TWZ is at least a good place to hear about something current so you can look it up in a better source.
"TWZ" largely repeats information from else where - such as articles from other sites, forums, etc. One poorly sourced article gets repeated, with changes, over and over across different sites. Along the way the meaning changes. For example, the whole "B-21 as NGAD" idea was based on a poorly written article based on a single, prompted statement from DoD. They (Defense News) asked if B-21 could be part of NGAD, the Air Force said they were keeping all options open. They could have asked if a MiG-31 FIREFOX could be part of NGAD and would have gotten the same answer. And this single statement became an article postulating that B-21 was going to have some air to air role, and that was repeated as fact by other sites, etc.
These sources of information say that the NGAD program has been secret, shrouded in secrecy, etc. They were surprised when Roper talking about the demonstrator - which DoD had been talking about in public for years at that point. There has been a deluge of information about NGAD in public for many, many years that "TWZ" and similar sites have not reported on.
"TWZ" is not a good place to hear about things that you want to look up on "a better source". You will end up missing most of the story, and when you look things up on other sources you're going to find much the same BS as on "TWZ"
For example a 2022 article from "Breaking Defense" stated:
The Air Force first flew a prototype version of the NGAD fighter 2020, but officials at the time declined to disclose information about the plane or its manufacturer.
There is nothing in that statement that is accurate. Yet this has been repeated as if it were fact alllllll over other "articles".
Could you point me in the right direction then? As far as I can tell it is a single prime contract award like other fighter programs, and I have not heard anything about shorting airframe life or development cycles in a couple years.
Testimony given in congressional hearings is a good start. DoD has been very consistent in their statements to Congress about NGAD over the years.
Furthermore, I did think that Roper & Co might have had enough power & influence during the 2018-2020 period to get their preferences implemented as official policy. But I also thought that from 2021 until the money ran out in late 2023, Frank Kendall was calling the shots, and not interested in the radicalism of the short service life / rapid replacement model, nor in concurrency, at least for the big ticket, crewed NGAD/PCA.
I thought Kendall had nixed the short lifespan / concurrent development / rapid iteration model for the crewed fighter but kept it for CCAs, while nevertheless heavily embracing other aspects of the NGAM like government owned IP, MOSA, greater government involvement in systems integration, etc.
This seems to have been the result of a few comments Kendall has made at various points. At one point he said that some of Roper's initiatives had been "optimistic" and "overhyped" and he was skeptical without hard data (I have been unable to find the original source of these comments). At another point he said some of Ropers ideas did not scale well to a very complex manned aircraft.
The reality is that many of Roper's ideas became core concepts for a number of different programs. Kendall did get his hard data and has gotten behind many of the initiatives that are associated with Roper.
Again, statements made to Congress over the years have made this clear. Agile development, moving "at the pace of relevance", reducing sustainment costs and shortening service lifetimes, etc. And importantly, "constant competition". Every aspect will be competed, constantly, throughout the life of the program. It will be constantly competed, updated, changing contractors on what they hope is short cycles.
Many of the "questions" in this thread have already been addressed or answered by DoD in public statements about the program. Many of the things that have been speculated about in this thread have also been addressed by public statements made by DoD.
For example:
- The Air Force is planning around 2 CCAs for each manned 6th gen aircraft, and 2 CCAs for each of "some number of" F-35s, for a total of 1000 CCAs.
- The Navy 6th gen manned aircraft is primarily a strike fighter. It is intended to replace the Hornet. The Navy considers FA-XX a part of NGAD, and has already flown a demonstrator.
- The Air Force wants to end up with a mix of NGAD, F-35, F-15EX, and F-16. Four fighter airframes with additional CCAs. The F-16 is being retained for SEAD, the apparently are not planning for the F-35 to take that over.
- A big reason for buying F-15EX is the number of "rails" and the ability to carry oversized weapons.
