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

[DrRansom]

About the CCA, has anyone demonstrated the ability to write the autonomous software for it? As in, able to take-off, climb, cruise, engage, evade, and return?

 

[bring_it_on]

https://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Art...bined-test-force-for-next-generation-testing/

 

[BDF]

https://defaeroreport.com/2023/06/2...ower-podcast-jun-22-23-ep23-french-lightning/
Apologies if this was reported earlier. Apparently all three primes built demonstrators for NGAD. One of them has been eliminated. Supposedly it was Boeing that was eliminated.

 

[Bounce]

 

[VTOLicious]

View attachment 702736

Interesting! One of the demonstrators? Sub-scale?

 

[paralay]

Interesting! One of the demonstrators? Sub-scale?

the wing area is 420 sq. m.feet / 39.02 m2

 

[LowObservable]

I doubt very much that the LM artwork is anything real.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Art...bined-test-force-for-next-generation-testing/

Given the information contained in this article does it improve our speculation on what has maybe currently flown or when this something may be flying?

 

[VTOLicious]

I doubt very much that the LM artwork is anything real.

I tend to agree. However, in this case it is noticeable that the proportions indicate a rather small aircraft and the planform differs from the LM NGAD artwork shown so far.
Btw, did you see the story on Instagram? This pic appeared in between other LM planforms, like U-2, F-117, F-22, etc. Could it be a self funded demonstrator, in the likes of SC 401?

 

[RavenOne]

According to

View attachment 702736

HMmm I checked out the L-M IG and cannot see this video



However looking on the tagged button, click on that and someone already has posted said video and tagged L_M in it.

SO how many days ago was this posted and did L-M take it down?

cheers

 

[VTOLicious]

It was posted as a story. Storys disappear automatically after a certain time (24h?)

 

[flateric]

It's a story, not video, and it's still there.

 

[VTOLicious]

Direct link to the story:
https://www.instagram.com/s/aGlnaGx...136732321753_33614134&igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

 

[quellish]

I doubt very much that the LM artwork is anything real.

Looks like a Draken to me.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...sQ-NzCV2ycrxiZfZNYqqOeGutPBkwul2iP5bBTwXCOMdo

 

[CiTrus90]

I see some similarities to the thing being carried on the trailer at Helendale a few years ago...
Red outline flattened and inclined to try and match the slanted angle of the camera relative to the model.

 

[flateric]

...

 

[paralay]

the maximum take-off weight is about 10 tons. Combat load 2 - 4 medium-range missiles
engine F414-GE-400

 

[X-39]

Are you all sure this placeholder art is meant to represent NGAD and not another type of aircraft? They have never specifically stated it. If you removed the awkwardly oversized canopy, with the tail boom the planform would approach SR-72 or Hermeus's Darkhorse hypersonic concepts, implying a much larger airframe than a fighter, important if not two, but three engines are supposed to go inside that thing. Can some members provide insights as to why that decision? Then we have the blue and green lights at the cockpit, And they couldn't have chosen better timing than dusk to go out and film that brief clip of the rear of something. Too many callbacks to Top Gun Maverick IMHO.

 

[TomcatViP]

@paralay It's a twin engine aircraft...

 

[CiTrus90]

@paralay It's a twin engine aircraft...

NGAD for sure, but I suspect that what Lockheed teased (and was on the trailer at Helendale) is the demonstrator for it.
Paralay's drawing is an estimate probably based on the dimensions of the canopy (correct me if I'm wrong here Paralay).

Edit: to be more clear, what I think is that the demonstrator is way smaller than what the final NGAD will be. The final NGAD proposal will certainly have two engines, but the demonstrator doesn't necessarily need to.

 

[paralay]

@paralay It's a twin engine aircraft...

What kind of engines?

 

[Hull down]

...

What is the source of this image?

 

[Scott Kenny]

@paralay It's a twin engine aircraft...

What kind of engines?

NGAD? A100 or A101, or comparable size (IE, roughly F135 sized!). Maybe a second generation adaptive, using F-22/-35 as test dummies for working the bugs out of the A100 or A101

 

[paralay]

NGAD? A100 or A101, or comparable size (IE, roughly F135 sized!). Maybe a second generation adaptive, using F-22/-35 as test dummies for working the bugs out of the A100 or A101

The conversation is about a light unmanned fighter. For him, two engines are an unacceptable luxury

 

[Elysium]

A man can dream

 

[flateric]

This is not what-if topic

 

[Scott Kenny]

NGAD? A100 or A101, or comparable size (IE, roughly F135 sized!). Maybe a second generation adaptive, using F-22/-35 as test dummies for working the bugs out of the A100 or A101

The conversation is about a light unmanned fighter. For him, two engines are an unacceptable luxury

Agreed about the CCA/Loyal Wingman type, at least the small one. One of the other missions for CCA seems to be Electronic Attack, which to me implies a load of about 7000lbs of jammers and 3-4000lbs of ordnance (a pair of ARMs and a pair of JASSMs or JSOWs).

The smaller plane could easily use an F414 from the Super Hornet. Larger plane is carrying the same load as a Growler, so would likely need two F414s.

 

[Josh_TN]

I wonder if it isn’t an optionally manned demonstrator for the CCA. The production model would be a pure UAV.

 

[dark sidius]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/skunk-works-cryptically-teases-ngad-like-aircraft-silhouetteLook the picture on the right in Instagram there is a tail and square nozzle, more something to see with a high speed demonstrator...

 

[flateric]

The conversation is about a light unmanned fighter. For him, two engines are an unacceptable luxury

But teaser plane is not single-engined one.

 

[LowObservable]

Pfft. Not real. The wing aft of the tip-to-tip line is doing almost nothing except generate weight, drag, and interesting longitudinal stability issues, and as for the planform alignment - the signatures group gonna grab you by the collar and drag you into the nearest anechoic chamber, where nobody can hear your squeals for mercy.

 

[X-39]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/skunk-works-cryptically-teases-ngad-like-aircraft-silhouetteLook the picture on the right in Instagram there is a tail and square nozzle, more something to see with a high speed demonstrator...

Darkstar...

 

[flateric]

I wonder if you saw movie Darkstar planform?

 

[RavenOne]

I wonder if you saw movie Darkstar planform?

The shape , reminds me of this

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...d-at-area-51-in-unprecedented-satellite-image
cheers

 

[Bounce]

I wonder if you saw movie Darkstar planform?

He is right though, the picture on the right is dark star, you can see the exhaust, main landing gear and tail even the start of the navy marking.

 

[Moose]

I doubt very much that the LM artwork is anything real.

I doubt it uses an F-16 canopy

 

[Ainen]

NGAD? A100 or A101, or comparable size (IE, roughly F135 sized!). Maybe a second generation adaptive, using F-22/-35 as test dummies for working the bugs out of the A100 or A101

The conversation is about a light unmanned fighter. For him, two engines are an unacceptable luxury

Not sure it's the right way to look at things.
If unmanned aircraft needs to be 2/4/6-engined - it can be 4-engined. There is, of course, decreasing benefit of not including pilot onboard with the size - but "luxury" is just not the right way to put it.

Vise versa, if we produce really capable loyal/disloyal wingmen - there is no strict rule that manned component shall be a Death star.
It may as well be a small, nimble aircraft, relying primarily on datalinks for tactical picture. If the pilot's mission is to command - do we absolutely need much more than a "flying cockpit"? Or maybe survivability can be increased simply by mimicking a cheaper unmanned component, way down the engagement priority list?

 

[Fluff]

Anyone think it looks a bit like a Draken.....under a plastic greenhouse?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Vise versa, if we produce really capable loyal/disloyal wingmen - there is no strict rule that manned component shall be a Death star.

It may as well be a small, nimble aircraft, relying primarily on datalinks for tactical picture. If the pilot's mission is to command - do we absolutely need much more than a "flying cockpit"? Or maybe survivability can be increased simply by mimicking a cheaper unmanned component, way down the engagement priority list?

Command and control needs to be protected. Under that model, the manned NGAD would be the stealthiest and well armed for self defense.