6th Generation Fighters Projects

[John Fedup]

Some more comment that NGAD might be scaled back to unmanned aircraft due to cost. With NG opting to not bid as prime, it leaves Boeing and LM to bid. Two companies that haven’t been covering themselves with glory wrt product performance and delivery. Sort of like choosing Biden or Trump.

Air Force Now Says It Has No Official F-22 Raptor Replacement

A sixth-generation fighter being developed under the Air Force Next Generation Air Dominance program was supposed to supplant the Raptor but its future is increasingly uncertain.

www.twz.com

 

[Masquerader]

Some more comment that NGAD might be scaled back to unmanned aircraft due to cost. With NG opting to not bid as prime, it leaves Boeing and LM to bid. Two companies that haven’t been covering themselves with glory wrt product performance and delivery. Sort of like choosing Biden or Trump.

Air Force Now Says It Has No Official F-22 Raptor Replacement

A sixth-generation fighter being developed under the Air Force Next Generation Air Dominance program was supposed to supplant the Raptor but its future is increasingly uncertain.

www.twz.com

There was a November 2023 post on X hinting at the US Air Force preferring Boeing's NGAD design over the one submitted by Lockheed Martin for the NGAD competition.

Northrop Grumman's withdrawal from the NGAD contest was a smart move because that company is busy with the B-21 and "RQ-180" programs. If Boeing wins the NGAD competition, it could partly come down to Lockheed Martin's preoccupation with F-35 production, and since Boeing's MQ-25 Stingray is not yet in full-rate production and Super Hornet production is winding down, Boeing's St. Louis division could benefit from winning the NGAD contract. The factory in St. Louis, Missouri, currently owned by Boeing was once the home of McDonnell and has a history of producing both Air Force and Navy combat jets, namely the FH, F2H, F3H, XF-88, F-101, F-4 (F4H and F-110 prior to 1962), F-15, and F-18, so Boeing's NGAD design could be christened "Voodoo II" if it wins the NGAD contest.

The F-22, like the F-15, doubles as not just as an air superiority fighter but also as an interceptor (the latter role vindicated by its shootdown last year of a Chinese spy balloon), so if the NGAD is built, it would not be secondarily used for intercepting strategic strike aircraft.

 

[John Fedup]

Given the recent BS performance by the two biggest prime contractors, it is little wonder the USAF is rethinking NGAG. Unmanned options may be the new direction opening up opportunities for secondary aerospace vendors and they can likely can offer less expensive alternatives. Three hundred million dollar jets with awesome performance would be great but this really isn’t affordable and look at the TR3 and block 4 software upgrade for the F-35 (along with new cooling for the F135 engine), $hitshow.

 

[Masquerader]

Irrespective of mixed USAF messaging regarding the future of the NGAD program, with respect to title of this thread, I thought I'd mention that a 1990 paper by Richard Hallion titled "A Troubling Past: Air Force Fighter Acquisition since 1945" classified the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, Mirage 2000, Tornado, MiG-29, and Su-27 as constituting a 6th-generation fighter category, defined by the following characteristics:

Combined the characteristics of the fifth-generation fighters with advances in propulsion, radar (multiple target track-while-scan, look-down/shoot-down), sensor, and electronic flight control technology to generate highly maneuverable, highly agile aircraft that can be swing-roled for air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. Fifth- or sixth-generation gas-turbine engines; engine thrust-to-weight ratios in excess of one; ability to attain supersonic speeds without afterburning; sustained high-G flight, and controllability below 70 knots at angles of attack exceeding 70 degrees. High degree of energy efficiency. Mix of cannon and missile armament, coupled with diverse air-to-ground weaponry. Mach 1.8-2.5.

Using Hallion's criteria in his 1990 paper for defining fighter generations, the F-22, F-35, Su-57, J-20, and J-35 would constitute a so-called "seventh-generation fighter" category because they use stealth technology, and the NGAD, F/A-XX, Sukhoi Su-75, Future Combat Air System, and Global Combat Air Programme popularly known in the press as sixth-generation would be called the 7.5 generation because they are intended to use improved stealth and very advanced digital technologies.

 

[John Fedup]

Interesting speculation about GCAP possibly being reconsidered by the UK. Given the world instability, a Asian-EURO project is extremely vulnerable to geography. NGAD looks vulnerable as well. Meanwhile in China….? Perhaps even the Chinese may be revisiting their program. Might be better off for all players to produce working and proven kit in volume right now!

 

[SolarisKenzo]

GCAP death would lead to Leonardo joining the SCAF, but I doubt it will happen.
Probably just a speculation, nothing new when you talk about money in politics...

 

[Feanor]

The F-22, like the F-15, doubles as not just as an air superiority fighter but also as an interceptor (the latter role vindicated by its shootdown last year of a Chinese spy balloon), so if the NGAD is built, it would not be secondarily used for intercepting strategic strike aircraft.

That's a strange argument. Intercepting a spy balloon is enough to determine that it has sufficiently robust capabilities as an interceptor to confidently exclude an interception mission for the NGAD? An aircraft that we know very little about, and that's still under development? How late into development did the F-22 become the F/A-22? While we're at it, isn't the F-22 getting phased out? Also, whose strategic strike aircraft are you envisioning in need of intercept? I suspect that in a real war where the US needs to intercept hostile strategic strike aircraft (read Russia or China) any combat jet that is capable of the mission will be utilized. If we're talking about more of a future interceptor concept like the Russian PAK-DP (MiG-41 unofficially) then the F-22 likely can't fill that role, since it's not hypersonic itself though what weapons it would carry in this scenario would have a lot to do with that scenario.

 

[seaspear]

Can one of these air launched drones be designed to direct missiles from aircraft at opposing aircraft ,,so when the attacking aircraft is itself targeted is forced to turn breaking a radar lock the drones can take over?

 

[koxinga]

Can one of these air launched drones be designed to direct missiles from aircraft at opposing aircraft ,,so when the attacking aircraft is itself targeted is forced to turn breaking a radar lock the drones can take over?

To be able to demonstrate that level of kinematic movement, it more like a mission with a wingman drone in a MUM-T setup than anything air launched.

 

[swerve]

Can one of these air launched drones be designed to direct missiles from aircraft at opposing aircraft ,,so when the attacking aircraft is itself targeted is forced to turn breaking a radar lock the drones can take over?

Breaking a radar lock? Do you mean when firing semi-active radar homing missiles? Are there many still out there?

 

[seaspear]

Perhaps I've misunderstood the technology currently used

Air-to-air missiles push the performance, payload envelope

Quality, speed, and range are driving a race in the air-to-air-missile arena, with China and the United States upping their capabilities. The competition is not just about better missiles, it is also about carrying more.

www.iiss.org

 

[SolarisKenzo]

TEMPEST crewed combat demonstrator currently under construction.
Over 50% of structure by weight now being built.

 

[Vivendi]

Tempest will be quite big and long range. Probably not going to happen but given the current financial restrictions and lack of long range A/C I would suggest USAF should consider a competition for a "scaled-down" (in terms of capabilities) NGAD, and invite the Tempest team to participate.

It will probably be less capable than what Boeing and LM are cooking, but on the other hand I guess it will be much cheaper. And I sense some urgency in getting a long range stealth fighter in place, could be very important for the Asia Pacific theater.

Latest Tempest Fighter Concept Prioritizes Range, Payload (twz.com)

 

[John Fedup]

Tempest will be quite big and long range. Probably not going to happen but given the current financial restrictions and lack of long range A/C I would suggest USAF should consider a competition for a "scaled-down" (in terms of capabilities) NGAD, and invite the Tempest team to participate.

It will probably be less capable than what Boeing and LM are cooking, but on the other hand I guess it will be much cheaper. And I sense some urgency in getting a long range stealth fighter in place, could be very important for the Asia Pacific theater.

Latest Tempest Fighter Concept Prioritizes Range, Payload (twz.com)

The new long range missiles coming to market along with future even more capable missiles is perhaps the reason why a less capable fighter could be in the cards. A $200-300 million fighter is just too expensive. A B-21 will have more range and payload and when combined in new long range weapons and probably better stealth, even at twice the price, it might be a better solution. This of course only applies to the US as it is will be on the no export list.

 

[Meriv90]

From Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest) - Page 171 - UK Defence Forum
Some quotes of some interesting numbers:

3 Countries Designed a Fighter Jet That Looks Like a 'Bomber Raptor'—and the Future of Warfare

The sixth-gen GCAP gives priority to long range, heavy payloads, and stealth and speed over maneuverability.

www.popularmechanics.com

For reference, the surface area of GCAP's delta wing is about equal to a A320 neo... An aircraft that is far more than 50% larger with a 20 tonne max payload.

The surface area is DOUBLE that of an F-15, for an aircraft only a lit bit - or - so larger.

So, with F-15 having a payload cerca 15 tonnes, and A320 neo comparison, fair to assume payload of around 20,000kg?

The big takeaway from the article is the potential range in the current configuration. Looking like 1500 miles on a strike mission.

GCAP's air dominance distance will be insane, with it's super range + the next generation of radars and A2A missiles...
4 F-35B's / Typhoons can fit in the footprint of 1 GCAP
Double the payload of a vulcan bomber
Same payload of an A320 or B-2

The stats are astonishing.

I will add a small comparison with the J-20 that IMHO is the nearest modern similar plane.

A J-20 supposedly cost around 100-120mln
Has a payload of 27-28k pounds if i remember correctly,
And 2000mi of range (probably without any payload).

So the GCAP isnt that big of a tech jump considering the J-20 first flight was in 2011.

If we can keep this numbers and keep the price down I think we will be pretty succesfull.

I just wish for it to be a twin seater and not a single seat fighter.

 

[Meriv90]

Meanwhile on the French side:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1820716601525571719

I will keep looking for news now that I have free time at disposal

 

[Masquerader]

That's a strange argument. Intercepting a spy balloon is enough to determine that it has sufficiently robust capabilities as an interceptor to confidently exclude an interception mission for the NGAD? An aircraft that we know very little about, and that's still under development? How late into development did the F-22 become the F/A-22? While we're at it, isn't the F-22 getting phased out? Also, whose strategic strike aircraft are you envisioning in need of intercept? I suspect that in a real war where the US needs to intercept hostile strategic strike aircraft (read Russia or China) any combat jet that is capable of the mission will be utilized. If we're talking about more of a future interceptor concept like the Russian PAK-DP (MiG-41 unofficially) then the F-22 likely can't fill that role, since it's not hypersonic itself though what weapons it would carry in this scenario would have a lot to do with that scenario.

USAF officials have put the NGAD program on hold, if not outright cancelling it, partly to save money for modernizing the F-22 fleet. I wanted to clarify that even though USAF officials don't specifically say that the fighter component of the NGAD will have a secondary use as an interceptor, the F-22's interception capabilities imply that the NGAD could have a secondary function as an interceptor. Indeed, should the US go to war against China in the event of a Chinese hypersonic missile attack on Anderson Air Force Base in Guam or invasion of Taiwan, the NGAD could shoot down H-6Ks armed with cruise missiles.

The F-22 was known as F/A-22 from 2002-2005 because the USAF recognized its secondary air-to-ground capabilities. However, the Air Force eventually changed its mind, and the Raptor reverted back to the F-22 designation by the time it entered full operational service in December 2005.

USAF puts 6th-gen fighter on hold

Air Force secretary says a few months' pause is needed to get NGAD's design right.

www.defenseone.com

 

[swerve]

.
....
The F-22 was known as F/A-22 from 2002-2005 because the USAF recognized its secondary air-to-ground capabilities.....

The whole F/A thing was a marketing ploy for the F-18, which started with work being done on two distinct variants, the F-18 & A-18. Then it was decided to make the F-18 multirole, so the names were combined. Look at the list of aircraft used for ground-attack which only ever had an F- designation, e.g. F-104, F-105, F-4, F-15, F-16 . . . .

I wish the bloody Americans would stop using designations which don't fit their official system! A-18 didn't fit (should have had a different number, in the A series), F-18E should probably have had a different number, F-35 was carrying over the X-35 number to the F-, contrary to the rules, supposedly because Dubya called it the F-35 & nobody wanted to contradict him, & it's arguable the F-35B & maybe the C should have had different numbers, etc. Could have gone F-24 (18E), F-25, (35A), F-26, etc.

 

[Terran]

First I kinda agree with you. It is a marketing ploy but it was also was respective of the Naval air wing. You made a short lift of F designation ground attack aircraft but missed something almost all of them are USAF not USN.
The Navy air fleet had more A series aircraft in it. A12 was what lead to the Super hornet. The Hornet was meant to replace residue F4s but also A4 and A7. The Super hornet then replaced A6 and S3 with the eventual Growler replacing E/A 6 Prowlers. The shift to Hornets was a move to consolidate their air arm to a single base platform for logistics. It was supposed to be flowed by a common support aircraft what would consolidate ASW (S3), AEW and COD roles. Though that never really happened and instead. They more or less dropped carrier based ASW and kept the Hawkeye and are now trying to move the C2 out for the CMV22.
The USAF on the other hand was more happy to keep using the F series numbers on aircraft that flex roles. However… on your list. The F104 atleast USAF were air superiority aircraft. It was the export versions that gained air defense often with a high cost. The F15E really should have been given a new designation as it was a substantial redesign of the Eagle. The USAF hasn’t not used a similar designation scheme the FB111G was a SAC version of the F111 modified to be more of a nuclear bomber these would eventually be Re designated as F111G and used for conventional bombers.
Finally I think we should give credit where it’s due because if we were to take the F/A designation to it maximum conclusion then the F/A18 is short a few. It should include an R for reconnaissance and a K for tanker. The F35 and F22 would have the designations EERFA because they have capabilities baked in that include Electric warfare, Reconnaissance and mini AWACS capabilities. Alongside the established air to air and air to ground.
All the modernized F15, F16 and F/A18 should also be getting E prefixes because their new AESA Radars and Electric warfare self defense systems are already far more sophisticated than what was found on previous generations of E/A6 or EF111. As well as R due to the SAR modes.
Some people seem to feel that the B21 should be an FB21 but we can also add the two Es for awacs and Electric warfare. Given the way drone wingmen are developing everything gets a D on top for Drone Director. You can quickly see the Alphabet soup.

 

[Feanor]

The whole F/A thing was a marketing ploy for the F-18, which started with work being done on two distinct variants, the F-18 & A-18. Then it was decided to make the F-18 multirole, so the names were combined. Look at the list of aircraft used for ground-attack which only ever had an F- designation, e.g. F-104, F-105, F-4, F-15, F-16 . . . .

I wish the bloody Americans would stop using designations which don't fit their official system! A-18 didn't fit (should have had a different number, in the A series), F-18E should probably have had a different number, F-35 was carrying over the X-35 number to the F-, contrary to the rules, supposedly because Dubya called it the F-35 & nobody wanted to contradict him, & it's arguable the F-35B & maybe the C should have had different numbers, etc. Could have gone F-24 (18E), F-25, (35A), F-26, etc.

You think that's bad... an Su-27 has more in common with an Su-35 (basically the same jet, two variants of) then the Su-35 has with the Su-35S. The MiG-29S and MiG-29M have a bigger difference between themselves then the MiG-29M and the MiG-35. Hell the MiG-29K is closer to the MiG-35 then the MiG-29A, B, or S.

And for ground vehicles it gets really nutty. Consider the BMD series. A BMD-1 and 2 are the same vehicle with a turret change and engine upgrade. The BMD-3 is a completely new vehicle. The BMD-4 is a BMD-3 with a new turret. but the BMD-4M is a completely new vehicle, separate from the BMD-4 and BMD-3 retaining only (mostly but even there they have differences) the same combat module. It's not even remotely consistent. The Msta howtizer has a towed variant called the Msta-B (buksiruemaya or towed in Russian) and the Msta-S (samokhodanya or self-propelled in Russian). But take a Msta howitzer and put it on a truck chassis and its... a new artillery piece called the Mal'va. Because reasons.

At least there isn't some situation where an F-18 derivative is called an F-18B, and in another case a less differentiated F-18 derivative called the F-29.