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

Status
Not open for further replies.
16 years, 186 pages, 7,410 posts later and we're back to page 1. Oh well.

SPF members have probably spent more manhours discussing this than the USAF has!

If the USAF doesn't know how to operate in a contested airspace then I don't know what they are doing at Red Flag these days? Maybe it's just a cover for fighter pilots to gather for beer and barbecues and Las Vegas casino trips?
 
There is more and more rumor about the SR-72 living well in Lockheed is there a reason for this change in NGAD program ? USAF paying for this new capacity instead of a new fighter?
 
Honestly, I don't think a fast, but unmaneuverable plane is that hard to shoot down, especially if it's coming straight at you. Ben Rich mentioned in his Skunkworks book, that it was well within the capabilities of the SA-5 (or S-200) to shoot down the SR-71. There's a reason why the USAF went all in on stealth. When people within the USAF ordered a technical feasibility study of making a Mach-5 airplane, he described the impossibility of such an endeavor with rather colorful language.
 
Last edited:
Elysium said:
Honestly, I don't think a fast, but unmaneuverable plane is that hard to shoot down, especially if it's coming straight at you. Ben Rich mentioned in his Skunkworks book, that it was well within the capabilities of the SA-5 (or S-200) to shoot down the SR-71. There's a reason why the USAF went all in on stealth. When people within the USAF ordered a technical feasibility study of making a Mach-5 airplane, hedescribed the impossibility of such an endeavor with rather colorful language.
Click to expand...
A really fast plane at 40-50km altitude is really difficult to shoot down even if it doesn't manoeuvre at all.
 
The past few months have been really strange about the whole 6th gen (NGAD) saga. Top USAF leadership cant seem to come up with consistent messaging, flip-flopping back and forth like politicians. Perhaps its an indication, that senior brass isnt unified in their stance on how to approach the program further. Frank Kendall especially has become a defacto CCA advocate within the branch, which undoubtedly has influence on the (at least up until now) manned component of NGAD.

Considering how far along the program is with contract award slated for 2024, it seems rather foolish to suddenly "rock the boat" - unless they have a very good reason for it (which we dont know).
 
In the last 10 years we have had 1) An actual shooting war with combat experience, 2) A vastly changing Chinese threat, 3) Actual flying NGAD prototypes, 4) Minimized Russian threat. If this pause gets us a more tuned, cheaper, faster (IOC), design, then it is worth it. Let's not forget GCAP is an 80% OTS solution that we could always get.
 
Archibald said:
SR-72 engines runs on a mix of a) PR and b) bullshit
Click to expand...
We know that Lockheed have a classified aircraft in start of production.

The Debrief: Our Best Guess About Skunk Works’ Biggest Secret | Aviation Week Network

A Lockheed Martin classified contract that involves a “highly complex design and systems integration” project has fallen $45 million deeper into red ink.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
We are sure now that it is not the NGAD.
 
zebra159357 said:
The past few months have been really strange about the whole 6th gen (NGAD) saga. Top USAF leadership cant seem to come up with consistent messaging, flip-flopping back and forth like politicians. Perhaps its an indication, that senior brass isnt unified in their stance on how to approach the program further. Frank Kendall especially has become a defacto CCA advocate within the branch, which undoubtedly has influence on the (at least up until now) manned component of NGAD.

Considering how far along the program is with contract award slated for 2024, it seems rather foolish to suddenly "rock the boat" - unless they have a very good reason for it (which we dont know).
Click to expand...
Yes it is very strange...
 
Elysium said:
Honestly, I don't think a fast, but unmaneuverable plane is that hard to shoot down, especially if it's coming straight at you. Ben Rich mentioned in his Skunkworks book, that it was well within the capabilities of the SA-5 (or S-200) to shoot down the SR-71. There's a reason why the USAF went all in on stealth. When people within the USAF ordered a technical feasibility study of making a Mach-5 airplane, he described the impossibility of such an endeavor with rather colorful language.
Click to expand...
I watch enough DCS youtubers to know that a Mach 10 aircraft can't be shot down. It also can't turn, and I'm not sure how you can open the bay doors and what kind of munitions you can use, but you sure can fly around real fast.
 
joshjosh said:
I watch enough DCS youtubers to know that a Mach 10 aircraft can't be shot down. It also can't turn, and I'm not sure how you can open the bay doors and what kind of munitions you can use, but you sure can fly around real fast.
Click to expand...
There is realy few A/A system able to shoot a plane flying at mach 6 and 80000 feet , the react time is very very short and surely if it is a drone it can maneuver. It can be cover by electronic warfare system too.
 
dark sidius said:
We know that Lockheed have a classified aircraft in start of production.

The Debrief: Our Best Guess About Skunk Works’ Biggest Secret | Aviation Week Network

A Lockheed Martin classified contract that involves a “highly complex design and systems integration” project has fallen $45 million deeper into red ink.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
We are sure now that it is not the NGAD.
Click to expand...
Wait... Where did I see that link first?

Please, link the right source for breaking news, especially when it´s... us.
 
zebra159357 said:
The past few months have been really strange about the whole 6th gen (NGAD) saga. Top USAF leadership cant seem to come up with consistent messaging, flip-flopping back and forth like politicians. Perhaps its an indication, that senior brass isnt unified in their stance on how to approach the program further. Frank Kendall especially has become a defacto CCA advocate within the branch, which undoubtedly has influence on the (at least up until now) manned component of NGAD.

Considering how far along the program is with contract award slated for 2024, it seems rather foolish to suddenly "rock the boat" - unless they have a very good reason for it (which we dont know).
Click to expand...
Remember when Kendall said the B-21 was going to have a CCA, before reversing course a year later? This is a pattern with him. He talks too much and can't make up his mind.
 
Actually never mind, we don't need NGAD. F-22 is just fine, and we have, what, like dozens of them? Russia doesn't even have the best army in Russia, and China can't innovate as we all know. There is no real threat to the United States, none at all, we should reduce the defense budget.

Meanwhile...

www.twz.com

Chinese Flying Wing UCAV Testing Accelerating Based On Satellite Imagery, Videos

China's expanding work on flying-wing uncrewed combat air vehicles comes as similar designs have disappeared in the U.S., at least publicly.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
asia.nikkei.com

China's chip capabilities just 3 years behind TSMC, teardown shows

Analysis reveals limited impact of U.S. tech curbs on consumer products
asia.nikkei.com asia.nikkei.com
 
So China is where Europe was 15 years ago with projects like Taranis and Neuron and the US with the RQ-170?
Heck even Iran got a stealthy flying wing UCAV into service 10 years ago with the Shahad 171 Simorgh, so China is 10 years behind Iran.
 
Desertfox said:
4) Minimized Russian threat.
Click to expand...
Aside from the obvious loss of human capital that is harder to replace, i'd say that the threat has actually increased no matter the damage that Ukraine has caused them. Their industrial production is off the charts compared to before and they're beginning to quickly replace their losses and gain significant and valuable combat experience. Simply put, they're not as incompetent as before anymore.

There's a reason why the European NATO is rushing to order F-35s, aside from just replacing the aging aircraft. Now, Russian aircraft production is not quite where it needs to be yet, but their fleet is relatively modern and they will most likely switch the Su-35 and Su-30SM lines to churn out Su-57s not that far from now.
 
WatcherZero said:
So China is where Europe was 15 years ago with projects like Taranis and Neuron and the US with the RQ-170?
Heck even Iran got a stealthy flying wing UCAV into service 10 years ago with the Shahad 171 Simorgh, so China is 10 years behind Iran.
Click to expand...
Europe is 15 years behind China now , Rafale , Eurofighter are plane of the eighties, nothing in the Hypersonic in Europe if we don'have the USA we are completly lost.
 
dark sidius said:
Europe is 15 years behind China now , Rafale , Eurofighter are plane of the eighties,
Click to expand...
Like most of the chinese air force too. Also there not really a next door problem.
dark sidius said:
nothing in the Hypersonic in Europe if we don'have the USA we are completly lost.
Click to expand...
There some Hypersonic developments and given the scare amount of systems in service right now makes it not matter mutch.

There completely other things where china is 15 years ahead of europe.
 
kqcke for you said:
Like most of the chinese air force too. Also there not really a next door problem.
Click to expand...
Sorry to wake you up from hibernation (jk) but most of the Chinese fleet is composed of old Russian Flankers (Su-30MKKs and J-11As), their much improved Chinese derivatives (J-11B(G), B(G)H (MLU AESA upgrade), J-15 and J-16), J-10A,B,C,S and JH-7A. Those J-7s and J-8Fs that you think of haven't been relevant since 2016-17 and most have been retired already.

