In_A_Dream said:
It's not a claim, it's a fact.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see your 'facts' in relation to the F-35 program. Supplying into this is not a simple thing and comes with many checks. In fact, i would hazard a guess that any perceived risks would impact US suppliers just as much, if not more so, any non-US suppliers.
 
In_A_Dream said:
The F-35, pragmatically, thrives in a world where there are no economics barriers.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, there are economic (and even more so now, political) incentives for F-35.

In_A_Dream said:
The United States is about to experience the post WWI/pre WWII period with Corporate America within the next couple years.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting thought. Politically, I've been thinking this more mimics the pre-WW1 era. Please elaborate.


In_A_Dream said:
It's the inevitable result with having a corporate enterprise so heavily invested in a foreign power.
Click to expand...

We've just seen at least 500 corporations cease operations in Russia. The Russian economy will contract between 10-20% this year. This will eradicate at least 15 years of gains with perhaps another 5 years of sanctions likely still to come.

Re PRC, many manufacturers have been leaving for a decade bc of rising costs. Recent Trump-era (which Biden kept in force) tariffs and Covid have informed entire industries that manufacturing in North America and Europe offer benefits that were not readily obvious on the balance sheet.

Of the 29 semiconductor fabrication plants under construction, 21 are outside the PRC. Pegatron India is starting iPhone 13 production this month bc of the Shenzhen lockdown and Foxconn is already there. Others are likely to follow. In general, those staying with the CCP are manufacturing for the local population.

I imagine that CCP leaders are as nervous as long-tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs. If there is a set of leaders more scared of their population revolting than the Russians, it's the CCP. And they can't feed their population. What the world is witnessing in Ukraine has not yet translated to the affects of its reliance on the CCP.

I agree there is an over reliance on the CCP. Upsetting that apple cart would disrupt $6T in trade - an order of magnitude greater than Russia. Not something any politician wants to deal with. But if the CCP is perceived as assisting Russia, the world's eye may swing to the East. The body politic and the corporate enterprise you mention may remove the decision from them. In fact, you might say the shift has already begun.

It's just my opinion, but I expect F-35 is fine.
 
NeilChapman said:
That's an interesting thought. Politically, I've been thinking this more mimics the pre-WW1 era. Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

Corporate America helped build up Germany after its destruction during World War 1. When Germany began to become more assertive, Corporate America was still doing a lot of business with them and it was difficult for Washington to dissolve those relationships. Eventually it took powerful anti-trust legislation to put an end to it. We still see various industries of America heavily invested in China and fighting to protect their interests by helping fund the politicians that allow them to keep operating there.
 
www.airforcemag.com

Brown: KC-Y and KC-Z Likely Traditional Tankers; NGAD Has the Range 'to Go Where it Needs to Go' | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Air Force probably won’t pursue some exotic approach for the KC-Y and KC-Z tranches of the service's plan to modernize its tankers.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com

'Brown brushed that notion aside, however, saying the Next Generation Air Dominance family of systems, intended to operate inside an enemy integrated air defense system (IADS), will have “the range to go where it needs to go” and that an escort tanker is probably not needed. Brown specifically said, “I wouldn’t call [KC-Z] an escort tanker.”'

It sounds like NGAD could be huge (F-111?) or subsonic.
 
Last edited:
I think its quite possible for the NGAD to be the size of an F-111. This is just my speculation, but perhaps it may be a tailless supersonic design, powered by two adaptive cycle engines scaled from the 45,000-lbf class XA100/101. This can have substantial range and persistence, while still allowing for a reasonable level of fighter-like maneuverability with a thrust/weight ratio of ~1 and +7.33 g at combat or loaded gross weight.
 
Last edited:
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
I think its quite possible for the NGAD to be the size of an F-111. This is just my speculation, but perhaps it may be a tailless supersonic design, powered by two adaptive cycle engines scaled from the 45,000-lbf class XA100/101. This can have substantial range and persistence, while still allowing for a reasonable level of fighter-like maneuverability with a thrust/weight ratio of ~1 and +7.33 g at combat or loaded gross weight.
Click to expand...
Probably more like a f-23a than anything else. Tailless is still expensive with complicated and weighty and $$$ thrust vectoring and CAN kill the rear aspect LO and diminish mission capability rate. It still needs to be a fighter which means tail. Horizontal tail.... No. Probably 7 to 8 aim260 or combo with 9x\perrigrine\cuda. Probably capable of more than 700nm range supercuise with the new engine tech
 
TomS said:
Whatever did happen to that Gen 4.5/5- idea that was floated last year? Dead on arrival, presumably?
Click to expand...
Bit late of a reply, but it's definitely not dead; the premise of the MR-X ("F-16 replacement") program is that there was a study being undertaken to look into what the USAF's future fleet should look like, and that the results of that study would inform the FY2023 budget request, which has since been released, with a lot of money going to R&D. The final decision on the MR-X program however is expected to take place in around 2028, as for now the USAF has other priorities (NGAD, B-21, AWACS, tankers, etc). The 2028 date will also give Lockheed a chance to try and enact the sustainment cost reductions that they claim can be achieved. If Lockheed gets their way the MR-X program might just turn into more F-35As.
 
I have been thinking about sustainment cost for NGAD, particularly cost per flight hour. How, and from whom are these numbers are calculated? Has anyone seeing a breakdown of per flight hour flying costs for F-35? All I keep seeing is a number. I would like to know how that number breaks down, and be able to compare that breakdown to other aircraft.

I'm puzzled by Lockheed Martin saying they can attain certain cost per hour by a certain date. How is that possible? Is this just a contract price that is paid?
 
Last edited:
So first of all, there is no universal definition for cost per flight hour; there's a classic SAAB presentation for example where they claimed (around a decade ago IIRC) that the F-16C (when comparing it to the Gripen C) cost $7,000/hr. In contrast, the USAF generally claims the F-16C costs around $25,000K/hr. The vast difference between those two numbers comes from what's being included / excluded in those figures.

Here's a graphical comparison for example of CPFH types used with regards to the F-35; you can find a greater breakdown of these different cost elements in this CAPE document: https://www.cape.osd.mil/files/os_guide_v9_march_2014.pdf
Total ownership / total O&S can be a bit odd in that, while it does ultimately capture the total cost of operating a fleet, it includes things you might not have thought of, such as (under "Indirect costs" / "indirect support") medical support / services, initial recruit / officer training, etc.
1650376445981.png
For the SAAB $7K/hr F-16C figure, they'd be talking about something akin to the Reimbursable CPFH described above (and for comparison's sake, here's the FY2021 reimbursable figures for the US services' fleets), whereas the USAF and a number of other military services around the world are generally referring to ownership or total ownership CPFH.

As for how CPFH itself is calculated, it's generally just the annual sustainment cost for a fleet, divided by the annual flight hours. The "fleet" in equation can be individual squadrons / units, but generally it's for an entire service's fleet of that aircraft type. For the F-35A CPFH figures you see it's generally just the USAF's F-35A total ownership CPFH; other F-35A operators that publicly report sustainment costs (like Australia) have had fairly similar costs, sometimes lower.

And as for how Lockheed can claim a certain CPFH by a certain date; the short answer is that they can't be 100% certain, but with the F-35 and Lockheed they were awarded a 3-year sustainment contract by the US last year, and so now Lockheed has the power to tell their suppliers that X amount of work has been secured and certain efficiencies can be gained by optimising logistics, investing in tooling and equipment, etc. However, Lockheed and its contractors / suppliers / partners do not perform all F-35 maintenance.

Out of the $33K/hr CPFH that we see for an F-35A today, Lockheed only controls around 39% of that while Pratt & Whitney (who contract to the US independently of Lockheed) owns another 11% and the US military is responsible for the other ~50%. So when Lockheed says that it's going to drop the CPFH of an F-35A from $33K to $30K by 2023, they're talking about what they can achieve by reducing their 39% of sustainment costs. In contrast, the "$25K/hr by 2025" F-35A CPFH goal that Lockheed was talking about a year or two ago is what Lockheed claims is possible, but is reliant on both P&W and the USAF reducing their F-35A sustainment costs by around 15% (from around $20K/hr [of the $33K/hr total] today to around $17K/hr [of the $25K/hr total]). Lockheed can influence USAF costs a little bit (eg: if ALIS / ODIN is less buggy then the USAF spends fewer man-hours fixing the jet and can fly the jet more frequently), but it's mostly not up to them.
 
Dragon029 said:
So first of all, there is no universal definition for cost per flight hour; there's a classic SAAB presentation for example where they claimed (around a decade ago IIRC) that the F-16C (when comparing it to the Gripen C) cost $7,000/hr. In contrast, the USAF generally claims the F-16C costs around $25,000K/hr. The vast difference between those two numbers comes from what's being included / excluded in those figures.

Here's a graphical comparison for example of CPFH types used with regards to the F-35; you can find a greater breakdown of these different cost elements in this CAPE document: https://www.cape.osd.mil/files/os_guide_v9_march_2014.pdf
Total ownership / total O&S can be a bit odd in that, while it does ultimately capture the total cost of operating a fleet, it includes things you might not have thought of, such as (under "Indirect costs" / "indirect support") medical support / services, initial recruit / officer training, etc.
View attachment 677102
For the SAAB $7K/hr F-16C figure, they'd be talking about something akin to the Reimbursable CPFH described above (and for comparison's sake, here's the FY2021 reimbursable figures for the US services' fleets), whereas the USAF and a number of other military services around the world are generally referring to ownership or total ownership CPFH.

As for how CPFH itself is calculated, it's generally just the annual sustainment cost for a fleet, divided by the annual flight hours. The "fleet" in equation can be individual squadrons / units, but generally it's for an entire service's fleet of that aircraft type. For the F-35A CPFH figures you see it's generally just the USAF's F-35A total ownership CPFH; other F-35A operators that publicly report sustainment costs (like Australia) have had fairly similar costs, sometimes lower.

And as for how Lockheed can claim a certain CPFH by a certain date; the short answer is that they can't be 100% certain, but with the F-35 and Lockheed they were awarded a 3-year sustainment contract by the US last year, and so now Lockheed has the power to tell their suppliers that X amount of work has been secured and certain efficiencies can be gained by optimising logistics, investing in tooling and equipment, etc. However, Lockheed and its contractors / suppliers / partners do not perform all F-35 maintenance.

Out of the $33K/hr CPFH that we see for an F-35A today, Lockheed only controls around 39% of that while Pratt & Whitney (who contract to the US independently of Lockheed) owns another 11% and the US military is responsible for the other ~50%. So when Lockheed says that it's going to drop the CPFH of an F-35A from $33K to $30K by 2023, they're talking about what they can achieve by reducing their 39% of sustainment costs. In contrast, the "$25K/hr by 2025" F-35A CPFH goal that Lockheed was talking about a year or two ago is what Lockheed claims is possible, but is reliant on both P&W and the USAF reducing their F-35A sustainment costs by around 15% (from around $20K/hr [of the $33K/hr total] today to around $17K/hr [of the $25K/hr total]). Lockheed can influence USAF costs a little bit (eg: if ALIS / ODIN is less buggy then the USAF spends fewer man-hours fixing the jet and can fly the jet more frequently), but it's mostly not up to them.
Click to expand...

That, sir, was a most excellent answer. I am very appreciative of the effort you put into helping me understand some of the issues involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom