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

Status
Not open for further replies.
dark sidius said:
You have an idea of what NG an LM classified assets could be ? new capacity ?
Click to expand...

If we're referring to budget items reported in their respective Earnings Calls: (IMO) NG is the B-21/RQ-180 (likely) and their respective footprints; LM is NGAD. It looks like they will go with something like Palantir for AI/ML/JADC2 independence from the usual suspects. For the trifecta, Boeing gets the F/A-XX as part of civil-military fusion to get platforms pumping out at maximum rates. I think the new capacity is the Space Force superiority/orbital ISR dominance, applied like a beautiful rug which really ties the room together.
 
Did the USN ever state intent for the FA-XX's components to be domestically sourced like the NGAD program?
 
VishnuOsiris said:
If we're referring to budget items reported in their respective Earnings Calls: (IMO) NG is the B-21/RQ-180 (likely) and their respective footprints; LM is NGAD. It looks like they will go with something like Palantir for AI/ML/JADC2 independence from the usual suspects. For the trifecta, Boeing gets the F/A-XX as part of civil-military fusion to get platforms pumping out at maximum rates. I think the new capacity is the Space Force superiority/orbital ISR dominance, applied like a beautiful rug which really ties the room together.
Click to expand...
Awesome futur :eek:
 
I'm just putting this out there as food for thought. I'd be very interested in the group's opinion as you all seem quite knowledgeable. Many (many) years ago, a senior individual at NOC said to me, when we were knee deep in the YF-23 competition, that NOC had the bomber (B-2), the missile (TSSAM or Tri-Service Stand-Off Attack Missile), and therefore, there was no way the Pentagon would award NOC the fighter (the YF-23 competing with the YF-22). Today, NOC has the bomber (the B-21) and the missile (Sentinel). Does anyone think history could repeat itself with respect to NGAD (or F/A-XX)? All the eggs, basket, etc.
 
doggedman said:
I'm just putting this out there as food for thought. I'd be very interested in the group's opinion as you all seem quite knowledgeable. Many (many) years ago, a senior individual at NOC said to me, when we were knee deep in the YF-23 competition, that NOC had the bomber (B-2), the missile (TSSAM or Tri-Service Stand-Off Attack Missile), and therefore, there was no way the Pentagon would award NOC the fighter (the YF-23 competing with the YF-22). Today, NOC has the bomber (the B-21) and the missile (Sentinel). Does anyone think history could repeat itself with respect to NGAD (or F/A-XX)? All the eggs, basket, etc.
Click to expand...
Sustaining and protecting industry can be used to support the decision for one vendor over another. Today though the landscape is very different to what it was in the early 90s including the last supper held in 1993.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1623766840450195456
View: https://x.com/RepDeluzio/status/1623766840450195456/photo/1


What that ultimately means is that there are a limited number of suppliers today and that translates to some primes being subcontractors to others. ie with the F-35 NG is a significant supplier, for the F-22 Boeing is/was a significant supplier etc. Could easily see the same thing happening with F/A-XX and NGAD. For example with LM now out of F/A-XX they could be used as a supplier to either of the Primes still in the race and if LM won NGAD then they could use NG who withdrew, at least for now, from NGAD.

With CCA there is an obvious intent to broaden the supplier base but for F/A-XX and NGAD only the Primes are in the running. Ideally one vendor won't win both F/A-XX and NGAD. The US DoD also seems keen to maintain two fighter production lines in operation which points to no one vendor making a clean sweep. Additionally hopefully the USAF and USN have learnt from trying to force fixed price contracts on Industry for projects of this size, scope and technological maturity with the probable end result of delayed and descoped capability that results.
 
Damned interesting point good sir. And, of course, the reason I put it out there. Thanks.
 
doggedman said:
I'm just putting this out there as food for thought. I'd be very interested in the group's opinion as you all seem quite knowledgeable. Many (many) years ago, a senior individual at NOC said to me, when we were knee deep in the YF-23 competition, that NOC had the bomber (B-2), the missile (TSSAM or Tri-Service Stand-Off Attack Missile), and therefore, there was no way the Pentagon would award NOC the fighter (the YF-23 competing with the YF-22). Today, NOC has the bomber (the B-21) and the missile (Sentinel). Does anyone think history could repeat itself with respect to NGAD (or F/A-XX)? All the eggs, basket, etc.
Click to expand...
Even though NG has B-21, Sentinel and the still black so-called "RQ-180" which I know is real since I was asked in 2007 if I wanted to return to NG to work on a new black program but the "customer" did not want to go through the entire process to get me cleared since my clearances had been in-active for sometime, which was fine since I was already involved with Stratolaunch Roc during that time. NG could still be in the running for a substantial "known" program win (e.g. F/A-XX). Even though Boeing unfortunately is having major, self-inflicted corporate woes, Boeing still has; KC-46, F-15EX, MQ-25, T-7 and I think P-8 is still in production. Now with that said, NG and LM I'm sure have "other" and probably significant black programs which is logical. This goes from experience when I was with Northrop from 1986 to 1996.
 
I left NOC in 1999. The comment was made at a meeting with Bill Lawler, Len Malthan, Dr. George Grant, and I think Bill Haub was there too (but I'm relying on memory here which is not my strong suit).
 
doggedman said:
I left NOC in 1999. The comment was made at a meeting with Bill Lawler, Len Malthan, Dr. George Grant, and I think Bill Haub was there too (but I'm relying on memory here which is not my strong suit).
Click to expand...
Bill Lawler, that's a blast from the past. At Pico, I remember Jorge Diaz, Doug Woods (FCHIL), Roy Whites, Chris Hernandez and Scott Seymour. At the B-2 CTF, worked with Steve Sullivan.
 
One part about CCAs that doesn't make sense though, the Anduril YFQ-44 carries weapons externally, which will make it unstealthy. So how is it to operate with stealth aircraft like the F-22 or NGAD? Even if they fly at more standoff distances they still more vulnerable to getting picked off. The General Atomics YFQ-42 does have internal weapons bays so that might not be as much of concern.
 
RadicalDisconnect said:
One part about CCAs that doesn't make sense though, the Anduril YFQ-44 carries weapons externally, which will make it unstealthy. So how is it to operate with stealth aircraft like the F-22 or NGAD? Even if they fly at more standoff distances they still more vulnerable to getting picked off. The General Atomics YFQ-42 does have internal weapons bays so that might not be as much of concern.
Click to expand...
That comes down to the CONOPS. Is the expectation the CCAS will fly as wingmen in the traditional sense, will they hunt in autonomous wolf packs etc. Some insightful comments can be found here, https://www.afa.org/app/uploads/202...orative-Combat-Aircraft-CONOPs-Transcript.pdf from the 2023 AFA war symposium, page 8 is a where I think it gets interesting.
 
RadicalDisconnect said:
One part about CCAs that doesn't make sense though, the Anduril YFQ-44 carries weapons externally, which will make it unstealthy. So how is it to operate with stealth aircraft like the F-22 or NGAD?
Click to expand...

Likely designed for low-end/permissive threat environments
 
RadicalDisconnect said:
Personally hope Northrop Grumman takes the lead on F/A-XX, and the aircraft will be named after a cat.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Wildcat II would be a fun name. Sadly, can't use Hellcat because of Dodge. Tomcat II would be a little too on point.



RadicalDisconnect said:
One part about CCAs that doesn't make sense though, the Anduril YFQ-44 carries weapons externally, which will make it unstealthy. So how is it to operate with stealth aircraft like the F-22 or NGAD? Even if they fly at more standoff distances they still more vulnerable to getting picked off. The General Atomics YFQ-42 does have internal weapons bays so that might not be as much of concern.
Click to expand...
Those are Increment 1. Proving the CONOPS actually works.
 
Hydroman said:
Even though NG has B-21, Sentinel and the still black so-called "RQ-180" which I know is real since I was asked in 2007 if I wanted to return to NG to work on a new black program but the "customer" did not want to go through the entire process to get me cleared since my clearances had been in-active for sometime, which was fine since I was already involved with Stratolaunch Roc during that time. NG could still be in the running for a substantial "known" program win (e.g. F/A-XX). Even though Boeing unfortunately is having major, self-inflicted corporate woes, Boeing still has; KC-46, F-15EX, MQ-25, T-7 and I think P-8 is still in production. Now with that said, NG and LM I'm sure have "other" and probably significant black programs which is logical. This goes from experience when I was with Northrop from 1986 to 1996.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of rumors about a Lockheed ISR new project to succeed the RQ-180 ? Do you think the RQ-180 is still in the air ?
 
RadicalDisconnect said:
One part about CCAs that doesn't make sense though, the Anduril YFQ-44 carries weapons externally, which will make it unstealthy. So how is it to operate with stealth aircraft like the F-22 or NGAD? Even if they fly at more standoff distances they still more vulnerable to getting picked off. The General Atomics YFQ-42 does have internal weapons bays so that might not be as much of concern.
Click to expand...
How much confidence do we have that the Anduril Fury that gets shown around trade shows is, in fact, identical to the YFQ-44 the company is on contract for?
 
A flurry of NGAD/F/A-XX/CCA stories on the non-paywalled Aerospace Global News:

Lockheed Martin eliminated from US Navy’s F/A-XX next generation fighter programme

"Our friends at Breaking Defense, Valerie Insinna and Michael Marrow, broke the news that Lockheed Martin’s F/A-XX bid did not satisfy the US Navy’s criteria, and had been eliminated from the competition. They cited a “source with knowledge of the programme.”

https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/new...vys-f-a-xx-next-generation-fighter-programme/


Yes, we do need the Next Generation Air Dominance fighter to ensure future air superiority, USAF study concludes.

Details of the USAF’s review of the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) programme emerged during the Air & Space Forces Association’s 2025 Warfare Symposium on 5 March 2025, and during a previous presentation to the Hudson Institute on 26 February.

https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/new...-future-air-superiority-usaf-study-concludes/


US Air Force Collaborative Combat Aircraft gain Mission Design Series designations

On 3 March 2025, the US Air Force announced the official ‘Mission Design Series’ (MDS) designations of the General Atomics Gambit and Anduril Fury, which have become the General Atomics YFQ-42A and the Anduril YFQ-44A.

https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/new...raft-gain-mission-design-series-designations/
 
So that is LM eliminated from the F/A-XX program which leaves just Boeing and Northrop to go head to head. One question, will there be a fly off between Boeing and Northrop like the ATF/JSF before the winner gets selected?
 
FighterJock said:
So that is LM eliminated from the F/A-XX program which leaves just Boeing and Northrop to go head to head. One question, will there be a fly off between Boeing and Northrop like the ATF/JSF before the winner gets selected?
Click to expand...
What I would give to see that again!
 
FighterJock said:
So that is LM eliminated from the F/A-XX program which leaves just Boeing and Northrop to go head to head. One question, will there be a fly off between Boeing and Northrop like the ATF/JSF before the winner gets selected?
Click to expand...
Not directly IMO. Both NGAD and F/A-XX source selections were expected to be responses to RFP's and selection down to a single source. Whatever prototyping efforts occurred, happened during the demonstration phases (DARPA, USAF and USN) of these efforts with both services having flown at least one demonstrator to support their respective programs.
 
bring_it_on said:
Not directly IMO. Both NGAD and F/A-XX source selections were expected to be responses to RFP's and selection down to a single source. Whatever prototyping efforts occurred, happened during the demonstration phases (DARPA, USAF and USN) of these efforts with both services having flown at least one demonstrator to support their respective programs.
Click to expand...
And it's not unprecedented. Neither the F-14 or F-15 had competing flyoffs.
 
Damn, Oh well I was rather looking forward to a fly off. So it is going to be who has the best overall specifications that wins the F/A-XX/NGAD.
 
RadicalDisconnect said:
One part about CCAs that doesn't make sense though, the Anduril YFQ-44 carries weapons externally, which will make it unstealthy. So how is it to operate with stealth aircraft like the F-22 or NGAD? Even if they fly at more standoff distances they still more vulnerable to getting picked off. The General Atomics YFQ-42 does have internal weapons bays so that might not be as much of concern.
Click to expand...

Ozair said:
That comes down to the CONOPS. Is the expectation the CCAS will fly as wingmen in the traditional sense, will they hunt in autonomous wolf packs etc. Some insightful comments can be found here, https://www.afa.org/app/uploads/202...orative-Combat-Aircraft-CONOPs-Transcript.pdf from the 2023 AFA war symposium, page 8 is a where I think it gets interesting.
Click to expand...

Mitchell Institute’s report on the need for CCA for disruptive warfare would also provide some interesting insight for how CCAs are planned to be used.

Edit: report in video form if you preferred that format.
 
Last edited:
RadicalDisconnect said:
One part about CCAs that doesn't make sense though, the Anduril YFQ-44 carries weapons externally, which will make it unstealthy. So how is it to operate with stealth aircraft like the F-22 or NGAD? Even if they fly at more standoff distances they still more vulnerable to getting picked off. The General Atomics YFQ-42 does have internal weapons bays so that might not be as much of concern.
Click to expand...

I thought that’s only phase one? If you want to get serious about requirements they won’t even have onboard radars…
 
It’s unclear to me if either CCA model has internal bays for BVR AAMs. It is a little challenging to have a 12’+ aperture on a 30’ airframe. The XQ-67A does not appear to have such to my eyes but perhaps the CCA version does. Fury’s CCA may or may not as well.

I think it is important to remember that these aircraft will not serve as wingmen in a traditional sense of the word and likely would be quite a distance from the controller. And as unmanned aircraft, their signature reduction matters less.
 
FQ-44 with external stores can be used for DCA, CAP and escort applications to name a few roles that are less LO sensitive; heck they’d be perfect for enforcing no fly zones, be they in the Middle East or Eastern Europe! Alternately, if GA can roster as least two AAMs in the -42s IWB, a heterodimer (sorry to use the protein engineer term) of a FQ-42 shooter coupled with a FQ-44 spotter as a two ship hunter/killer concept, seems very doable in the very near term. I think this concept is “ok” with AMRAAM, but could get quite spicy with JATM. Further CCA increments with long-loiter time and larger IWB capacity might help create an effector “cloud”. Like in certain parts of the world, no target is more than 100 miles away from at least one “remote effector node” that you can order timely AAM tasking from. That would be something nice to have if DAF can get its air and space based sensor network and transport layers built up for real time, theater wide A/GMTI.

Edit: thanks for pointing out my fqup nmaude!
 
Last edited:
Training_Dummy said:
Qf-44 with external stores can be used for DCA, CAP and escort applications to name a few roles that are less LO sensitive; heck they’d be perfect for enforcing no fly zones, be they in the Middle East or Eastern Europe! Alternately, if GA can roster as least two AAMs in the -42s IWB, a heterodimer (sorry to use the protein engineer term) of a QF-42 shooter coupled with a QF-44 spotter as a two ship hunter/killer
Click to expand...

FQ-42 and FQ-44 as these are drone-fighters not drone conversion of fighter jets.
 
It should also be noted that this is just the first iteration of these craft, and that they are probably for testing as much as operational use.

External carriage of a pair of AAMs on pylons only rated for ~500 pounds probably does not make a huge radar target if they are shaped correctly. Most any non 5th gen fighter would have a larger return than either FQ.
 
As we are now seeing what seems to be Chinese next Gen. prototypes in flight.
More of a curiosity (after 245 pages) After all this time, Is there any actual evidence the US. has built or flown manned demonstrators of the '6th Gen.' proposals ? (other than hinted UAV. configuration demonstrators ?) or are we still talking design studies at this stage ?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom