6th Generation Fighters Projects

[swerve]

Astonishing.

The French seem to use the same name for their current 155mm gun whatever vehicle it's mounted on, which is a bit confusing the other way.

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.

The E for F-15, F-16 & F-18 (& now for JAS39) is weird. It started with the F-15E, & IIRC just happened to be the next spare letter for a new mark - & then got used to indicate a major redesign. It's not part of the official designation system.

Buddy tankers have been around a long time. They're not full-time tankers. New fighters having radars & EW systems which outclass old types with an E prefix isn't new, either. We can't load every type up with everything it can or might be able to do.

 

[Terran]

The E for F-15, F-16 & F-18 (& now for JAS39) is weird. It started with the F-15E, & IIRC just happened to be the next spare letter for a new mark - & then got used to indicate a major redesign. It's not part of the official designation system.

The F15E actually is out of sequence because it’s usually A C and E for single seat well B D and F are tandem seats. But the E model ended up not having a single seat version because it was deemed better for the back seat WSO.
F16 E and F models are the export block 60 models. Not an official designation for the USAF.
The F16V is used to designate new built block 70 F16 and retrofitted older ones sometimes.

The F/A18 E and F are really a completely new design vs the F18 A,B,C, and D so much so it should have been an F19 or F20. But both the USMC/USN And the British navy did this before with the Harrier and Harrier II. Where they designed such a substantial improvement that it really was a completely different aircraft from its namesakes. (Same for the Cobra and Huey series where we have 3 different aircraft that superficially resemble each other but if you get into the details are dramatically different and the USMC is doing it again with the CH53K.)
———————

Really my point is that Well the F/A may seem a gimmick (for the USAF it would have been) but for the navy it was part of a major shakeup. Squadrons in the USN shifted from VF fighters like the F14 or VA attackers like the A6 now became multi role capable with VFA and F/A18. They changed training and doctrine. Where F14 might have been able to drop a bomb it wasn’t intended to. F14 was an Interceptor. F4 might have been more flexible but end of the day a Phantom II’s main goal was to be an interceptor.
Well A6 might have been able to launch an air to air missile, it’s Forte was to drop bombs. When they got the Hornet and Super Hornet they changed training and doctrine. Because they now had a fighter that was more flexibly able to do both.
Many times people will say “Jack of all trades master of none…” they forget “Oftentimes better than a master of one.”
For the Navy that F/A and VFA was important because its squadrons were better able to do whatever needed doing off the deck of a carrier within the restrictions of the carrier’s stores and logistics. Though F35C doesn’t carry the A on it’s designation it carries it in spirit as again it’s able to flex across the board of potential mission needs.

By contrast the USAF when they put a pilot in an A10 or an F117 it’s a fighter squadron. The F15E may be an attacker but they are in a fighter squadron.
Well not advocating for adding a bunch of letters to the designations of American fighters I am trying to point out that for the Navy there was a rhyme and reason for the F/A-18 designation. The NAVY’s NGAD also has the reason with the F/A-XX moniker. As they are looking more multi role vs what would be the F-XX of the USAF.
Well perhaps the F35 should have been an F24 really the F35 is such a substantial jump in capabilities it is a genuine question if it really isn’t a generation beyond F22. With the new generation of doctrine and technological innovations that are rolling it wouldn’t surprise me if the NGADs end up being F40 and F/A 42.

 

[Masquerader]

The F15E actually is out of sequence because it’s usually A C and E for single seat well B D and F are tandem seats. But the E model ended up not having a single seat version because it was deemed better for the back seat WSO.
F16 E and F models are the export block 60 models. Not an official designation for the USAF.
The F16V is used to designate new built block 70 F16 and retrofitted older ones sometimes.

The F/A18 E and F are really a completely new design vs the F18 A,B,C, and D so much so it should have been an F19 or F20. But both the USMC/USN And the British navy did this before with the Harrier and Harrier II. Where they designed such a substantial improvement that it really was a completely different aircraft from its namesakes. (Same for the Cobra and Huey series where we have 3 different aircraft that superficially resemble each other but if you get into the details are dramatically different and the USMC is doing it again with the CH53K.)
———————

Really my point is that Well the F/A may seem a gimmick (for the USAF it would have been) but for the navy it was part of a major shakeup. Squadrons in the USN shifted from VF fighters like the F14 or VA attackers like the A6 now became multi role capable with VFA and F/A18. They changed training and doctrine. Where F14 might have been able to drop a bomb it wasn’t intended to. F14 was an Interceptor. F4 might have been more flexible but end of the day a Phantom II’s main goal was to be an interceptor.
Well A6 might have been able to launch an air to air missile, it’s Forte was to drop bombs. When they got the Hornet and Super Hornet they changed training and doctrine. Because they now had a fighter that was more flexibly able to do both.
Many times people will say “Jack of all trades master of none…” they forget “Oftentimes better than a master of one.”
For the Navy that F/A and VFA was important because its squadrons were better able to do whatever needed doing off the deck of a carrier within the restrictions of the carrier’s stores and logistics. Though F35C doesn’t carry the A on it’s designation it carries it in spirit as again it’s able to flex across the board of potential mission needs.

By contrast the USAF when they put a pilot in an A10 or an F117 it’s a fighter squadron. The F15E may be an attacker but they are in a fighter squadron.
Well not advocating for adding a bunch of letters to the designations of American fighters I am trying to point out that for the Navy there was a rhyme and reason for the F/A-18 designation. The NAVY’s NGAD also has the reason with the F/A-XX moniker. As they are looking more multi role vs what would be the F-XX of the USAF.
Well perhaps the F35 should have been an F24 really the F35 is such a substantial jump in capabilities it is a genuine question if it really isn’t a generation beyond F22. With the new generation of doctrine and technological innovations that are rolling it wouldn’t surprise me if the NGADs end up being F40 and F/A 42.

The YF-24 designation was allocated to a so-called "classified prototype" (probably a captured or defected MiG) flown by Joseph Lanni in Nevada in the late 1990s. It's unclear if the people at the HQ USAF/XPPE knew of the YF-24 cover designation when they formally assigned F-35 to the winning Lockheed Martin JSF aircraft.

It's hard to say for sure what designation will be assigned to a winning F/A-XX design, but since YF-45D was given to a classified aircraft flown by US Navy pilot Raymond Marshall in the 2018/2021 timeframe, any winning NGAD design for the USAF may end being designated F-25 whereas the F/A-XX could be designated F-30 to denote its planned deployment in the 2030s decade.

 

[swerve]

I.e. ignoring the system.

A-, B-, C-, E-, F-, X- etc. were specified as separate sequences. Numbers were supposed to be assigned in order within each set, not carried over from one to another (e.g. X-35 to F-35), assigned to mark a year, or jumped up a few to mark something very novel. The rules had been followed in general, though the F-18E was so much a new aircraft that it should have had a new number. YF-22 & YF-23 followed the rules.

The F-35 designation is nonsensical.

BTW, F-4 did everything, more or less. The number was a hangover from the old USN system, shoe-horned into the new united USN/USAF joint system, but nobody considered calling in an F/A- anything.

 

[Feanor]

Really my point is that Well the F/A may seem a gimmick (for the USAF it would have been) but for the navy it was part of a major shakeup. Squadrons in the USN shifted from VF fighters like the F14 or VA attackers like the A6 now became multi role capable with VFA and F/A18. They changed training and doctrine. Where F14 might have been able to drop a bomb it wasn’t intended to. F14 was an Interceptor. F4 might have been more flexible but end of the day a Phantom II’s main goal was to be an interceptor.
Well A6 might have been able to launch an air to air missile, it’s Forte was to drop bombs. When they got the Hornet and Super Hornet they changed training and doctrine. Because they now had a fighter that was more flexibly able to do both.
Many times people will say “Jack of all trades master of none…” they forget “Oftentimes better than a master of one.”

Minor side note, the capability growth between generations is such that a 4th gen multirole is a "master of all trades" in comparison to something like an F-4 or A6.

 

[Masquerader]

The US Navy is on the cusp of making a decision on which manufacturer will be awarded the F/A-XX contract.

Navy Will Pick a 6th-Gen Fighter as Air Force Pauses NGAD

The Navy is moving towards awarding a contract for its next-generation, long-range fighter amid uncertainty over the Air Force's NGAD fighter.

www.airandspaceforces.com

Given Northrop Grumman's preoccupation with the B-21 Raider, RQ-4 Global Hawk, and the classified "RQ-180" stealthy reconnaissance flying wing, but also Lockheed Martin undertaking F-35C production, it is more likely than not that Boeing could win the F/A-XX competition given that production of the Super Hornet will be wrapping up in the near future.

 

[Bhartiya sainik]

6gen is expected to enter service in 2030s.
As per natural evolution, one day all 4gen F-15, 16, 18 will be retired from USAF & USN. That could be 2050s/60s.
But then what will replace them & in how many numbers?

Looking at Wiki data for a generic reference (may not be accurate), not incl. trainers :
(List of active United States Air Force aircraft - Wikipedia)
(List of active United States naval aircraft - Wikipedia)
4gen:
F-15 A/C = 168
F-15 Str.E = 219
F-15 EX = 8 (104 planned)
F-16C = 738
F18 E/F = 421 (+76 ordered)
EA-18 = 153

5gen:
F-22 = 187
F-35 A = 419 (1,372 planned)
F-35 C = 30 (+204 ordered)

Total 4gen in 2040s/50s = 168 + 219 + 112 + 738 + 497 + 153 = 1,887
Total 5gen in 2040s/50s = 187 + 419 + 234 = 840+

So the question is how many 6gen F/A-XX & NGAD, manned + UCAV?

A better question is what type of 6gen - heavy class F/A-XX + heavy class NGAD + medium class NGAD?
Is it going to be something like:
F-15 heavy class (168+219+112) > F-22 heavy class (187) + NGAD heavy class (??)
F-16 medium class (738) > F-35 A medium class (1,372) + NGAD medium class (??)
F-18 medium class (421+76+153) > F-35 C medium class (234+) + F/A-XX heavy class (??)

And even better question - will they have export versions?

 

[John Fedup]

6gen is expected to enter service in 2030s.
As per natural evolution, one day all 4gen F-15, 16, 18 will be retired from USAF & USN. That could be 2050s/60s.
But then what will replace them & in how many numbers?

Looking at Wiki data for a generic reference (may not be accurate), not incl. trainers :
(List of active United States Air Force aircraft - Wikipedia)
(List of active United States naval aircraft - Wikipedia)
4gen:
F-15 A/C = 168
F-15 Str.E = 219
F-15 EX = 8 (104 planned)
F-16C = 738
F18 E/F = 421 (+76 ordered)
EA-18 = 153

5gen:
F-22 = 187
F-35 A = 419 (1,372 planned)
F-35 C = 30 (+204 ordered)

Total 4gen in 2040s/50s = 168 + 219 + 112 + 738 + 497 + 153 = 1,887
Total 5gen in 2040s/50s = 187 + 419 + 234 = 840+

So the question is how many 6gen F/A-XX & NGAD, manned + UCAV?

A better question is what type of 6gen - heavy class F/A-XX + heavy class NGAD + medium class NGAD?
Is it going to be something like:
F-15 heavy class (168+219+112) > F-22 heavy class (187) + NGAD heavy class (??)
F-16 medium class (738) > F-35 A medium class (1,372) + NGAD medium class (??)
F-18 medium class (421+76+153) > F-35 C medium class (234+) + F/A-XX heavy class (??)

And even better question - will they have export versions?

View attachment 52039

NGAD USAF fighters for export, highly unlikely accept for possibly AUKUS partner Australia as UK has its involvement in GCAP. The USN 6th project, again unlikely as there aren’t any CATOBAR customers willingly to pay a premium price for a carrier fighter. Land based airforces also have GCAP and FCAS which might be less expensive than a USN 6th jet, but who knows, the USN Hornets and SuperHornets(OZ) saw decent export results.

 

[Bhartiya sainik]

NGAD USAF fighters for export, highly unlikely accept for possibly AUKUS partner Australia as UK has its involvement in GCAP. The USN 6th project, again unlikely as there aren’t any CATOBAR customers willingly to pay a premium price for a carrier fighter. Land based airforces also have GCAP and FCAS which might be less expensive than a USN 6th jet, but who knows, the USN Hornets and SuperHornets(OZ) saw decent export results.

I also think Naval F/A-XX may not have export model as all current AC operating nations have either placed future import order or will be making their own Naval jets. We have chosen Rafale M over F-18 E/F; France & UK may continue with MLUed Rafale F5/6 & F-35 for next few decades. But after that they'll have to either import from USA or make their own Naval jet. France might attempt to crete Naval FCAS version or a new jet.

But as USA is highly capitalist economy & also leading many technologies, so it might develop 1-engine F-35 like medium class 6gen JSF 2.0, something like what we are speculating today; & keep a more capable F-22 like heavy class NGAD only for itself, same business model for the UCAVs also.

 

[hauritz]

I also think Naval F/A-XX may not have export model as all current AC operating nations have either placed future import order or will be making their own Naval jets. We have chosen Rafale M over F-18 E/F; France & UK may continue with MLUed Rafale F5/6 & F-35 for next few decades. But after that they'll have to either import from USA or make their own Naval jet. France might attempt to crete Naval FCAS version or a new jet.

But as USA is highly capitalist economy & also leading many technologies, so it might develop 1-engine F-35 like medium class 6gen JSF 2.0, something like what we are speculating today; & keep a more capable F-22 like heavy class NGAD only for itself, same business model for the UCAVs also.

Meanwhile the GCAP seems to be safe from budget cuts. At least for the time being. May prove to be a very marketable aircraft going into the next few decades. For countries like Australia looking at long range strike capability but can’t afford, or have access to the B-21, this could be a pretty attractive alternative.

Britain confirms new stealth jet programme safe from cuts

The UK Government has reaffirmed its commitment to the Global Combat Air Programme, ensuring the development of its next-generation stealth jet remains on track despite ongoing defence reviews.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

 

[Bhartiya sainik]

Meanwhile the GCAP seems to be safe from budget cuts. At least for the time being. May prove to be a very marketable aircraft going into the next few decades. For countries like Australia looking at long range strike capability but can’t afford, or have access to the B-21, this could be a pretty attractive alternative.

Britain confirms new stealth jet programme safe from cuts

The UK Government has reaffirmed its commitment to the Global Combat Air Programme, ensuring the development of its next-generation stealth jet remains on track despite ongoing defence reviews.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Just like EF-2000 Vs Rafale, there will be competition GCAP Vs FCAS. USA will also wan't a slice of the market.

 

[Bob53]

Interesting that Elon Musk is going to be in charge of pentagon defence savings and is publicly saying the F35 in particular and all manned fighter aircraft are obsolete.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Just like EF-2000 Vs Rafale, there will be competition GCAP Vs FCAS.

There might be competition eventually, but GCAP is going to have a significant advantage given that it will likely be in service sooner. Japan is really driving the 2035 deadline for it coming into service, and the concept/assessment stage will conclude next year. Whereas with FCAS even the most optimistic in service date is 2040 for initial operational capability.

Then you'll have the issue of who would both want and be able to afford FCAS, which is going to have to be carrier-compatible and able to carry nuclear weapons. In contrast, GCAP will not need to be able to carry strategic weapons or be able to work off carriers.

USA will also wan't a slice of the market.

If Congress allows exports. Their sixth-generation aircraft might be off-limits due to security concerns, just like with the F-22. That or they sell a less sophisticated version.

 

[John Fedup]

With Trump’s promised 25% tariff on Canada, perhaps dumping our F-35 order and using the money as a down payment on entry into the program might gain traction here.

 

[hauritz]

Interesting that Elon Musk is going to be in charge of pentagon defence savings and is publicly saying the F35 in particular and all manned fighter aircraft are obsolete.

That someone like Elon Musk has any say at all about defence procurement should be a concern. He is the king of over promising and under delivering.

 

[John Fedup]

That someone like Elon Musk has any say at all about defence procurement should be a concern. He is the king of over promising and under delivering.

Compared to what others? Boeing with their Starliner, or KC-46. LM isn't exactly covering themselves in glory with the TR3/Block4 upgrade for the F-35. That being said, after Trump's 25% tariff announcement for Canada, an end to government rebates Tesla EVs along with a 25% tariff on his cars works for me because he is a pompous jerk, albeit a clever guy.

 

[Bob53]

That someone like Elon Musk has any say at all about defence procurement should be a concern. He is the king of over promising and under delivering.

Mate you’re normally on the money but so wrong in this case. He has achieved more advanced technology achievements in a relatively short amount of time than anyone I can think. I did a post on RAAF thread about it.

 

[Bhartiya sainik]

There might be competition eventually, but GCAP is going to have a significant advantage given that it will likely be in service sooner. Japan is really driving the 2035 deadline for it coming into service, and the concept/assessment stage will conclude next year. Whereas with FCAS even the most optimistic in service date is 2040 for initial operational capability.

Then you'll have the issue of who would both want and be able to afford FCAS, which is going to have to be carrier-compatible and able to carry nuclear weapons. In contrast, GCAP will not need to be able to carry strategic weapons or be able to work off carriers.

Let's just say at this time that both will find customers around the world. That's what happened for past generations of jets.

If Congress allows exports. Their sixth-generation aircraft might be off-limits due to security concerns, just like with the F-22. That or they sell a less sophisticated version.

Oh! They will allow for a future JSF, they won't leave earning opportunity only to Europeans, Russians, Chinese. They are already sowing the seeds for 2 jets.
Moreover, you can't replace all exported 4gen jets only with F-35 which itself will also need replacement 1 day.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

Italian MFA and former president of EU parliament Antonio Tajani said Saudi Arabia is likely going to join GCAP soon.

https://www.reuters.com/world/saudi-arabia-likely-join-gcap-jet-fighter-project-italy-says-2024-11-27/

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Let's just say at this time that both will find customers around the world. That's what happened for past generations of jets.

Sixth generation fighters are going to be more expensive that past jet exports, even accounting for inflation. There's only going to be so many countries that can afford GCAP or FCAS.

Oh! They will allow for a future JSF, they won't leave earning opportunity only to Europeans, Russians, Chinese. They are already sowing the seeds for 2 jets.

Moreover, you can't replace all exported 4gen jets only with F-35 which itself will also need replacement 1 day.

I think it's unlikely that China or Russia would export sixth generation aircraft. As for the Americans, there will probably be a larger market for future upgraded versions of the F-35.

Italian MFA and former president of EU parliament Antonio Tajani said Saudi Arabia is likely going to join GCAP soon.

That's not what he said. He said he thought Saudi Arabia would join, without putting a timescale on it. Italy has been the most sensitive over the costs of GCAP, so has been inhaling copious amounts of hopium regarding another rich country stepping in to help pay for everything.

Saudi Arabia has nothing to offer in terms of development or production, and Japan has made it clear that they will brook no delays in terms of another country trying to negotiate involvement in design and production. They're more likely to be the first customer outside the tri-nation group.