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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ozair said:
Sure

https://crsreports.congress.gov/pro...ity, lethality,, and crewed/uncrewed teaming.
For a start I expect the manned/unmanned teaming will be significantly smoother via manned NGAD than with existing 5th gen aircraft. Combine that with persistence and enhanced survivability and you have a platform that can operate within an A2/AD region for log periods of time.
Click to expand...
Nothing new, when this situation will evolve ? may be it is time to change Kendall if he don't know what he want.
 
4decaa said:
So you might lean towards something more f119 sized/powered engine? The original vision for NGAD was for a big heavy ass plane, so I don't see why the F135 would be such a terrible idea. Obviously USAF has reoriented now
Click to expand...
I meant for F/A-XX not PCA/NGAD
 
The rate at which an adversary can develop a counter to an expensive, high tech weapon system is probably not making things any easier for military & civilian planners.

As soon as DoD officials signal intent to develop and produce a shiny, new Ferrari, the clock starts ticking for adversaries to develop a response. And with the shiny, new programs, you typically get high costs (e.g. production, maintenance, upgrades), highly specialized manufacturing infrastructure, procurement delays, supply chain bottlenecks, etc.

In an arms race, each of those areas becomes a risk that can jeopardize the US's ability to develop and field these kinds of advanced programs. So as Quellish alluded to, these challenges are driving the development of new approaches for building & sustaining the US military. They have to decide how to balance cutting edge innovation with the need to stay ahead of adversaries, then turn around & deploy those solutions in a timely, effective manner to maintain strategic advantage.

Exciting times.
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
The F-23N/NATF-23 was received more negatively by the Navy than the F-22N/NATF-22. In any case, it also represents air vehicle technology from 3 decades ago, so I'm quite sure we can do better than that now for F/A-XX.
Click to expand...
I mean, size wise I expect something on that scale. Big damn airplane is needed for the range people are talking about. But I am not expecting either F-22N or F-23N type shapes.

If anything, I'm kinda suspecting something looking more like the Su57, with big LEVCONS and two widely spaced engines to allow a large weapons bay between the engines.
 
My personal guess is old ngad doesn't work for USAF against PLA-2030 anymore, especially when in key resources that made that approach viable, China simply overtakes US.

Somewha ironically, same approach, for the very same reasons, is very much viable for PLAAF themselves.
In a way, US designed for China a way of fighting it can't follow itself anymore.

Or, to be exact, it can, it just isn't an advantageous way anymore.
 
Sorry if I missed it, but what are the 5 technologies for NGAD? If there is no info, what is the speculation as to what they are? Hope I am not opening a can of worms with the request for speculation.
 
Stealth would still play a big part in NGAD so no worries there, quickly followed by less advanced but still cutting edge at least by todays standards avionics brand new engines of a type that may be more powerful than the F-22s and F-35s, Supercurise speeds at Mach 1.7 max never exceed speed Mach 2.5 with full reheat (afterburner). I would think that just about covers everything that I can think of Airbus A340 Fan.
 
Airbus A340 Fan said:
Sorry if I missed it, but what are the 5 technologies for NGAD? If there is no info, what is the speculation as to what they are? Hope I am not opening a can of worms with the request for speculation.
Click to expand...

I believe three of them were classified and two were unmanned teaming and advanced propulsion (adaptive engines). I think a likely goal was also broadband stealth and superior EW, though to what goal or extent there is only guesswork.
 
I think the USAF has come to the conclusion that you simply can't beat quantity with quality. At this point, I expect drones going forward will look a lot like reusable cruise missiles. A small bay to include 1 larger bomb / a couple SDB and a small AAM like a Stinger or equivalent, or 1 or 2 larger AAM.
Build them in the thousands so unit price is little more than the cost of a cruise missile. Make sure at least a few hundred of them are capable of reaching 85000+ feet for a period of time to cover high airspace.
Any conventional air force facing such a threat wouldn't stand a chance, and neither would NGAD; it simply won't have the magazine depth to do so.
 
The problem is I don't exactly see how USAF can outspam PLAAF with drones.

China is just getting that good in software, ai and comms/sensors, and no one is outproducing China in 2030s.

US advantages are ironically in manned (current fleet, pool of pilots and institutional knowledge, pilot training capacity), engine and other dedicated aerospace technology, i.e. things China can't cheat half-free through military-civilian tech loop.
To have advantage against PLAAF-2030, it's necessary to use them to the fullest.

CCAs are a necessary part of air warfare-2030, but betting solely on them is just not an option. Not against world factory.
 
Ainen said:
The problem is I don't exactly see how USAF can outspam PLAAF with drones.

China is just getting that good in software, ai and comms/sensors, and no one is outproducing China in 2030s.

US advantages are ironically in manned (current fleet, pool of pilots and institutional knowledge, pilot training capacity), engine and other dedicated aerospace technology, i.e. things China can't cheat half-free through military-civilian tech loop.
To have advantage against PLAAF-2030, it's necessary to use them to the fullest.

CCAs are a necessary part of air warfare-2030, but betting solely on them is just not an option. Not against world factory.
Click to expand...

The U.S. seems to have a AI agent software advantage for the moment, although it is impossible to quantify or qualify the progress nor does China advertise any of its AI pilot efforts. The U.S. almost certainly has a current advantage in producing UCAVs in the 10,000 MTOW range, if only because it can directly purchase engines in the 3,000-8000 lb thrust range off the shelve from a half dozen different commercial manufacturers, where as this industry niche is much more sparse in China. Also the U.S. already has something like a half dozen platforms being developed in this range already, most of which are already flying prototypes or even in limited production. So I think the U.S. acquires A2A UCAVs in numbers before the PRC. How long it maintains that advantage is impossible to say. Major efforts would likely have to be made to maintain production parity, likely involving multiple manufacturers producing UCAVs and all of them being used concurrently in order to utilize as many active lines as possible.
 
As for the manned component, I think there are limiting returns to ever greater sophistication and size. I think a more aerodynamic tailless aero shell with largely F-35 blk4 subsystems would buy significant range, speed, and RCS reduction advantages while controlling costs. An adaptive engine would further increase endurance and power.
 
Josh_TN said:
As for the manned component, I think there are limiting returns to ever greater sophistication and size.
Click to expand...
As far as I'm concerned, the thing driving size is the range requirement.


Josh_TN said:
I think a more aerodynamic tailless aero shell with largely F-35 blk4 subsystems would buy significant range, speed, and RCS reduction advantages while controlling costs.
Click to expand...
That is very much what I expect the USN FAXX to be. USAF NGAD, I'm not so sure about.



Josh_TN said:
An adaptive engine would further increase endurance and power.
Click to expand...
Then you have a whole new engine in the logistics pipelines, which make things more expensive than using F135s or even F119s.
 
Scott Kenny said:
As far as I'm concerned, the thing driving size is the range requirement.

That is very much what I expect the USN FAXX to be. USAF NGAD, I'm not so sure about.

Then you have a whole new engine in the logistics pipelines, which make things more expensive than using F135s or even F119s.
Click to expand...

The issue I have with increasing range is: where exactly are you going to base your F-111 sized fighter from, and what range is necessarily that? If the answer is the second island chain and a roughly 1500-2000 mile combat radius…then how many air bases can support that? Anderson, GUM…and that’s probably it. Is that militarily useful? Let’s assume Australia is the goal. Is 3000 miles realistic? If not, can enough tankers be based there?

Another consideration: would any of these basing options generate a sufficient sortie rate?

I think the USAF has become unsure that extreme range buys them anything, or at least buys them enough to justify the cost in money and development time.

As for engines, I do not know enough about the adaptive engine programs to know how far along they are, how expensive they will be, or how much performance will improve. I’d think the F-135 update for F-35 would not be a bad place to start, mostly because it’s already developed and a single engine solution is generally less expensive when physically possible.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Then you have a whole new engine in the logistics pipelines, which make things more expensive than using F135s or even F119s.
Click to expand...
Well, that's certainly what Raytheon (PW) has been trying to convince everyone.

But they were more than happy to line up for NGAP funds with GE once they allocated a three fold increase in the 2023 budget. And they took AETP money for the F-35 program, as well, even while publicly backing the -135 ECU (they won).
 
Airbus A340 Fan said:
Sorry if I missed it, but what are the 5 technologies for NGAD? If there is no info, what is the speculation as to what they are? Hope I am not opening a can of worms with the request for speculation.
Click to expand...

The first public mention of the 5 key technologies was in late 2019. At the time, manned-unmanned teaming was not a significant part of the program, and the overall concept was to incorporate all 5 technologies into a manned aircraft. Later the Air Force changed course and said the 5 key technologies would be matured and integrated into legacy platforms as well as new platforms. Manned-unmanned teaming was later emphasized as a way to lower costs.

The only one of these 5 key technologies that has been directly attributed is the adaptive power plant. The Air Force has made a number of statements when talking about NGAD though that hint at some of the other technologies, such as this statement from SECAF in 2022:

The Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Family-of-Systems (FoS) is aggressively leveraging Digital Engineering, Open System Architectures, and Agile Software Development to drive down costs while providing the most advanced fighter capabilities.
Click to expand...
 
Josh_TN said:
The U.S. seems to have a AI agent software advantage for the moment, although it is impossible to quantify or qualify the progress nor does China advertise any of its AI pilot efforts. The U.S. almost certainly has a current advantage in producing UCAVs in the 10,000 MTOW range, if only because it can directly purchase engines in the 3,000-8000 lb thrust range off the shelve from a half dozen different commercial manufacturers, where as this industry niche is much more sparse in China. Also the U.S. already has something like a half dozen platforms being developed in this range already, most of which are already flying prototypes or even in limited production. So I think the U.S. acquires A2A UCAVs in numbers before the PRC. How long it maintains that advantage is impossible to say. Major efforts would likely have to be made to maintain production parity, likely involving multiple manufacturers producing UCAVs and all of them being used concurrently in order to utilize as many active lines as possible.
Click to expand...
Right now US still has all the advantages other than geography, it's indisputable. It still produces more in all aircraft categories where it even bothers to produce (the basic norm of our world ever since mid-ww2).

The problems are three: First, the trend is negative for the US and positive for China. Ultimately, planes are just another type of manufactured goods, and China is just growing like mad. It was rosier when Chinese manufacturers were stuck figuring it out, but now even worse among their sorrow spots are "good enough to fight".

Then, CCAs are not here yet. It's quite reasonable now to make a "weapon carrier"(multirole, reusable cruise missile), but turning cooperative part into reality takes time. Both to develop and to make it operational.
Finally, in PPP terms, China dwarfs the competition. The US, especially due to inflation and debt payments, seems to be stuck in their ability to finance things. China is simply not.
US-aligned economies are doing outright bad, so there's little help from outside, too. It wasn't too long ago when Japan was almost "big 3" with incredible militarization potential - and now...


The trend is the way it is, by late 2020s CCA mass is just not in US favor.
Instead of making Battlestars with CCA swarms(which to me is now China's way), it becomes advantageous to try to get as many manned/unmanned teams as possible, winning on flexibility and "quality of quantity". This indeed seems to be the way USAF now tries to go.

This approach requires high numbers of both unmanned and manned components. And manned can't be F-35 - it is not as cheap as desired(but that's ok), it isn't as advanced as desired anymore(see the list by @quellish above; those 3 items are a big thing to me).
It is not exactly an example of how good a US-made air superiority fighter should fly A2A mission profiles.
Most crucially - you just can't wait for F-35 global updates the way it happens now. If you want to change CCA generations like gloves - it doesn't add up.


It logically leads to an all-new, affordable and advanced, light/medium-class, a2a-focused fighter aircraft (not a pound of compromise). The problem - United States didn't need to mix those qualities for decades; can the US even do it now?
Like, say, an even more scaled-down ....Lockheed Su-75 almost(lol), on a careful mix of off-the-shelf(stealth), ongoing(AETP?), and most crucial and affordable new (open architecture, digital design).

Who's going to develop it? Big MIC, the preferred option, is known neither as "in time" nor "on budget". New MIC is all promises, but it is yet to show itself capable.
Even the famous F-35-loving, soon-to-be head of DOGE is known for being "on budget", but not so much for "in time".
But US just can't afford to procrastinate now, new fighter is needed even more urgently. Too much time was wasted on the original dead end.
 
Last edited:
I think China still struggles somewhat with its aircraft engine development (J-20 and Y-20 are just getting the desired engines; H-6 uses Russian turbofans AFAIK). Certainly the U.S. has a big advantage in off the shelf solutions due to its civilian aircraft industry. So I would argue aircraft production is not just any other massed produced product for the PRC just yet.

I think distance favors China, geography does not: its air and sea forces are hemmed in by countries openly hostile to it, most hosting U.S. forces. I think part of the reason NGAD is being reevaluated is because allied countries have become much more open to hosting US forces (Philippines, Australia) or directly participating in a Taiwan conflict (Australia, Japan). Fighting from the first island chain seems to be the new NGAD goal, which is a different set of challenges deployment wise. Increased range still matters but less so, while ability to operate from a wider set of runways becomes far more relevant. I still think something more FA-XX like may ultimately be the answer: lower stall speeds and shorter runway requirements.

The PRC economy seems to have plateaued, even if you accept local economic numbers as true. Purchasing power is significantly greater than the US, but I think we have reached the end of dramatic growth rates: the property market will be hurt indefinitely, infrastructure investment is already over developed, and the desired high tech export driven economy that Xi is pushing for requires countries to be open to subsidized Chinese products, which seems ever less likely by the month.

As for the desired tech in NGAD: it’s unclear what all of it is/was, but at least some of it seems related to speed of development and updating. Some of it might have been related to avionics or stealth. None of that requires a huge aircraft; only range and payload (and keep in mind the size of NGAD was still speculation on our part in the first place). Something rapidly designed with mature avionics (again, to me F-35 blk4 is an ideal starting place) does not seem incompatible with any of the technologies we have discussed here with major exception being advanced propulsion, though there was at one point an F-35 upgrades path for that as well (for A/C models anyway). That would be a very B-21-esque solution to the manned platform.

In any case I do not think NGAD will ever be a high density platform: that will be the CCAs job. The US really has no choice but to embrace UCAVs as there is little hope of it maintaining air parity in the WestPac any other way. It will pretty much have to work, and have to be generated in numbers larger than current manned aircraft programs. There are indications that “new MIC” can achieve such a goal: companies like Anduril clearly are designing for easy of production, with a focus not just on materials and components but also work force. Kratos has already stated (questionablely) it could produce a couple hundred of its XQ-58 series annuall given a large enough order. GA certainly seems well positioned to mass produce Gambit/XQ-67 products. So there seems to be potentially enough density available, so long as multiple platforms are adopted.
 
One other thing I will point out that is tangentially related: the US will likely have superiority in lift to orbit costs for the indefinite future. I think leveraging orbital communications, navigation, sensor, and EW capabilities will be a huge enabler for aircraft, especially unmanned ones, and the US seems poised to take back the lead in this area after a period of relative unresponsiveness.

I also think both sides are quietly developing orbit to ground kinetic weapons and that we will see that the first examples before the end of the decade, but that is a different topic altogether.
 
Josh_TN said:
The U.S. seems to have a AI agent software advantage for the moment, although it is impossible to quantify or qualify the progress nor does China advertise any of its AI pilot efforts. The U.S. almost certainly has a current advantage in producing UCAVs in the 10,000 MTOW range, if only because it can directly purchase engines in the 3,000-8000 lb thrust range off the shelve from a half dozen different commercial manufacturers, where as this industry niche is much more sparse in China. Also the U.S. already has something like a half dozen platforms being developed in this range already, most of which are already flying prototypes or even in limited production. So I think the U.S. acquires A2A UCAVs in numbers before the PRC. How long it maintains that advantage is impossible to say. Major efforts would likely have to be made to maintain production parity, likely involving multiple manufacturers producing UCAVs and all of them being used concurrently in order to utilize as many active lines as possible.
Click to expand...
OK, so pardon my speech to text as I'm talking into my phone here, but I'm really glad you brought this point up. Because I feel like general Alvin's mind on the ngad did not change until after he took that test flight in the X62 vista, not too long ago. What's specific capabilities with artificial intelligence and piloting were made obvious during that test scenario that became so substantial to change the way that we are thinking on how to conduct aerial combat.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
OK, so pardon my speech to text as I'm talking into my phone here, but I'm really glad you brought this point up. Because I feel like general Alvin's mind on the ngad did not change until after he took that test flight in the X62 vista, not too long ago. What's specific capabilities with artificial intelligence and piloting were made obvious during that test scenario that became so substantial to change the way that we are thinking on how to conduct aerial combat.
Click to expand...

I was not there, so I cannot say. :)

I think most people have been pretty astounded by what AI can accomplish in various fields and most especially in its rate of development. My feeling is that if the USAF can have the hardware ready by 2028, it will not be problematic to install appropriate software by then. Look how far development has come in the last four years.

I also think development ultimately will eventually require actual platforms with fully working agents being tested in large numbers, and that at some point that becomes the bottleneck for further software development. The first generation of CCAs is probably driven as much by testing/development needs as operational concerns; a lot of issues, best practices, and advantages probably will not be clear until you get several dozen operating together in the same airspace.
 
Sorry to differ but I think the late feeling is opposite than a general embrace with the AI genius. I feel like people are coming back from the day we were said, it´s tomorrow. AI is not ready to be that breakthrough technology we were given to think.

In essence, NGAD will have to perform and the odds are that US technology, combined with the best of their allies, can be again dominant for the next decade. By mashing the throttle on what best characterize US air dominance, Stealth, connectivity, sensing and superior flight dynamics, there is a potential to safeguard a situation where the force will be able to continue dominating the fight and inflict a detrimental loss ratio (A2G also as a consequence).

We have seen how the F-35 is a new paradigm in aerial warfare. NGAD can only do better.

UCAV are a part of the equation, obviously. But as an enhancer, not the performer.

As I have written already, Ukraine and Russia relaying on drones warfare didn´t result in the type of fluid battlefield where allies can only win (mass onslaughts are not a lasting strategy for the "west").
 
Last edited:
flateric said:
Can you stop posting shit from Armyrecognition? This is an article about all and nothing.
Click to expand...
If you'd prefer, I'm happy to have ChatGPT write similar articles for us to peruse at our leisure. Here is an example. Happy to do this daily in every thread:

Next-Generation Dominance: How the NGAD, B-21 Raider, and FLRAA V-280 Valor Will Redefine Warfare


The landscape of modern warfare is set to transform with the introduction of the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) platform, B-21 Raider, and FLRAA V-280 Valor. These cutting-edge systems exemplify the integration of multi-domain operations, artificial intelligence (AI), and advanced stealth technologies, enabling the U.S. military to maintain strategic superiority in an increasingly contested global environment. Each platform leverages the latest advancements in aerospace and defense to ensure survivability, adaptability, and lethality against near-peer adversaries.


The NGAD, a sixth-generation fighter jet, represents the pinnacle of air combat innovation. Designed with modularity and swarm capabilities, it acts as a force multiplier in air superiority missions. Equipped with next-level stealth, advanced data fusion, and loyal wingman drones, the NGAD ensures dominance over heavily defended airspaces. Paired with the B-21 Raider, a stealth bomber optimized for long-range strikes and penetrating counter-air missions, these platforms enable seamless precision targeting while operating in the world's most hostile environments.


Meanwhile, the FLRAA V-280 Valor, a tiltrotor aircraft, revolutionizes tactical mobility with its unmatched speed, range, and agility. It combines the versatility of a helicopter with the efficiency of a fixed-wing aircraft, making it ideal for rapid troop deployment, aerial resupply, and casualty evacuation in multi-domain operations. Together, these platforms create a networked force capable of executing coordinated strikes, exploiting enemy vulnerabilities, and ensuring the U.S. military retains its edge in the battlespace of the future.
 
joshjosh said:
If you'd prefer, I'm happy to have ChatGPT write similar articles for us to peruse at our leisure. Here is an example. Happy to do this daily in every thread:
Click to expand...
ChatGPT is the ultimate minimum-effort/maximum-output BS generator, and your example is a perfect demonstration of that.
 
CZD said:
I think the USAF has come to the conclusion that you simply can't beat quantity with quality. At this point, I expect drones going forward will look a lot like reusable cruise missiles. A small bay to include 1 larger bomb / a couple SDB and a small AAM like a Stinger or equivalent, or 1 or 2 larger AAM.
Build them in the thousands so unit price is little more than the cost of a cruise missile. Make sure at least a few hundred of them are capable of reaching 85000+ feet for a period of time to cover high airspace.
Any conventional air force facing such a threat wouldn't stand a chance, and neither would NGAD; it simply won't have the magazine depth to do so.
Click to expand...

The USAF probably hasn't thought about this, but they are not going to beat the Chinese with quantity either. The PLAAF will also deploy mass via CCAs in mass. Then what? The Air Force will build a few hundred Increment I CCAs, aka the Air Force's version of LCS, in an attempt to figure it out and determine the Chinese are doing the same thing and then change course again, wasting more time and money.

The only way you beat and deter the Chinese is through superior technology - stealth, avionics, engines - and superior training. We need a high - low mix like we did during the Cold War. The services developed the exquisite first - F-14s/F-15s, then proceeded with mass - Hornets and F-16s. If CCAs have any hope of being successful in the next 5-10 years and beyond there needs to be an high end fighter with advanced sensors to cue and provide command and control to the CCAs. Otherwise, you will need to improve the sensors and increase the payload of the CCAs, increasing its the per unit cost. At some point it will approach the cost of a manned fighter. What the USAF is doing is putting the cart before the horse.

Until proven otherwise, I really don't think CCAs are a good value vs a manned fighter. There might be a tactical benefit in distributing sensors and firepower, but the cost per effect does not appear to be greater than a manned fighter. The USN is finding that out with the LUSV. The cost of an LUSV with 32 Mk-41 cells is approaching the cost of frigate.
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/12...e-navy-to-change-course-on-large-usv-program/
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/12...e-navy-to-change-course-on-large-usv-program/

Increment I is supposed to be focused on providing more mass and sensors to the penetrating counter air mission. There is not that much information on the capabilities of the first increment of CCAs. GA says it has modest stealth. Sensors may be mostly passive to keep the cost low. It would need to carry at least two AMRAAM sized weapons to augment a PCA manned fighter, an F-22 or NGAD. You would think that J-20s or even J-16s would be able to identify and target the CCAs well before they would be able to get a shot off. If the Chinese have CCAs then manned fighters will eventually end up fighting it out once the CCAs are attritted. If the CCAs are operating 50-100 nm in front of their manned fighters it is unlikely that he manned fighter would not be able to provide targeting info from their active sensors. Then how do the CCAs target enemy aircraft? Would it come from space and passive sensors?

A LongShot type CCA that carries an A2A missile or SDB sounds like a good idea. But once you consider what you need to support such a weapon it may not be. Do you need a mothership to launch it? How is it recovered? How is it supported? From a CONOPS point of view it may be over complicated. It also might be a lot more difficult to supported than manned fighters.

The high cost of NGAD might have given the AF cold feet. But not pursuing NGAD also comes with costs. CCAs may need a higher level of LO and may need better sensors, more payload. The USAF may rely more on expensive stand off munitions from bombers. It may offload some of the penetrating air function to the B-21, resulting in a need to increase B-21 procurement. Downsizing NGAD and abandoning the more fuel efficient adaptive engine drives the need for NGAS.

There is no free lunch. Stopping and starting programs results in a waste of money and time. Neither of which we have.
 
quellish said:
They want to be able to take the design, after development, and allow "any" contractor to produce it, modify it, etc. So some company making CCAs today may 5 years from now produce the manned aircraft with an Air Force license for the design. Obviously companies like Lockheed are not very comfortable with this.
Click to expand...

And this is the most critical aspect, maybe even more critical than the 5 "new" technologies they are touting.
 
Josh_TN said:
The issue I have with increasing range is: where exactly are you going to base your F-111 sized fighter from, and what range is necessarily that? If the answer is the second island chain and a roughly 1500-2000 mile combat radius…then how many air bases can support that? Anderson, GUM…and that’s probably it. Is that militarily useful? Let’s assume Australia is the goal. Is 3000 miles realistic? If not, can enough tankers be based there?

Another consideration: would any of these basing options generate a sufficient sortie rate?

I think the USAF has become unsure that extreme range buys them anything, or at least buys them enough to justify the cost in money and development time.

As for engines, I do not know enough about the adaptive engine programs to know how far along they are, how expensive they will be, or how much performance will improve. I’d think the F-135 update for F-35 would not be a bad place to start, mostly because it’s already developed and a single engine solution is generally less expensive when physically possible.
Click to expand...
Wargames have demonstrated that the US cannot win vs China in a Taiwan scenario by fighting with stand off forces - bombers and long range missiles originating from the Second Island Chain. Not enough bombers, long range munitions, and a low sortie generation rate due to the distances involved. The Second Island Chain is also not a safe bastion and will be targeted by Chinese IRBMs.

In addition, in the recent CSIS wargames the outcomes indicated that the US needed at minimum basing rights in Japan to prevail. Having the Philippines would be helpful, but Japan is the key. There are a large number of civilian and military air fields the USAF could use to employ ACE and as an advanced industrial nation the US would be able to take advantage of the its infrastructure to support and sustain US forces - fuel, munitions, and supplies - which other nations within the First Island Chain would not.

As such, the sweet spot for NGAD as far as range is a 1,000-,1,200 nm combat radius and 6-8 AMRAAM sized weapons. Tankers could top off NGAD as well as 4th and 5th Gen fighters while under the protection of Japanese airspace, on their way to Taiwan. Strikes into the interior of China would be more difficult but could be performed with B-21s with CCAs.
 
sublight_ said:
And this is the most critical aspect, maybe even more critical than the 5 "new" technologies they are touting.
Click to expand...

They would have to balance their needs there or their best engineers will stay at home pretending to have a cold while watching games.
IP is the most sacred asset an engineer can have. Politicians see unpopular weapons manufacturers but under the tagged box with a brand name there are people...

(this is what happened to the Soviets)

;)
 
TomcatViP said:
They would have to balance their needs there or their best engineers will stay at home pretending to have a cold while watching games.
IP is the most sacred asset an engineer can have. Politicians see unpopular weapons manufacturers but under the tagged box with a brand name there are people...

(this is what happened to the Soviets)

;)
Click to expand...
Digital Century series is dead for manned NGAD, has been for a number of years. It was less the big contractors won and more that PPBE just wasn't flexible enough for that to happen. Portions of it remain with CCA.
 
Ainen said:
The problem is I don't exactly see how USAF can outspam PLAAF with drones.

China is just getting that good in software, ai and comms/sensors, and no one is outproducing China in 2030s.

US advantages are ironically in manned (current fleet, pool of pilots and institutional knowledge, pilot training capacity), engine and other dedicated aerospace technology, i.e. things China can't cheat half-free through military-civilian tech loop.
To have advantage against PLAAF-2030, it's necessary to use them to the fullest.

CCAs are a necessary part of air warfare-2030, but betting solely on them is just not an option. Not against world factory.
Click to expand...
Great points.
 
Ainen said:
The problem is I don't exactly see how USAF can outspam PLAAF with drones.

China is just getting that good in software, ai and comms/sensors, and no one is outproducing China in 2030s.

US advantages are ironically in manned (current fleet, pool of pilots and institutional knowledge, pilot training capacity), engine and other dedicated aerospace technology, i.e. things China can't cheat half-free through military-civilian tech loop.
To have advantage against PLAAF-2030, it's necessary to use them to the fullest.

CCAs are a necessary part of air warfare-2030, but betting solely on them is just not an option. Not against world factory.
Click to expand...
The world factory only works though when the world provides it the materials it needs. China is in no way energy independent, it cannot mine most of the minerals it needs to manufacture to military goods it requires and cannot feed itself.

China also has the highest import/export ratios for raw materials and foodstuffs, i.e. it imports significantly more than it exports. These are about 60 to 1 for ores, 36 to 1 for meat and 18 to 1 for grain
Click to expand...
https://www.iwkoeln.de/en/studies/s...China also has the highest,18 to 1 for grain.
China also has a rapidly aging population and significant fiscal issues.

What does a 2030 China look like blocked from most shipping, global financial markets, without export markets for its goods and without the raw materials coming in to supply the factories. That smells more like internal insurrection than the world factory.

On the opposite side you have the US which would have access to most of the raw materials it needs domestically or via reasonably safe import and can more than feed itself. The National Defense Stockpile is woefully inadequate today but a national emergency would see that rise albeit slowly.

Conclusion is I would count on the US and its Allies being able to sustain a global conflict for a lot longer than its competitors ie China, Russia, Iran.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom