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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not to open the thread to endless speculation but we went from debating one high ranking USAF civilian seemingly saying a prototype actually was flown to are we even going to build a true 6th generation fighter or do something else.

What happened?
 
bobbymike said:
Not to open the thread to endless speculation but we went from debating one high ranking USAF civilian seemingly saying a prototype actually was flown to are we even going to build a true 6th generation fighter or do something else.

What happened?
Click to expand...

I think several decades of abortive defense programs have conditioned us to fear the worst when anyone with any role in the decision making on these projects says anything less than effusive about the state of procurement.

Not that there’s nothing to be concerned about. We knew going in that NGAD was going to be extremely expensive, and with post-Covid… everything… Congress’s appetite for the highest of high end hardware might not be what it once was. But I think the possible scenario of “the Air Force is pumping the breaks to reassess the exact plane that they want before committing to it, and possibly firing a shot across the bow of some ossified and complacent defense contractors,” is being automatically put aside in favor of, “we’re at threat level midnight, people, this is an A-12-level omnishambles.” And I get the impulse, but since we haven’t even seen any officially acknowledged material about what has flown, what they think the final product will look like, or even what the operational requirements are, I think we’re getting out over our skis.
 
sublight_ said:
What a Schill. Can that guy even comprehend the amount of compute in a cell phone? This is day one of the future and it only gets more Terminator from here.
Click to expand...
He is right the drones are not the Alpha and Omega of the battles , look at the Ukraine war , drone battle and nothing move , nobody win its like the world war 1 battles , I shot , you shot ..... and soon with direct energy weapon it will be end of the little drone, and it will be a good thing.
 
The USAF would be absolutely nuts if they stop the NGAD program, instead they should continue no matter what and order a 50/50 split mix between manned and unmanned.
 
dark sidius said:
https://aviationweek.com/defense-sp...ations/ngad-could-face-more-cuts-us-air-forceSaddly behind paywall instead of contract we will see a cut in NGAD , the option possible is to rebuild all the fleet of F-22 but they have only 150 of it.....
Click to expand...
NMaude said:
If the US DoD goes that route then they need to rebuild ALL 187 surviving airframes and very seriously reconsider reestablishing and restarting the F-22 production line which would be rather expensive but as far as I know all of the production jigs and tooling are in a secure, controlled storage guarded by the US army.
Click to expand...
An extensive MLU and SLEP programme? Makes sense. Reestablish the production line? Hell no.

The problem is F-22 is not suited for current West Pacific theatre of operations. It lacks operational range, simple as. In conflict situations it would require forward basing at Korea and Japan, but the problem is, Japan lacks HAS, not only JASDF bases hut even USFJ bases as well, that including Kadena. If there is to be a high intensity conflict with China within a year or two, severe on-ground attrition of these fighters in Japan is near garaunteed.

They could desperse and operate from bases further away from Chinese mainland but this puts strain on the tanker fleet.

Also, restarting the production would reauire an entirely new production plant. FW is already full capacity, and other LM plants are all up to something. This would meam infrastructure investment that would pressure the service into selecting LM for follow-up 6th gen programme, jeopardising a big part of bargaining power.
 
The way I see it is the F-22 is old technology now and is in need of replacement even designing a so called F-22M modified with some sixth generation technology in a fifth generation plus aircraft would not work in the modern battlefield if that is the way that the USAF are currently thinking then that will be plane (pun intended) stupid. :mad:
 
FighterJock said:
The way I see it is the F-22 is old technology now and is in need of replacement even designing a so called F-22M modified with some sixth generation technology in a fifth generation plus aircraft would not work in the modern battlefield if that is the way that the USAF are currently thinking then that will be plane (pun intended) stupid. :mad:
Click to expand...
Surely you could build it with F-35 technology and a modular avionics architecture, maybe try squeeze a bit more fuel in and slightly larger bays, F-22EX and plenty.
 
Don't get me wrong I like the basic idea Forest Green, but it just would not be the same as a new technology fighter as the F-22 was back in the 1980s when it was the ATF.
 
It could all just be the USAF taking in the data from the prototypes and refining their requirements based on what is and isn't doable. New airframes aren't exactly expensive and the F-35 already took the brunt of the cost of the avionics.
 
FighterJock said:
The way I see it is the F-22 is old technology now and is in need of replacement even designing a so called F-22M modified with some sixth generation technology in a fifth generation plus aircraft would not work in the modern battlefield if that is the way that the USAF are currently thinking then that will be plane (pun intended) stupid. :mad:
Click to expand...
What "pisses" me the most, is they already flown one or two 6th generation fighter prototypes, which already costs alot of money to the tax payers, and now they want to f**k everything by scraping the all program, this is just nuts:(
 
pedrospe said:
What "pisses" me the most, is they already flown one or two 6th generation fighter prototypes, which already costs alot of money to the tax payers, and now they want to f**k everything by scraping the all program, this is just nuts:(
Click to expand...
Yes I think the same, Guys you have it in the hands and you don't know if you want it ? You fly 6th gen prototypes and now you want anything else ? USAF Generals look like they don't know themself what they need and what they wants it is suspicious... Put pressure on Lockheed about there F-35 to be in budget instead.. I regret realy Will Roper for me it was the better in his job.
 
Do we know they were prototypes? I thought it was possible that the flown hardware in question might have been tech demonstrators. There’s a wide gulf between “here’s proof this new subsystem won’t make our plane fall out of the sky,” and, “this bird’s ready for squadron service.” Even the throwaway comment (was it from Kendall?) about records being set might not have been about an aircraft that was close to even the prototype stage, much less closer to service.
 
I think not buyin into the hypes from contractors shows maturity from air force. Remember how much the ATF supposedly cost in both per unit and maintenance?

With that being said, sometimes combat doctrine matures after the platform is put into service not before. You realize how the capabilities the platform have can be optimized in a whole new different way. That was the case with F-22. Remember air force couldn't accept a war of tomorrow where 4th gen fighters operate in contested airspace? Now missile truck f-15EX working alongside f-35 with a whole array of different RCS profiles on enemy's radar is all the rage. Combat doctrines will evolve with capabilities and limitations of your platforms.

Air Force may need to consider not ONLY how the current NGAD would fullfill missions in China Sea and think "is the alternative of not having one at all acceptable" and just go with whatever feasible technologies you can fit in the thing. Then have the war planners work with what they have that may not be technology focused. Let just say NGAD currently is too short-legged, how about working on artificial islands or negociating another base with one of the southeast asian countries, etc. rather than going back to the drawing board, or scrapping it all together.
 
donnage99 said:
I think not buyin into the hypes from contractors shows maturity from air force. Remember how much the ATF supposedly cost in both per unit and maintenance?

With that being said, sometimes combat doctrine matures after the platform is put into service not before. You realize how the capabilities the platform have can be optimized in a whole new different way. That was the case with F-22. Remember air force couldn't accept a war of tomorrow where 4th gen fighters operate in contested airspace? Now missile truck f-15EX working alongside f-35 with a whole array of different RCS profiles on enemy's radar is all the rage. Combat doctrines will evolve with capabilities and limitations of your platforms.

Air Force may need to consider not ONLY how the current NGAD would fullfill missions in China Sea and think "is the alternative of not having one at all acceptable" and just go with whatever feasible technologies you can fit in the thing. Then have the war planners work with what they have that may not be technology focused. Let just say NGAD currently is too short-legged, how about working on artificial islands or negociating another base with one of the southeast asian countries, etc. rather than going back to the drawing board, or scrapping it all together.
Click to expand...
F-15 EX and F-35 are short legged too, one have great kinematics with a design of years 70s and not stealth and the other will never have his full capacity with medium kinematics capacity and stealth , do you realy thing this combo is the air dominance of decades to come ? China are working on J-20, 6th gen fighter , capacity in space and a lot in the Hypersonic and may be the SR-72 will be Chinese instead of US. Boeing invest 1 billion in a new facility and you imagine USAF say I don(t want new aircraft, what will be the credibility for the futur ?
 
Last edited:
dark sidius said:
F-15 EX and F-35 are short legged too, one have great kinematics with a design of years 70s and not stealth and the other will never have his full capacity with medium kinematics capacity and stealth , do you realy thing this combo is the air dominance of decades to come ? China are working on J-20, 6th gen fighter , capacity in space and a lot in the Hypersonic and may be the SR-72 will be Chinese instead of US. Boeing invest 1 billion in a new facility and you imagine USAF say I don(t want new aircraft, what will be the credibility for the futur ?
Click to expand...
Please re-read. You missed my point entirely.
 
Last edited:
It is me or they speak about counter air capacity for the B-21 in the podcast ?
 
dark sidius said:
https://aviationweek.com/podcasts/check-6/podcast-whats-ngad
Click to expand...
Trimble says there were production representative "prototypes" funded by NGAD. Implies they are flying now. I believe these were the aircraft produced by all three competitors. To what it extent was it a production representative vehicle. Did it possibly have mission systems?

Will Roper's comments likely refers to the demonstrator from the DARPA program which supposedly funded 2 aircraft - one for the AF and one for the Navy.

I wonder if this was the demonstrator: https://theaviationist.com/2023/11/21/lm-new-ngad-video/

Small, one engine. Likely used to test the planform.
 
B2Blain said:
Trimble says there were production representative "prototypes" funded by NGAD. Implies they are flying now. I believe these were the aircraft produced by all three competitors. To what it extent was it a production representative vehicle. Did it possibly have mission systems?
Click to expand...

Not very prototype-y without the engine
 
B2Blain said:
Trimble says there were production representative "prototypes" funded by NGAD. Implies they are flying now. I believe these were the aircraft produced by all three competitors. To what it extent was it a production representative vehicle. Did it possibly have mission systems?

Will Roper's comments likely refers to the demonstrator from the DARPA program which supposedly funded 2 aircraft - one for the AF and one for the Navy.

I wonder if this was the demonstrator: https://theaviationist.com/2023/11/21/lm-new-ngad-video/

Small, one engine. Likely used to test the planform.
Click to expand...

I'm convinced we've seen two of them already on ATS, they were V tailed / twin engine and NOT raptors as the vert stabs were completely different to a Raptors. (it was a rear shot taken with a telephoto and they were side by side clear as day not F-35s or F-22s)

Spent months trying to find that post and it's gone.
 
Rhinocrates said:
I'm coming at this from the perspective of bean counters. Will they appropriate enough funds for many more supercarriers and superfighters? If they do so for this generation (Fords with F/A-XX's), I don't think that they will for the next and even before them they'll be trying to conserve them. 'Cheap' carriers may not be lower on the list of targets, but their individual losses may be less catastrophic. The problem with 'exquisite' weapons is that no matter how good they are, it eventually becomes too risky to actually use them. I fear that in a major conflict, all of the carriers will be gone in the first stages, leaving no replacements for their roles.

Therefore, I expect a strong medium and longer-term tendency away from carriers for economic rather than tactical reasons. I also expect adversaries to rely more and more on asymmetric warfare - as they are already.
Click to expand...
You lose so much capability in a smaller carrier it's not even funny.

Navy has had these discussions before with the SCS and VVS ships.

In the 1970s, the VVS designs were within 100mil of a full sized conventionally powered carrier (~800mil today). We passed the point of the combat systems being the most expensive part of the ship in about 1965.

We are currently at the point where GFE, government furnished equipment (combat systems and engines) account for 60% or more of the cost of the ship (using Burke data), and that number is increasing as more systems get added to the "minimum capability list."

Bluntly, about 2/3rds of the cost of a ship is unchanging regardless of size.



Rhinocrates said:
I do think that consideration for reduced supercarriers supplemented by cheaper drone carrier fleet need to be considered and has and is considered.

Yes, I think that's the path to turn to now.
Click to expand...
The drones will be big. They need range, they need to carry the same full set of defensive systems as a manned plane. And the weapons they carry are the same size as the manned plane as well.

So a drone with comparable range to the FAXX will be very close to the same size as the FAXX. Which needs a full sized carrier to operate off of.
 
All I can say is that the only two things that I've seen that have a bona fide company name to the designs were these from Boeing. I haven't seen anything from Lockmart patent-wise that eludes to a new design.
 

Attachments

  • 1716744340527.png
    1716744340527.png
    174.6 KB · Views: 98
  • Screenshot_20240304_102322_Acrobat for Samsung.jpg
    Screenshot_20240304_102322_Acrobat for Samsung.jpg
    246 KB · Views: 88
  • Screenshot_20240304_102318_Acrobat for Samsung.jpg
    Screenshot_20240304_102318_Acrobat for Samsung.jpg
    98.9 KB · Views: 87
Scott Kenny said:
So a drone with comparable range to the FAXX will be very close to the same size as the FAXX. Which needs a full sized carrier to operate off of.
Click to expand...
Want to agree and have to agree. Aircraft carriers are terrific because of their power, range and versatility. Steel is cheap and air is free, as they say, but nonetheless, carriers still turn out to be expensive. Putting myself in the very uncomfortable shoes of an accountant, can we afford to lose them in combat, and can we afford so much effort diverted to protecting them with so much arranged against them and their priority as targets?

It's very fashionable to talk about 'systems of systems' - i.e., F/A-XX and NGAD will be designed to operate with unmanned 'hounds.' These may have separate, lower-cost (dare I say it, 'attributable') light carriers. Economics is dictating that the Royal Navy can't think of specialised aerial drone carriers but is considering modifying the QE class carriers in 'Project Ark Royal.'

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/project-ark-royal-plans-for-angled-decks-and-drones/
The USN might have the capability for specialised conversions of civilian designs to operate with carriers deploying F/A-XXs... well, considering the current state of affairs with procurement and shipbuilding capacity, maybe not.

I've long had a soft spot for the BAE UXV, based on the Type 45 destroyer hull.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/bae-stealth-uxv-ucav-carrier-concept.2531
(2007?! Time, please stop!)

Anyway, long-range carrier defence might well be a role for F/A-XX plus destroyer and drone forces.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom