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

[Sferrin]

When was that, 1990 magazine?! I still can remember this one.

1986

https://shop.sydmead.com/products/vintage-poster-atf-fighter-in-hangar

 

[rooster]

I'll eat a sock live on camera if the carrier version is fully tailless ie no vert stabs.

Whys that? X47 was minus a vertical tail

 

[X-39]

Typical of Lockheed. Late to the party as always. First, not even considered for the XST, then almost dropped from ATF, ranking in last place, then YF-22 finishing in second to the YF-23 in both unveiling and first flight, and again with the X-35 vs X-32. The question is: If aircraft from all three companies have been flying since ages, then what was Will Roper's 2020 6th Gen technology "demo" supposed to validate? Where does it fit in all of this? And what do these YF-220 and X-273 designations stand for? Or could be that the narrative of "designed and flown in one year" was all fake. Makes sense, feeding the public(and adversaries) out of date and/or fake news as coverup for what's really going on:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeBNyPsysiI&pp=ygU4dGhlIHNlY3JldCBwcm9ncmFtIHRoYXQgaGlkZSBhbiBldmVuIG1vcmUgc2VjcmV0IHByb2dyYW0%3D

 

[TomcatViP]

This question was heavily debated here when Roper made that announcement.

Might be worth reading the thread back

(link is just a starter to begin with)

 

[jsport]

https://mitchellaerospacepower.org/...Toverlay=de88742f-46f7-4f2c-819d-3b36a47d6a7e

 

[jsport]

https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2...nes-fasterplus-thousand-drone-wingmen/383687/

 

[Dreamflyer]

Also here:

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/kendall-new-details-air-force-plans-200-ngad-1000-ccas/
"The Air Force will field 200 Next-Generation Air Dominance aircraft and notionally 1,000 Collaborative Combat Aircraft, and will request funds in the fiscal 2024 budget to develop these new systems, Secretary Frank Kendall said in his keynote address at the AFA Warfare Symposium on March 7."
"The “notional” 1,000 CCA figure was derived from “an assumed two CCAs for 200 NGAD platforms, and an additional two for each of 300 F-35s,” Kendall said."
"He cautioned that “this isn’t an inventory objective, but a planning assumption to use for analysis of things such as basic organizational structures, training and range requirements, and sustainment concepts.”
"Exactly how many NGAD platforms the Air Force is planning to buy has been a closely-held figure, and even if it is “notional,” the 200 figure is revealing in that it is greater than the current inventory of F-22s which the NGAD will eventually succeed circa 2030."
"He did not indicate why he specified 300 F-35s, as the Air Force inventory objective of 1,763 F-35s has not changed since the program’s inception."

 

[Josh_TN]

It would make sense that only part of the F-35 fleet would be equipped with CCAs, given that in most environments an F-35 is overkill for its competition anyway. There will probably be some fairly pricey hardware mods to the F-35 to handle CCA management, and it makes sense that only the part of the fleet expected to engage in a peer conflict would be so upgraded. I think the ~200 number for NGAD has been floated around before. The two CCA per fighter seems a little low - a lot of the studies seem to indicate operating a larger number of cheaper UAVs was more effective than more expensive fighter-esque UAV platforms.

 

[TomcatViP]

I think those 300 (!) will probably refer to Highly US restricted modded F-35 that would seemingly share systems with NGAD. Spartans Lightings to say so.

 

[trose213]

I think those 300 (!) will probably refer to Highly US restricted modded F-35 that would seemingly share systems with NGAD. Spartans Lightings to say so.

It's going to be software, so probably not.

 

[TomcatViP]

I am not suggesting some sort of Frankenstein crossbreed b/w F-35 and NGAD but only avionics (datalink etc...)

 

[Josh_TN]

I think those 300 (!) will probably refer to Highly US restricted modded F-35 that would seemingly share systems with NGAD. Spartans Lightings to say so.

It's going to be software, so probably not.

I'd assume some of the communication links to CCA might have to use new transmitters unless everything is MADL enabled. CPU might need an upgrade as well; TR3 was required for most of the blk4 stuff. Nothing major, just some avionics to enable control of the CCAs, but probably expensive enough not to bother fleet wide. If it was just a software update there would be no reason to limit yourself to several hundred platforms, unless the upper limit is how much they want to spend on the CCAs themselves.

 

[trose213]

I'd assume some of the communication links to CCA might have to use new transmitters unless everything is MADL enabled. CPU might need an upgrade as well; TR3 was required for most of the blk4 stuff. Nothing major, just some avionics to enable control of the CCAs, but probably expensive enough not to bother fleet wide. If it was just a software update there would be no reason to limit yourself to several hundred platforms, unless the upper limit is how much they want to spend on the CCAs themselves.

The CPU was just upgraded, but I'd think they'd go with something software defined and would be standard across US domestic models. They also need to upgrade the datalinks to interact with the notional ABMS.

 

[Josh_TN]

By the time CCAs reach IOC the current TR3 CPU will probably seem dated.

 

[Forest Green]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/200-ngad-fighters-1000-advanced-drones-in-usafs-future-plans

 

[rooster]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...0-That'sadvanced-drones-in-usafs-future-plans

They're only about 200 short. That's adequate for a European fight, but a two theater fight with China involved and I don't think our leaders are serving us at all. That equates to about 140 useable airframes.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

Been a while since I've last been in this thread, but having 200 NGAD fighters to possibly a thousand drones just means that a single NGAD unit would possibly have 5 drones at the most. Kinda consistent with what Binkov thought of months ago, though his numbers were half those in the recent articles (100 NGAD fighters to 500 drones).

However, since F-35s were included in the estimate, then it's gonna be far fewer for the NGAD, that is unless they eventually decide on making more drones that are designed and suited for, and accompany the NGAD, rather than the F-35s

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

Also, here's National Defense's take on the news:
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine...ng-for-1000-uncrewed-aircraft-to-support-ngad

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...0-That'sadvanced-drones-in-usafs-future-plans

They're only about 200 short. That's adequate for a European fight, but a two theater fight with China involved and I don't think our leaders are serving us at all. That equates to about 140 useable airframes.

Probably 500 would be a far better number, if we have the means and the expenses to produce them all in time. Maybe if things get hot, it will speed up production and advancement to levels never seen before, and then we can possibly exceed 500 NGAD units, no matter how expensive they are.

 

[DrRansom]

The airplane mix seems just plain odd for the Pacific Theater. It would only make sense if NGAD was a 2-man airplane with a fighter/bomber type role. Otherwise, the whole force comes off as deeply inadequate.

The total ranged striking force of the USAF will be 350 manned platforms (150 B-21, 200 NGAD), with some ill-defined supporting CCA?

It seems like NGAD has ballooned into some hideously expensive platform whose fly-away cost is completely unaffordable, but the USAF doesn't want to admit that so it sticks to a vague UAV plan.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

The airplane mix seems just plain odd for the Pacific Theater. It would only make sense if NGAD was a 2-man airplane with a fighter/bomber type role. Otherwise, the whole force comes off as deeply inadequate.

The total ranged striking force of the USAF will be 350 manned platforms (150 B-21, 200 NGAD), with some ill-defined supporting CCA?

It seems like NGAD has ballooned into some hideously expensive platform whose fly-away cost is completely unaffordable, but the USAF doesn't want to admit that so it sticks to a vague UAV plan.

That could be possible too. But who knows what they're actually churning and using their budget on. The news could possibly be just another announcement to put some relevance and news to their project, but without revealing what they're actually making in their facilities. Like they're just doing that news for Transparency and Freedom of Information's sake, but not being transparent themselves and not revealing any information to the public yet, just some vague words and promises.

 

[FighterJock]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...0-That'sadvanced-drones-in-usafs-future-plans

They're only about 200 short. That's adequate for a European fight, but a two theater fight with China involved and I don't think our leaders are serving us at all. That equates to about 140 useable airframes.

Probably 500 would be a far better number, if we have the means and the expenses to produce them all in time. Maybe if things get hot, it will speed up production and advancement to levels never seen before, and then we can possibly exceed 500 NGAD units, no matter how expensive they are.

I would agree with you on that point, but it is all down to whether the USAF could afford the 500 NGADs it all depends on the budget. I would really like to see 500 NGADs.

 

[Dreamflyer]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...0-That'sadvanced-drones-in-usafs-future-plans

They're only about 200 short. That's adequate for a European fight, but a two theater fight with China involved and I don't think our leaders are serving us at all. That equates to about 140 useable airframes.

Probably 500 would be a far better number, if we have the means and the expenses to produce them all in time. Maybe if things get hot, it will speed up production and advancement to levels never seen before, and then we can possibly exceed 500 NGAD units, no matter how expensive they are.

I would agree with you on that point, but it is all down to whether the USAF could afford the 500 NGADs it all depends on the budget. I would really like to see 500 NGADs.

Speculation from my part, but maybe "200" NGADs as mentioned by Kendall could indicate an envisioned 'initial procurement', as an urgent ('2027-2032' timeframe?) replacement for the (about 250?) F-15C/Ds still in service (today), in addition to the "80" F-15EXs to be purchased.
With most of the F-22s meanwhile being updated (as a few pictures have shown and some articles have mentioned), and remaining in service till somewhere in the mid to late 2030s, then to be be replaced by additional NGADs.
Which would ultimately give the Airforce a total inventory of about 350 - 400 NGAD manned air-superiority aircraft (with a price-tag of "several millions" a piece).

Also:
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/a...tart-with-one-cca-then-see-where-it-takes-us/
"Kelly said he can see two CCAs per fighter as the right number at some point, or even eventually three, but testing should start with one."
(Starting with one sounds logic/smart.)
"Asked what enabling mission is most urgent for CCAs to perform, Kelly suggested electronic warfare. Sensing, jamming, and signals intelligence would be Kelly’s top mission for a CCA, he said. Size, weight, power and cooling requirements would impact those decisions, “I think we´ll iterate from there," Kelly said. Enabling CCAs to employ weapons could be five to 20 years away, Kelly said."

 

[Dreamflyer]

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/a...tart-with-one-cca-then-see-where-it-takes-us/
"Kelly said he can see two CCAs per fighter as the right number at some point, or even eventually three, but testing should start with one."
(Starting with one sounds logic/smart.)
"Asked what enabling mission is most urgent for CCAs to perform, Kelly suggested electronic warfare. Sensing, jamming, and signals intelligence would be Kelly’s top mission for a CCA, he said. Size, weight, power and cooling requirements would impact those decisions, “I think we´ll iterate from there," Kelly said. Enabling CCAs to employ weapons could be five to 20 years away, Kelly said."

 

[Josh_TN]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...0-That'sadvanced-drones-in-usafs-future-plans

They're only about 200 short. That's adequate for a European fight, but a two theater fight with China involved and I don't think our leaders are serving us at all. That equates to about 140 useable airframes.

The USAF has a combat coded 5th gen fighter for every single 4+ fighter Russia has. By the end of the decade, Poland-Norway-Finland will have a combined ~150 F-35s. Europe is fine. NGAD only need face the PRC; everyone else is a generation behind anyway.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

I would agree with you on that point, but it is all down to whether the USAF could afford the 500 NGADs it all depends on the budget. I would really like to see 500 NGADs.

If the current status quo will become hot, and the Doomsday Clock moves a bit closer to 0, the Military-Industrial Complex will work wonders and deliver us more than 500 NGADs. All that to make the point clear that if someone will still bother to attack the US, then they're way past Deterrence now.

That being said, it could also be possible that they won't deliver 500 NGAD units or more in that situation, rather that they will show far more secretive projects and use them when the situation calls for it. That is, if they're willing to use such technologies themselves.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

The USAF has a combat coded 5th gen fighter for every single 4+ fighter Russia has. By the end of the decade, Poland-Norway-Finland will have a combined ~150 F-35s. Europe is fine. NGAD only need face the PRC; everyone else is a generation behind anyway.

PRC is technically a generation behind as well, while we must not underestimate China and their J-20s so easily, they have their own flaws and shortcomings that perhaps the NGAD fighters and their drones can easily exploit. Likewise, we must also not underestimate Russia, despite their failures at Ukraine. Putin seems to not consider surrender or retreat, and might actually push the war for longer, so to show some more deterrence, a few NGAD units can be stationed in Europe as well, preferably closer.

 

[FighterJock]

I would agree with you on that point, but it is all down to whether the USAF could afford the 500 NGADs it all depends on the budget. I would really like to see 500 NGADs.

If the current status quo will become hot, and the Doomsday Clock moves a bit closer to 0, the Military-Industrial Complex will work wonders and deliver us more than 500 NGADs. All that to make the point clear that if someone will still bother to attack the US, then they're way past Deterrence now.

That being said, it could also be possible that they won't deliver 500 NGAD units or more in that situation, rather that they will show far more secretive projects and use them when the situation calls for it. That is, if they're willing to use such technologies themselves.

That being said, it could also be possible that they won't deliver 500 NGAD units or more in that situation, rather that they will show far more secretive projects and use them when the situation calls for it. That is, if they're willing to use such technologies themselves.

It all depends on what the USAF says on such matters concerning the use of black project aircraft in such situations, and also whether the Air Force top brass are ready to declassify such technology quickly during conflict.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

It all depends on what the USAF says on such matters concerning the use of black project aircraft in such situations, and also whether the Air Force top brass are ready to declassify such technology quickly during conflict.

Amen to that. Could be a much greater risk revealing technology just to save a sticky situation than just sticking to what they're slowly revealing

 

[FighterJock]

It all depends on what the USAF says on such matters concerning the use of black project aircraft in such situations, and also whether the Air Force top brass are ready to declassify such technology quickly during conflict.

Amen to that. Could be a much greater risk revealing technology just to save a sticky situation than just sticking to what they're slowly revealing

Especially since it has been a long time since the last proper black project reveal back in 1995 with Northrop's Whale.

 

[Josh_TN]

The USAF has a combat coded 5th gen fighter for every single 4+ fighter Russia has. By the end of the decade, Poland-Norway-Finland will have a combined ~150 F-35s. Europe is fine. NGAD only need face the PRC; everyone else is a generation behind anyway.

PRC is technically a generation behind as well, while we must not underestimate China and their J-20s so easily, they have their own flaws and shortcomings that perhaps the NGAD fighters and their drones can easily exploit. Likewise, we must also not underestimate Russia, despite their failures at Ukraine. Putin seems to not consider surrender or retreat, and might actually push the war for longer, so to show some more deterrence, a few NGAD units can be stationed in Europe as well, preferably closer.

Russia is far from harmless but when it comes to aircraft, there is no way forward for them. If they successfully fulfill their current Su-57 order, they will have 76 machines five years from now. The US builds more F-35s in a year. NGAD should be solely focused on the Pacific theater and the challenges there in (primarily the huge distances involved).

 

[Dreamflyer]

NGAD only need face the PRC; everyone else is a generation behind anyway.

I´ve heard that one before.

 

[trose213]

I´ve heard that one before.

I'd imagine the NGAD will increase just due to economies of scale, but the only other competitor would be Russia who can't even take out Ukraine's early 4th gen fighters. Maybe there's the possibility that China or the Euros/Japan will export it to an unfriendly country, however that's extremely doubtful.

 

[Josh_TN]

NGAD only need face the PRC; everyone else is a generation behind anyway.

I´ve heard that one before.

Where?

 

[trose213]

Where?

F-22 cuts

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

Russia is far from harmless but when it comes to aircraft, there is no way forward for them. If they successfully fulfill their current Su-57 order, they will have 76 machines five years from now. The US builds more F-35s in a year. NGAD should be solely focused on the Pacific theater and the challenges there in (primarily the huge distances involved).

True, we all know that their SU-57s are shit. But we must assume that they have solved it with the Checkmate, which could possibly be the bigger competitor should it eventually be out (If it ever will). Sometimes, it's better to be safe than sorry in such a situation. However, a cheaper option could just be to send some of those 300 F-35s with drones to the area instead, maybe 20-30 of them should do it.

The NGADs can instead not just be deployed in areas near China, but also on Alaska, to also give Russia no incentive for any funny ideas to do something on Alaska or anywhere else in the area.

I'd imagine the NGAD will increase just due to economies of scale, but the only other competitor would be Russia who can't even take out Ukraine's early 4th gen fighters. Maybe there's the possibility that China or the Euros/Japan will export it to an unfriendly country, however that's extremely doubtful.

It will also increase in scale should a situation become hot and call for more Deterrence. But I'm also betting that due to the Economy of Scale, they will also fast-track future iterations of the NGAD, as although they have dropped the Digital Century Series build plan, they may still have plans in place to create newer, better and far more capable airframes that will succeed the first generations of NGAD but are still under the NGAD designation.

 

[Josh_TN]

True, we all know that their SU-57s are shit. But we must assume that they have solved it with the Checkmate, which could possibly be the bigger competitor should it eventually be out (If it ever will). Sometimes, it's better to be safe than sorry in such a situation. However, a cheaper option could just be to send some of those 300 F-35s with drones to the area instead, maybe 20-30 of them should do it.

The NGADs can instead not just be deployed in areas near China, but also on Alaska, to also give Russia no incentive for any funny ideas to do something on Alaska or anywhere else in the area.

I didn't discuss Su-57 capability, I'm just noting they will forever be heavily outnumbered by any single US flying organization's F-35s. Therefore I don't think it is a contingency that needs to be planned around. I personally don't think Checkmate will even enter production, but if it does it will similarly be in small enough numbers to be managable by existing US aircraft. My point is that NGAD can and should be focused solely on the Pacific theater.

 

[La-Fuente Technologies]

I didn't discuss Su-57 capability, I'm just noting they will forever be heavily outnumbered by any single US flying organization's F-35s. Therefore I don't think it is a contingency that needs to be planned around. I personally don't think Checkmate will even enter production, but if it does it will similarly be in small enough numbers to be managable by existing US aircraft. My point is that NGAD can and should be focused solely on the Pacific theater.

That I know. My point is that at least some of the advanced aircraft we get should also go to Europe, for deterrence purposes. Russia may not be as powerful as it was before, but if it tries anything funny, at least there's something to squash up that hope.

Obviously the majority of the advanced fighters we have should go to the Pacific, and with regards to that, we also need to speed up the development of the F/A-XX as well. Insofar as I'm concerned, I see more progress to the NGAD, if the articles are any indication, than there is to F/A-XX. And that's a problem because the F/A-XX is the Navy's own NGAD, and likewise, is needed to help put further deterrence in the Pacific.

 

[DrRansom]

If the US has 200 NGADs, it doesn't matter if China is a generation - or two - behind. The numbers are simply not enough.

 

[FighterJock]

If the US has 200 NGADs, it doesn't matter if China is a generation - or two - behind. The numbers are simply not enough.

Exactly DrRansom, I would want between 400 to 500 NGADs but that all depends on who the next president will be, whether the military will get enough funding for such numbers after the next election.