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

Status
Not open for further replies.
TomcatViP said:
The cancelation of the stealthy tanker means that NGAD will be that gigantic, expensive airframe the AF debated in length it should not be.
The FQ component will also need range, hence grow in weight.
Click to expand...

Huh? NGAS was not tied to NGAD or CCA directly. It was intended to refuel everybody, the majority of which are legacy aircraft. The cancellation of NGAS has no effect on NGAD requirements.

The idea behind NGAS was that adversaries are fielding long range AA weapons that could put support aircraft like tankers at more risk (or require more fighter support). A reduced observables tanker was pursued as one way to counter that potential threat.
 
B2Blain said:
Remember when he proposed a B-21 unmanned companion, then reversing course year later?
Click to expand...

No, I do not remember that, because it did not happen.
 
WatcherZero said:
Its simple logic
1. You can only afford a fighter or a tanker, not both
2. You can shape the battlefield to make an existing tanker survivable through disrupting enemy sensor platforms, increased monitoring of the location of enemy assets, and deterrence (making the asset too costly to attack).
3. You cant fight without fighters.
Click to expand...
That is under the huge assumption that tankers can be reasonably survivable without procuring new airframes. otherwise you are locking 1763 fifth-gen fighters out of the fight in favor of ~300 sixth gen fighters.

Another issue is that the alternative is not "fight without fighters", there are fighters currently in the US inventory...
 
Last edited:
JoshuaH said:
MQ-25 does not even use boom for refueling... And the entire Navy's MQ-25 (72) can only support a fraction of the Air Force sorties (144 F-35 sorties, max)
Click to expand...
Where I think the MQ-25, or more likely some derivative form of, could play a role is in refueling the CCAs. While the USAF may have to hold its nose in doing so probe refueling for the CCAs make a whole lot more sense than boom. The USAF is going to want CCAs to be able to orbit for long durations in holding patterns either stand in or close to and it needs some form of tanker to be able to do that. As much as the manned NGAD will need persistence in the battlespace if manned NGAD loses the unmanned portion because the CCAs cannot be present when required then the concept fails.

In the above context some form of unmanned tanker like the MQ-25 makes a lot of sense. It likely also reduces runway dependence for the CCAs, which still have to take off and land somewhere, and the USAF could have more platforms airborne for longer. Per the plan for 1000 CCA accompanying 200 manned NGAD and 300 F-35 those 1500 airframes have to be based somewhere and the YFQ-42 and YFQ-44 aren't so small that they can squeeze all those airframes into a few pacific bases so persistence of the assets is key.
 
Last edited:
zebra159357 said:

Lockheed out of Navy’s F/A-XX future fighter program​


breakingdefense.com

EXCLUSIVE: Lockheed out of Navy’s F/A-XX future fighter competition - Breaking Defense

A source with knowledge of the program told Breaking Defense that Lockheed submitted a bid for the next-gen fighter effort, but the proposal did not satisfy the Navy’s criteria, leaving Boeing and Northrop Grumman as the remaining competitors.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
Interesting news. Does this point to LM only bidding an evolved F-35 and the USN deciding it didn't meet requirements?
 
Ozair said:
Interesting news. Does this point to LM only bidding an evolved F-35 and the USN deciding it didn't meet requirements?
Click to expand...
This does point to nothing because you just don't have [yet] information on what contenders did offer and what decisions were based on.
 
flateric said:
This does point to nothing because you just don't have [yet] information on what contenders did offer and what decisions were based on.
Click to expand...

The article says the bid didn't meet the tendered contract specification, so it wasn't down selecting the least performing option of three passing bids, the LM bid didn't even meet the minimum performance requirement of a generational improvement. The fact LM didn't contest is also indicative that the company themselves thought they weren't close and they accepted the decision.

But yes as to what they bid and at what price point it doesn't tell us anything. It might have been something cheap based on existing platforms with only a marginal price tag that could be out the door in only five years, or it might have been something that was wildly optimistic and technologically risky with an appropriately sizeable development cost estimate that would take decades to deliver.
 
Last edited:
WatcherZero said:
The article says the bid didn't meet the tendered contract specification, so it wasn't down selecting the least performing option of three passing bids, the LM bid didn't even meet the minimum performance requirement of a generational improvement. The fact LM didn't contest is also indicative that the company themselves thought they weren't close and they accepted the decision.
Click to expand...
Looks that way to me.
WatcherZero said:
But yes as to what they bid and at what price point it doesn't tell us anything. It might have been something cheap based on existing platforms with only a marginal price tag that could be out the door in only five years, or it might have been something that was wildly optimistic and technologically risky with an appropriately sizeable development cost estimate that would take decades to deliver.
Click to expand...
LM is certainly capable of submitting an advanced design but my analysis of the bid for F/A-XX compared to USAF Manned NGAD is it would be difficult to run two tender programs of this size and expect both to be successful. In that context which would LM value more and see more chance of success? IMO that is the USAF NGAD route. So that leaves what is almost an underbid by LM on F/A-XX, an evolved in service design that keeps the other two vendors honest on pricing and in an uncertain budget climate might end up being the value option. Looks like that didn't play out.
 
Last edited:
WatcherZero said:
The article says the bid didn't meet the tendered contract specification, so it wasn't down selecting the least performing option of three passing bids, the LM bid didn't even meet the minimum performance requirement of a generational improvement.
Click to expand...
Kelly Johnson reaching from beyond the grave and making them submit a modification of the Starfighter.

"I'm tellin' ya, what they really want is climb rate and mach 2!"
 
Ozair said:
Looks that way to me.

LM is certainly capable of submitting an advanced design but my analysis of the bid for F/A-XX compared to USAF Manned NGAD is it would be difficult to run two tender programs of this size and expect both to be successful. In that context which would LM value more and see more chance of success? IMO that is the USAF NGAD route. So that leaves what is almost an underbid by LM on F/A-XX, an evolved in service design that keeps the other two vendors honest on pricing and in an uncertain budget climate might end up being the value option. Looks like that didn't play out.
Click to expand...

If that was the thinking it was a risky strategy with NGAD being frozen and target delivery date continually being put back, the recent review reversed the decision but axed the stealth tanker from development something LM had also pitched for.
 
WatcherZero said:
If that was the thinking it was a risky strategy with NGAD being frozen and target delivery date continually being put back, the recent review reversed the decision but axed the stealth tanker from development something LM had also pitched for.
Click to expand...
Sure but Manned NGAD only went into hiatus in mid 24. Up to that point all vendors would have felt assured that the system would be funded and fielded as expected. Don't forget as well that the USN gutted F/A-XX funding across the same period and had messaged little future funding before that.
 
Ozair said:
Don't forget as well that the USN gutted F/A-XX funding across the same period and had messaged little future funding before that.
Click to expand...

Nearly all of the reporting on FA-XX funding is predicated on the assumption that FA-XX is part of the LINK PLUMERIA special access program.

If that was the case I sure hope they award a contract soon - LINK PLUMERIA has consumed billions of dollars across more than 30 years!
 
quellish said:
Huh? NGAS was not tied to NGAD or CCA directly. It was intended to refuel everybody, the majority of which are legacy aircraft. The cancellation of NGAS has no effect on NGAD requirements.
Click to expand...
Quellish, everybody saw the same thing. It's not just me. :)
 
X-39 said:
Placeholder NGAD concept via TWZ (or sneak peek into the real thing?):
cmmt-swarm.jpg

Click to expand...
View: https://youtu.be/cc_HdnZoR4o?si=NnmhSORB2i-maeUL

(See also in the missile forum)
 
Last edited:
Ozair said:
Sure, when was the last time LM fluffed a bid like that?
Click to expand...
Less than 3 years ago. 2022.

FLRAA - Lockheed Martin (Sikorsky) with their SB>1 Defiant bid was deemed ineligible for award due to not sufficiently breaking down and disclosing key elements of their system design in the proposal, as was required by the terms of the RFP.

Technicalities like this absolutely can and do trip bidders up - and SB>1 had Lockheed AND Boeing, the big two.
 
Ozair said:
Sure, when was the last time LM fluffed a bid like that?
Click to expand...
A clear recent example is Sikorsky's FLRAA bid where they appeared to be trying to get around the MOSA compliance requirement and hence give DOD much fewer rights than called for

Talking about an F-35 based bid is easy, but in today's climate DOD wants much more rights than they have on F-35. I don't see LM easily giving that up.
 
HaveVoid said:
Less than 3 years ago. 2022.

FLRAA - Lockheed Martin (Sikorsky) with their SB>1 Defiant bid was deemed ineligible for award due to not sufficiently breaking down and disclosing key elements of their system design in the proposal, as was required by the terms of the RFP.

Technicalities like this absolutely can and do trip bidders up - and SB>1 had Lockheed AND Boeing, the big two.
Click to expand...
red admiral said:
A clear recent example is Sikorsky's FLRAA bid where they appeared to be trying to get around the MOSA compliance requirement and hence give DOD much fewer rights than called for

Talking about an F-35 based bid is easy, but in today's climate DOD wants much more rights than they have on F-35. I don't see LM easily giving that up.
Click to expand...
Off topic but having been involved in both submissions and evaluations and having read the GAO ruling on Sikorsky's protest I don't think it was a mistake as much as a conscious decision, clearly one made poorly in hindsight.

While I doubt we will ever get specifics it would be be good to close the loop and know at least big hands what LM did bid for F/A-XX.
 
SlothmanAllen said:
So with Lockheed bowing out of the F/A-XX competition does that mean we are close to a contract being awarded?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. NG and Boing bids haven't been discussed much.

I should note that I still think that NG is going to win FAXX and Boeing will take NGAD. NG because they've focused on the FAXX requirements for a while, and Boeing because of politics. LockMart is tied up building F-35s, NG dropped out of the NGAD contest entirely, and Boeing has spare production capacity (Super Hornet line).

Navy does need to hurry up, but there's no way we'd see the FAXX before 2035, and maybe not even before 2040.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I don't think so. NG and Boing bids haven't been discussed much.

I should note that I still think that NG is going to win FAXX and Boeing will take NGAD. NG because they've focused on the FAXX requirements for a while, and Boeing because of politics. LockMart is tied up building F-35s, NG dropped out of the NGAD contest entirely, and Boeing has spare production capacity (Super Hornet line).

Navy does need to hurry up, but there's no way we'd see the FAXX before 2035, and maybe not even before 2040.
Click to expand...
twenty years to build a plane is much too long when Chinese do it in five years.
 
dark sidius said:
twenty years to build a plane is much too long when Chinese do it in five years.
Click to expand...
FAXX in my opinion isn't as important as NGAD, the Chinese needs to get J-50/XS on their expanding carrier fleet ASAP due to the fact that it'll be the only way for them to project air power globally in the near future, but the US could just cheat with NGAD stationed at airbases worldwide. *That* is assuming NGAD doesn't get canned or gutted in funding/timeline.
 
Where are those 2035 or 2040 timelines coming from? Navy program details or just made up?
 
sferrin said:
If the past is any indicator they're just made up...by the USN.
Click to expand...

Well, it would be nice if someone actually asked the Navy program what its timeline was to field a Super Hornet replacement. I suppose they will have to announce that later in the year once they make their source selection.

dark sidius said:
In 2040 the Super Hornet will fall in pieces , they start to be very old planes.
Click to expand...
The Navy has not stopped buying new combat aircraft. Both Block 4 F-35C, and the MQ-25 are being fielded this decade. Both will either directly or indirectly provide more advanced capability over Block 2/3 Super Hornet, or offload missions from it to preserve airframe life. If the F/A-XX, does end up taking more time than planned, the Navy could always increase the number of F-35C's it and USMC fields, field a more attack oriented variant of MQ-25, increase the throughput or planned numbers from/of the F-18 E/F service life extension effort or a combination of any of those options.
 
Last edited:
zebra159357 said:

Lockheed out of Navy’s F/A-XX future fighter program​

breakingdefense.com

EXCLUSIVE: Lockheed out of Navy’s F/A-XX future fighter competition - Breaking Defense

A source with knowledge of the program told Breaking Defense that Lockheed submitted a bid for the next-gen fighter effort, but the proposal did not satisfy the Navy’s criteria, leaving Boeing and Northrop Grumman as the remaining competitors.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
Here's my speculation, informed by what I'm hearing:

USN F/A-XX
1. NG and Boeing are providing system solutions that directly respond to the Navy's cost-conscious set of requirements.
2. LM has been insistent on offering a higher-end technological solution, one that the Navy is not comfortable with operationally and/or clearly knows it can not afford.
3. LM and the carrier-based Navy haven't had a close relationship since the S-3A program. LM's tone-deaf marketing approach may be attributed to either (a) protecting its F-35B/C franchise; or (b) reluctance to engage due to Kelly Johnson's unwritten 15th rule for the Skunk Works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Johnson_(engineer)

USAF NGAD-PCA
1. Boeing was tentatively selected for the award, prior to Kendall or OSD calling for a time out.
2. Boeing's poor performance on numerous past and ongoing programs may have contributed to Kendall/OSD's cold feet.
3. Meanwhile LM's performance on the DARPA-led flight demonstration program(s) suffered from significant schedule slip and cost overrun. "Past Performance" is often a heavily-weighted criterion in major acquisition source selections.
4. NG decision to not compete for NGAD-PCA is likely tied to protecting or growing its B-21 franchise.
 
joewee said:
Here's my speculation, informed by what I'm hearing:

USN F/A-XX
1. NG and Boeing are providing system solutions that directly respond to the Navy's cost-conscious set of requirements.
2. LM has been insistent on offering a higher-end technological solution, one that the Navy is not comfortable with operationally and/or clearly knows it can not afford.
3. LM and the carrier-based Navy haven't had a close relationship since the S-3A program. LM's tone-deaf marketing approach may be attributed to either (a) protecting its F-35B/C franchise; or (b) reluctance to engage due to Kelly Johnson's unwritten 15th rule for the Skunk Works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Johnson_(engineer)

USAF NGAD-PCA
1. Boeing was tentatively selected for the award, prior to Kendall or OSD calling for a time out.
2. Boeing's poor performance on numerous past and ongoing programs may have contributed to Kendall/OSD's cold feet.
3. Meanwhile LM's performance on the DARPA-led flight demonstration program(s) suffered from significant schedule slip and cost overrun. "Past Performance" is often a heavily-weighted criterion in major acquisition source selections.
4. NG decision to not compete for NGAD-PCA is likely tied to protecting or growing its B-21 franchise.
Click to expand...
The Boeing defense is not the civilian counter part, They can build the NGAD I m confident on it, look the X-37 B is realy a good program the F-15 EX too.
 
dark sidius said:
The Boeing defense is not the civilian counter part, They can build the NGAD I m confident on it, look the X-37 B is realy a good program the F-15 EX too.
Click to expand...
The X-37B is a legacy Rockwell program and the F-15 and FA-18 programs are legacy McDonnell Douglas and have an extremely long developmental and production history. The X-37B is an outlier; the few that were built were completed almost 20 years ago.

The new (greenfield) programs currently conducted by BDS (T-7A, MQ-25, KC-46A, VC-25B) appear to be unbesmirched by adherence to to cost, schedule and quality metrics - or by profit.
 
LM has not been knocking its out of the park either. About the only program that seems to be running smoothly is B-21, and I could easily see the ISN going that direction. NGAD wise I think Boeing gets it. There was a rumor that USAF was impressed with their concept, and they likely have more bandwidth than LM. Besides the F-18 line, I believe they invested heavily in a new facility just to try to win FA-XX or NGAD. Assuming NGAD happens of course. IMO it either goes forward or doesn’t; there is not enough time to rescope and rebid.
 
dark sidius said:
4. NG decision to not compete for NGAD-PCA is likely tied to protecting or growing its B-21 franchise.
Click to expand...
No, they've already stated it was due to the USAF owning the design and being able to allow other manufacturers to build it. NG doesn't want anything to do with that.
 
Josh_TN said:
Besides the F-18 line, I believe they invested heavily in a new facility just to try to win FA-XX or NGAD. Assuming NGAD happens of course. IMO it either goes forward or doesn’t; there is not enough time to rescope and rebid.
Click to expand...
One could also extrapolate that since Boeing has the most navy experience and flew the naval demonstrator, they could be making the investments to build on either he NGAD efforts given those investments would require similar'ish investments.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
One could also extrapolate that since Boeing has the most recent navy experience and flew the naval demonstrator, they could be making the investments to build on either he NGAD efforts given those investments would require similar'ish investments.
Click to expand...

I’m sure they will take whatever they can get, so long as they get one of them.
 
I don’t think people fully appreciate just how much China has invested into making carriers a high risk, high cost target in modern warfare. The USN is likely reassessing whether it's still worth deploying expensive capital ships with expensive aircraft squadrons, especially as their ability to operate near contested zones is going to become increasingly limited.

Bring on smaller, more flexible expeditionary naval forces centered around UCAVs and be done with it. Lean on non-carrier based, long duration aircraft for intelligence & early warning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom