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

[RadicalDisconnect]

F-35 is notionally in production to 2049 but I don't think anyone expects the USAF to be buying them then. In that context it makes a lot of sense to transition to another platform around that time. I think the problem remains though that according to Kendall manned NGAD is too expensive, he thinks another 20 billion, and an F-35 successor is going to be that and more, as well as NGAS and CCA and likely a new airlifter soon and Sentinel and who knows what else.

According to Kendall, problem with NGAD strictly as F-22 successor is this.
1. It takes 20 billion to finish R&D
2. After R&D only 200 will be built which means huge unit costs and not much to amortize R&D
3. May not be the right operational concept based on more recent information (this part is a bit confusing to me)

So one alternative he mentioned is NGAD becomes a less expensive multirole fighter as an F-35 follow on, and also with closer coordination with CCAs. And based on what he said about wanting NGAD unit cost to be similar to F-35 and F-15EX, it seems like he was leaning in this direction.

In ideal world there will be both F-22 successor and F-35 successor as separate airframes, but the question of money, it seems like USAF only thinks that it can do one of these, so they might think it's better to rescope NGAD into F-35 successor to replace both aircraft. But it all depends on what next administration will do.

 

[joshjosh]

F-35 is notionally in production to 2049 but I don't think anyone expects the USAF to be buying them then. In that context it makes a lot of sense to transition to another platform around that time.

The F-16 has been manufactured in continually upgraded form for over 50 years now. If the USAF goes forward with NGAD, pushing the bleeding edge (and the cost), it's entirely possible that the F-35 stays in production as the cheaper mass-produced option for both the USAF and allies. Even CCAs could end up being more of an exquisite solution and not a cheap replacement for an F-35.

On the other hand, if NGAD + CCA becomes the affordable mass option, or if the USAF pursues a fighter even cheaper than the F-35 (presumably with CCAs as enablers), then perhaps F-35 production does get shut down early.

Unfortunately, I would bet good money that the DOD ends production of the F-35 early without replacement programs in full rate production. In 2050 we will bemoan the decision to curtail F-35 production, just as we've done with the F-22 and B-2 (I would add F/A-18 to that list as well).

 

[TomcatViP]

I think NGAD-cheap, if it ever exists, will cover only AD, hence will be unable to replace the F-35 as a multi-role fighter.

 

[Ozair]

According to Kendall, problem with NGAD strictly as F-22 successor is this.
1. It takes 20 billion to finish R&D
2. After R&D only 200 will be built which means huge unit costs and not much to amortize R&D
3. May not be the right operational concept based on more recent information (this part is a bit confusing to me)

I agree on point 1 and 2 but I believe the conclusion of point 3 was, after review by expert panel, that the concept was valid enough to progress forward. I haven't read where he was enthusiastic about manned NGAD, he sems to come across more a as have to do more than a want to do.

So one alternative he mentioned is NGAD becomes a less expensive multirole fighter as an F-35 follow on, and also with closer coordination with CCAs. And based on what he said about wanting NGAD unit cost to be similar to F-35 and F-15EX, it seems like he was leaning in this direction.

The F-35 was an option but not the preferred option.

In ideal world there will be both F-22 successor and F-35 successor as separate airframes, but the question of money, it seems like USAF only thinks that it can do one of these, so they might think it's better to rescope NGAD into F-35 successor to replace both aircraft. But it all depends on what next administration will do.

Recap manned NGAD into the F-35 successor is also a time issue. To go back now means likely a three to five year exercise in requirements and vendor submissions before a contract could be awarded, especially if a NGAD prototype has flown and that work mostly cannot carry forward.

The F-16 has been manufactured in continually upgraded form for over 50 years now. If the USAF goes forward with NGAD, pushing the bleeding edge (and the cost), it's entirely possible that the F-35 stays in production as the cheaper mass-produced option for both the USAF and allies.

Allies sure. The F-16 isn't a great example though as the USAF received their last F-16 in 2004 and had only taken token numbers from the approx the late 90s. F-16 production numbers from a 2013 news article are here,

As I've said in the F-35 thread I'd rather see the USAF bump the rate to 80+ A models a year and then transition in the late 30s to a new airframe.

Even CCAs could end up being more of an exquisite solution and not a cheap replacement for an F-35.

CCA could but the USAF is not leaning that way at the moment. Increment One was very much cost focused and it appears based on comments from LM that they are focusing on lower capability for Increment Two. Perhaps once the concept has been bedded down then more capable/exquisite CCAs come along but I doubt the exquisite versions will ever be purchased in the numbers needed.

On the other hand, if NGAD + CCA becomes the affordable mass option, or if the USAF pursues a fighter even cheaper than the F-35 (presumably with CCAs as enablers), then perhaps F-35 production does get shut down early.

Current planned manned NGAD will never be the affordable option even with CCAs, I think no one disputes that. CCA was always going to be paired with F-35 in greater numbers, 300 F-35s with a pair of CCA with only 200 NGAD with a pair of CCA. I also don't think a new US fighter will ever be cheaper than the F-35. I cannot see whatever is planned reaching the same production numbers, barring a global protracted conflict of course.

Unfortunately, I would bet good money that the DOD ends production of the F-35 early without replacement programs in full rate production. In 2050 we will bemoan the decision to curtail F-35 production, just as we've done with the F-22 and B-2 (I would add F/A-18 to that list as well).

The USAF had to wait from 2004 with the last F-16 till the F-35 IOC'ed in 2016. I agree it likely seems like there will be a gap, trading new F-35s or perhaps retiring F-15EX etc to pay for a new capability.


Alternatively we could get a proper Cold War 2 and the US Govt will significantly fund the US military to become again a fighting force than can operate globally but I have my doubts.

 

[Ozair]

I think NGAD-cheap, if it ever exists, will cover only AD, hence will be unable to replace the F-35 as a multi-role fighter.

How about NGAD cheap that does AD, with shallow AD specific munitions bays, but accompanying CCA that are more focused on ground attack? Both work though, A2A focused NGAD establishes local air superiority for long enough to allow F-35 and CCA to come in and kill the ground targets.

 

[dark sidius]

How about NGAD cheap that does AD, with shallow AD specific munitions bays, but accompanying CCA that are more focused on ground attack? Both work though, A2A focused NGAD establishes local air superiority for long enough to allow F-35 and CCA to come in and kill the ground targets.

or jumping in F-35 block 5 , with a new engine and more range and munitions , and going full speed with hypersonic missile and drones insteed of NGAD. And going on a X-37 B follow on fleet for action in space.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The USAF had to wait from 2004 with the last F-16 till the F-35 IOC'ed in 2016. I agree it likely seems like there will be a gap, trading new F-35s or perhaps retiring F-15EX etc to pay for a new capability.

There was a program in place to replace the F-16s, though. And iirc it was running late.

There's nothing technically wrong with having a pause in production between aircraft types, especially if the new type is made by a different company.

If the same company is making the old model and new model, however, you want to keep producing up till it's time to retool the line to make the new plane so that you don't have to re-hire all the workers.

 

[Ozair]

There's nothing technically wrong with having a pause in production between aircraft types, especially if the new type is made by a different company. If the same company is making the old model and new model, however, you want to keep producing up till it's time to retool the line to make the new plane so that you don't have to re-hire all the workers.

Sure but it also depends on the age of the fleet. The USAF traded some of that time previously via the post cold war dividend and the GWOT. I don't think they have the time or fleet age to do that again. A lot of factors will come in to play in how the USAF transitions to a new aircraft including which company wins the contract, the industrial concerns of having multiple lines open in case a surge is required etc.

If manned NGAD goes ahead it will be interesting to see where production occurs. If LM wins clearly not FW or Greenville, any suggestions on where it might happen? For Boeing you would think St Louis is the easy option. For F/A-XX likely the above for Boeing again, maybe St Augustine for NG and again not sure for LM.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Sure but it also depends on the age of the fleet. The USAF traded some of that time previously via the post cold war dividend and the GWOT. I don't think they have the time or fleet age to do that again. A lot of factors will come in to play in how the USAF transitions to a new aircraft including which company wins the contract, the industrial concerns of having multiple lines open in case a surge is required etc.

Fair point.

If manned NGAD goes ahead it will be interesting to see where production occurs. If LM wins clearly not FW or Greenville, any suggestions on where it might happen? For Boeing you would think St Louis is the easy option. For F/A-XX likely the above for Boeing again, maybe St Augustine for NG and again not sure for LM.

Plant 42 in Palmdale, maybe?

And I expect NG to win FAXX, they dropped out of NGAD to focus on FAXX. LockMart would be busy with F-35 work and Boeing is a soup sandwich.

 

[bring_it_on]

In ideal world there will be both F-22 successor and F-35 successor as separate airframes, but the question of money, it seems like USAF only thinks that it can do one of these, so they might think it's better to rescope NGAD into F-35 successor to replace both aircraft. But it all depends on what next administration will do.

The USAF has not even bought half of its initially planned F-35 fleet yet. Even though it has likely bought 50+% of the fleet it will actually buy, it is probably too early to develop its replacement given so much on unmanned strike aircraft and autonomy is in the works (too many unknown there at the moment to codify firm requirements).

What Kendall was stating was that incase there is no manned NGAD platform, the AF has to think what else it can field..and logically the option would be fill the force structure with a multi-role platform that is cheaper. or a long-range strike aircraft (more B-21's) etc etc. Basically, he was going through the list of potential alternatives.

$20 Bn is not too crazy for NGAD development. And whatever the AF were to build would have cost $200+ Million a pop. Including resurrecting the F-22. Even an F-35A won't cost $85 Million in the late 2020s so you are not going to get a generational leap over it and still come in at that. Unless you make it unmanned and subsonic but even then its kind of iffy. If you price cap this hypothetical "F-35 follow on" at $85 Million in 2024 dollars the best you can probably do is a block 4 F-35 with AETP engine. And probably a $100 Million a pop unit cost. Kendall and Hunter literally killed that option by not pursuing the adaptive engine on the F-35 so what are we to make of these statements? Are they to be taken seriously?

Two new Chinese stealth platforms, in addition to two Chinese 5th gen aircraft have basically changed the equation. We are potentially looking at a 1000+ Chinese stealth figther fleet (5th and 5+ gen) by the mid 2030s. All concentrated in its 'near abroad" and not dispersed like ours. You need to be able to deal with that threat from a counter air perspective and it aint going to be with $20 Million non-stealthy CCA's without a high performance manned element. Unless there's a significant breakthrough in other areas that we don't know of, this is something that cannot be overlooked..and will be a consideration the new administration has to take very seriously. If the shit hits the fan we can ramp up defense spending to 'cold war levels'..preserving options to scale programs is not a bad thing. If we bought 180 F-22's with no FSU threat, it is quite conceivable that the PLAAF threat forces us to spend the money to buy 2-3 times the numbers for NGAD.

And its not just about the NGAD platform, but the entire NGAD FoS to include AMTI capability against a 'more survivable' Chinese fighter and strike aircraft force.

 

[jsport]

View: https://youtu.be/agqieqmAOpM?t=484

 

[Kat Tsun]

WW3 is absolutely on the cards within the next 10 years - the incoming administration will have to increase defense spending somehow.

Congress does that. They won't though.

America likely won't even do it during WW3, at least not for a few months, just like with Ukraine. Unless NGAD enters service before the war, it will be sidelined in favor of maximizing JSF and F-15EX production.

 

[Training_Dummy]

A simple solution might be to create a new set of rules and regulations to unleash oil, gas & mineral exploitation and an associated buildout of the ancillary industries (transport, storage, refinement, processing, export) in the US and use a special “strategic renewal” tax on these collective industries to fund the drone/uav, airframe, hull and icbm gap.

 

[Scott Kenny]

A simple solution might be to create a new set of rules and regulations to unleash oil, gas & mineral exploitation and an associated buildout of the ancillary industries (transport, storage, refinement, processing, export) in the US and use a special “strategic renewal” tax on these collective industries to fund the drone/uav, airframe, hull and icbm gap.

Nothing is more permanent than a temporary solution. I think the only way that tax would get passed is to write a 5-yr or 10-yr sunset clause into it, with a filibuster-proof majority in both House and Senate.

 

[martinbayer]

A simple solution might be to create a new set of rules and regulations to unleash oil, gas & mineral exploitation and an associated buildout of the ancillary industries (transport, storage, refinement, processing, export) in the US and use a special “strategic renewal” tax on these collective industries to fund the drone/uav, airframe, hull and icbm gap.

Wow - what an insanely great idea! You should really email [email protected] with that stroke of genius - stat!

 

[martinbayer]

Nothing is more permanent than a temporary solution. I think the only way that tax would get passed is to write a 5-yr or 10-yr sunset clause into it, with a filibuster-proof majority in both House and Senate.

And the chances of that actually happening are in your estimation?

 

[Scott Kenny]

And the chances of that actually happening are in your estimation?

Slim to none. Last law I remember with a sunset clause written into it was the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

 

[dark sidius]

Lockheed could build an enhanced F-35 for USAF in case of NGAD is pushing away , why not put the larger wings of the F-35C with out the folding system for more fuel, put inside the XA-100 engine for more powerful and supercruise capacity ? With a new radar more A/A missile in the weapon bay it could match a lot the 6th gen capacity.

 

[Ozair]

Lockheed could build an enhanced F-35 for USAF in case of NGAD is pushing away , why not put the larger wings of the F-35C with out the folding system for more fuel, put inside the XA-100 engine for more powerful and supercruise capacity ? With a new radar more A/A missile in the weapon bay it could match a lot the 6th gen capacity.

F-35 already has a new radar, APG-85, so likely another change again isn't needed. Putting the F-35C wing would likely reduce the possibility of supercruise, the transonic acceleration numbers for the C aren't great. A better option would be to full delta the wing ala F-16XL but by the time you do that, get all the angles right, enlarge the weapons bay, fit a new engine etc you are most of the way there to a new airframe anyway.

An evolved F-35 was one of the USN options for F/A-XX and may still be what LM has pitched for that contest. Kendall hinted that for F-35 follow on they may want an airframe designed from day one to work with CCA so in that context probably a direct F-35 derivative may have too much LM proprietary DNA to be suitable.

Edit: slight change.

 

[dark sidius]

There is no concrete words about futur programs since the new administration is taking place.....

 

[MrTopaz]

There is no concrete words about futur programs since the new administration is taking place.....

It’s been less than 48 hours.

 

[quellish]

There is no concrete words about futur programs since the new administration is taking place.....

There won’t be until budget requests are given to Congress

 

[Josh_TN]

Slim to none. Last law I remember with a sunset clause written into it was the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

The tax law from the first Trump admin sunsets after ten years (this year? Next?).

But the proposition would never pass Congress or the current administration.

 

[dark sidius]

It’s been less than 48 hours.

It is too long (Joke)

 

[Desertfox]

A simple solution might be to create a new set of rules and regulations to unleash oil, gas & mineral exploitation and an associated buildout of the ancillary industries (transport, storage, refinement, processing, export) in the US and use a special “strategic renewal” tax on these collective industries to fund the drone/uav, airframe, hull and icbm gap.

The US is already drilling record levels of oil, production will not be increasing since that will drop prices below where its profitable to drill.

 

[Forest Green]

https://ir.kratosdefense.com/news-r...eceives-348m-contract-valkyrie-mission-system

https://twitter.com/x/status/1882112248635900163

View: https://x.com/KratosDefense/status/1882112248635900163

 

[bobbymike]

So what are the absolute distinct advantages a 6th generation fighter would hold over the best iteration of an F-22/F-35?

There’s been many stories about F-22s or F-35s winning 6 on 1 or better A2A engagements would a 6th generation fighter win a 6 on 1 engagement with 6 F-22s?

 

[Hydroman]

Hell, in regards to the adaptive engine, GE already had a jump with the YF120 variable-cycle engine. I don't know how much more work or refinement if any was accomplished after the F-22/F119 selection in the '90s. The YF120 may have been the basis for their adaptive engine technology. To upgrade an F-35 to a "6th gen" configuration, may be better off with a clean sheet NGAD and F/A-XX. As far as F-22 upgrading that would be LO OML surface material improvements, avionics, systems/subsystems. No physical/structural changes or configuration changes, tooling all gone and there is no way the USG would fund production re-start, way too much money.

 

[_Del_]

So what are the absolute distinct advantages a 6th generation fighter would hold over the best iteration of an F-22/F-35?

That there is no clear answer to this is the first indicator we are not in a position to invest several hundred billion into an acquisition and development plan for it.

 

[Ozair]

So what are the absolute distinct advantages a 6th generation fighter would hold over the best iteration of an F-22/F-35?

There’s been many stories about F-22s or F-35s winning 6 on 1 or better A2A engagements would a 6th generation fighter win a 6 on 1 engagement with 6 F-22s?

Its a hard question to answer as we still haven't had a valid definition of how a 6th gen aircraft differs from a 5th gen. It could be argued a 6th gen has
- All aspect and all frequency stealth (hence most potential examples/concepts remove the vertical stabilizers)
- Greater electrical power generation
- AI integration across likely EW, sensors, CCA control, ??
- Adaptive engine technology (likely only defines western 6th gen)
- Something else not defined yet?

A 5th gen gains decision superiority over a 4th gen due to its ability to detect, target, maneuver and engage a 4th gen aircraft before that 4th gen likely knows it has even been detected primarily from advantages of stealth, sensor and sensor integration.

Will a 6th gen platform gain a significant improvement over the 5th gen to gain that decision superiority? I'm not convinced of that yet. 5th gen will have radar and sensor upgrades that may keep it in pace with 6th gen and allow it to compete, perhaps similar to how a 4th gen wasn't markedly more improved than the 3rd gen, ie we didn't see so completely lop sided kill figures as we do in 4th to 5th gen engagements.

 

[dark sidius]

That there is no clear answer to this is the first indicator we are not in a position to invest several hundred billion into an acquisition and development plan for it.

Sure but there is a need to because F-22 can't stay forever, the airframe will be old at a time and the number is not enough, F-35 show some sort of limit for evolution, USAF don't want AETP on it and the fuel and the internal payload can not be increased compared with today.

 

[jsport]

Its a hard question to answer as we still haven't had a valid definition of how a 6th gen aircraft differs from a 5th gen. It could be argued a 6th gen has
- All aspect and all frequency stealth (hence most potential examples/concepts remove the vertical stabilizers)
- Greater electrical power generation
- AI integration across likely EW, sensors, CCA control, ??
- Adaptive engine technology (likely only defines western 6th gen)
- Something else not defined yet?

"- Adaptive engine technology (likely only defines western 6th gen)
- Something else not defined yet?"
emphasis added

 

[dark sidius]

https://aviationweek.com/defense/bu...es-long-term-usaf-priorities-he-leaves-officeThis read is interesting and we understand more in a not so distant futur the tactical fighters start to be in difficulty.....

 

[jsport]

https://aviationweek.com/defense/bu...es-long-term-usaf-priorities-he-leaves-officeThis read is interesting and we understand more in a not so distant futur the tactical fighters start to be in difficulty.....

... large numbers of penetrating bombers escorted by fighters capable of penetrating heavily defended airspace will have limited utility.”

The report again raises the likelihood of increasing the total B-21 program of record, now set at 100, while beginning work on what would come next. “While there is no standoff platform currently in development after the B-21, one could be initiated in the next decade or so and be fielded by 2050,” the report says. “It is also possible that B-21 production may be increased substantially above current projections.”
huh?

 

[Ozair]

... large numbers of penetrating bombers escorted by fighters capable of penetrating heavily defended airspace will have limited utility.”

The report again raises the likelihood of increasing the total B-21 program of record, now set at 100, while beginning work on what would come next. “While there is no standoff platform currently in development after the B-21, one could be initiated in the next decade or so and be fielded by 2050,” the report says. “It is also possible that B-21 production may be increased substantially above current projections.”
huh?

If you read the actual report here then there is a little more context to what he has written. This is the paragraph that references your second point, emphasis mine on advantages a larger B-21 fleet would likely provide over NGAD.

Global Conventional Strike The structure of the Air Force currently emphasizes relatively large inventories of short-range, multi-role, crewed aircraft and a small fleet of longer-range, higher-payload crewed aircraft. By 2050, this balance is likely to shift to greater reliance on stand-off aircraft and weapons even though just adding greater range is no guarantee of resilience in the future. While there is no stand-off platform currently in development after the B-21, one could be initiated in the next decade or so and be fielded by 2050. It is also possible that B21 production may be increased substantially above current projections. Another nearer-term possibility is to provide stand-off weapon release from transport aircraft, which has already been demonstrated. Longer-range strike aircraft offer the United States the ability to easily shift combat power from one theater to another and deliver stand-off weapons at reasonable scale. Given current trends in potential adversary counterair weapons engagement zone distances, even long-range bombers carrying stand-off weapons may be vulnerable to anti-air missile threats between now and 2050. As a result, a means to provide adequate survivability features, or tactics, techniques, and procedures, and, potentially, novel platform designs, may have to be developed as well.

 

[jsport]

That threat to operating bases has been a driving factor in the decision to pause NGAD and has influenced the analysis for a future tanker and the next increment of the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program. The historic model of emphasizing one platform, at a high cost and long development cycle, is no longer relevant; the Air Force needs to find new ways to strike enemy targets.

“The tendency to make major warfighting platforms self-sufficient—and both lethal and survivable independently—will be replaced by the need to disaggregate and network capabilities across multiple systems,” the report asserts.

Kendall’s report describes a 2050 reality in which multiple nations possess terrestrially based and space-based weapons that are “ready to use with little or no warning.” He warns that even now there are no significant technical or financial obstacles preventing an adversary from deploying a space-based weapon, such as an orbital hypersonic glide vehicle.

offensive defensive trans atmospherics uber alles

 

[quellish]

- All aspect and all frequency stealth (hence most potential examples/concepts remove the vertical stabilizers)

Mr. Maxwell is calling, he would like to have a word.

 

[Josh_TN]

https://aviationweek.com/defense/bu...es-long-term-usaf-priorities-he-leaves-officeThis read is interesting and we understand more in a not so distant futur the tactical fighters start to be in difficulty.....

Actually my read is that by 2050, whoever can make better use of space assets wins the war, or deters it from happening in the first place.

 

[Ozair]

Actually my read is that by 2050, whoever can make better use of space assets wins the war, or deters it from happening in the first place.

It would be interesting to include cyber in that assessment. I think we all discount that aspect of a future conflict especially in the context of greater space based assets or even just the impact a cyber campaign will have on the ability to deliver beans, bullets and bandages... That may render some space based assets unusable, fuel not available for aircraft and spares either not being shipped or sent to the wrong places.

A qualitative advantage with NGAD and space based wonder weapons won't win if that aspect of the campaign is lost.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Will a 6th gen platform gain a significant improvement over the 5th gen to gain that decision superiority? I'm not convinced of that yet. 5th gen will have radar and sensor upgrades that may keep it in pace with 6th gen and allow it to compete, perhaps similar to how a 4th gen wasn't markedly more improved than the 3rd gen, ie we didn't see so completely lop sided kill figures as we do in 4th to 5th gen engagements.

F-15s say hi, and have a really disgusting kill ratio versus 3rd gen aircraft. Especially once AMRAAMs are in use instead of Sparrows.

It would be interesting to include cyber in that assessment. I think we all discount that aspect of a future conflict especially in the context of greater space based assets or even just the impact a cyber campaign will have on the ability to deliver beans, bullets and bandages... That may render some space based assets unusable, fuel not available for aircraft and spares either not being shipped or sent to the wrong places.

Agreed. While I'm not sure how vulnerable the US supply computers are to someone deliberately screwing around, there's plenty of reports of typos and two-digit transpositions causing havoc. Like a complete Bradley turret being delivered to an aircraft carrier, because a system valve is NSN XXXXXXXXXXX29 and the turret is NSN XXXXXXXXXXX92 (not gonna use the actual numbers because they don't really matter).

Captain was not happy, and Master Chief Bosun was not happy either, because Captain didn't let him keep the turret.