At least some of the J-10As and (probably?) S' are receiving air cooled AESA radars as well.

As a matter of fact, China fields more AESA-equipped fighters than the whole combined fighter force of European NATO and they're producing roughly 170 aircraft per year, the majority of them being J-20s.

On the other hand, SAC (with its J-15B and J-35) is building a new plant that is comparable to Lockheed's Forth Worth facility.
 
Last edited:
snne said:
Sorry to wake you up from hibernation (jk) but most of the Chinese fleet is composed of old Russian Flankers (Su-30MKKs and J-11As), their much improved Chinese derivatives (J-11B(G), B(G)H (MLU AESA upgrade), J-15 and J-16), J-10A,B,C,S and JH-7A. Those J-7s and J-8Fs that you think of haven't been relevant since 2016-17 and most have been retired already.
Click to expand...
His point was that most of there fleet was 80s fighter (designs as i understood it) which china also got. Thoses Flankers and all there children are not really newer
snne said:
At least some of the J-10As and (probably?) S' are receiving air cooled AESA radars as well.

As a matter of fact, China fields more AESA-equipped fighters than the whole combined fighter force of European NATO and they're producing roughly 170 aircraft per year, the majority of them being J-20s.

On the other hand, SAC (with its J-15B and J-35) is building a new plant that is comparable to Locheed's Forth Worth facility.
Click to expand...
A lot of fighters will get AESA radars refited. Like all german Eurofighter from TR2 to 3 with 4 already having them.
 
Archibald said:
Total B.S
Click to expand...
I don't agree with him either, but he has a point here:

Is there a European 5th+ gen aircraft currently in production?

Euro-canards are formidable aircraft but they have a problem with large scale deployment of new technologies. If Europe didn't have the 'true' Euro-fighter (the F-35) at their disposal; they wouldn't have the advantageous position they have against Russia today.
 
The problem China will have is sustainment. Its one thing to rapidly expand the armed forces and procure a load of new modern equipment. Its quite another to keep all that equipment operational when its 10, 20 years old. Their shipbuilding plans for example require them to double their number of sailors to maintain the same number of hulls, at the same time they are having a recruitment crisis as 35% of their manpower comes from conscription of 19-22 year olds (who don't stick around after their two year term ends as they only become eligible for NCO ranks after their conscription period), and offering $1300 signing bonuses to try and lure skilled professionals to join the armed forces to operate all the new advanced gear hasn't been successful in boosting recruitment numbers as graduates still earn far more in the private sector in China.
 
WatcherZero said:
and offering $1300 signing bonuses to try and lure skilled professionals to join the armed forces to operate all the new advanced gear hasn't been successful in boosting recruitment numbers as graduates still earn far more in the private sector in China.
Click to expand...
Though the way their economy is going, that may be about to change drastically.
 
WatcherZero said:
The problem China will have is sustainment. Its one thing to rapidly expand the armed forces and procure a load of new modern equipment. Its quite another to keep all that equipment operational when its 10, 20 years old. Their shipbuilding plans for example require them to double their number of sailors to maintain the same number of hulls, at the same time they are having a recruitment crisis as 35% of their manpower comes from conscription of 19-22 year olds (who don't stick around after their two year term ends as they only become eligible for NCO ranks after their conscription period), and offering $1300 signing bonuses to try and lure skilled professionals to join the armed forces to operate all the new advanced gear hasn't been successful in boosting recruitment numbers as graduates still earn far more in the private sector in China.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you've interacted with the sinodef community, but PLA's maintenance mentality is quite different from the Western ones; they simply don't wear their aircraft down in imperial wars or 'GWOT' and place more significance into maintenance and also have more personnel available.

But to be fair, I don't know how their equipment (Flankers) compares to Russian ones as Russian aircraft usually come with less life in them. The situation should be different in indigenous designs but I can't comment on that.
 
Forest Green said:
This indicates 905 of 1,207 available.

2026 China Military Strength

Detailing the current military strength of China including air force, army, navy, financials and manpower.
www.globalfirepower.com
Click to expand...
globalfirepower is not a source to be taken seriously. In fact, Huitong's CMA-Blog is likely the most serious and up-to-date English language source that we have although he also makes mistakes from time to time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom