Depends on how they do it. If they do multiple iterations like the F-15, that seems fine. if they do an F-22, probably not so much.
The rush is due to this forum's topic, I'm sure and the news of the manufacture rate of the J-20.
US F/A-XX and F-X 6th Gen Aircraft News Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Depends on how they do it. If they do multiple iterations like the F-15, that seems fine. if they do an F-22, probably not so much.
The rush is due to this forum's topic, I'm sure and the news of the manufacture rate of the J-20.
I think it might just be to a point where LM simply has a monopoly on fighters because there really isn't anyone else out there who can do it, even if the NGAD contract was gift wrapped with a pretty bow to another company. in the 1990s a lot of companies were killed off or had to merge to survive. The US competition was effectively gutted at that point. So the monopoly was going to happen.
In order to have "competition" one has to spend twice as much to 2 companies who will both squeeze a lot of money out of the taxpayers.
there might just be a point where the Intellectual property, knowledge, experience, etc is all pretty much in one place and as the fighters get more and more sophisticated and the technology more extreme there is likely only 1 company in the world that can really do NGAD the way the DoD wants it. the "acme fighter company" is not going to pop up out of nowhere and get the NGAD contract complete with access to all the classified tech to even make a competitive bid.
Saab in Canada couldn't even get access to the 2 eyes/5 eyes requirement. they were in the awkward position of having little idea what 2/5 eyes was, but promising they could make it happen on their Gripen E/F. the EuroFighter consortium and Dassault didn't even try and just dropped out.
Boeing is maybe the dark horse on NGAD, but they are seemingly behind in the kind of experience needed. Boeing was the main subcontractor on the F-22 so I wouldn't count them completely out. but I think things are to the point where the specialization needed for next generation fighters or for flying wing stealth bombers (like NG on B-21) is basically here. Northrop Grumman played heavily on their experience with B-2 in all the talks about the Next Generation bomber.
remember not all the faults of F-35 and F-22 fall on LM. the DoD will do things like change requirements or change standards or change deadlines or ask for more half way through projects. even before X-35 was picked the US Navy changed requirements mid way through the JSF competition. Boeing was then demonstrating its X-32 prototype that was not even going to be close to what their final proposal was. they had to redesign the entire tail section at the last minute for the biggest defense contract ever. its really hard to work for anyone who does that whether its building a whiz-bang fighter or building a drive way.
the big question on NGAD for me is the engines. it was the engines that made the ATF/F-22 possible. That was the "big leap" that made the kind of "edge of space" and Supercruise possible. Those seeds were planted years in advance. without the F119s the F-22 is basically just a stealthy F-15. Which would still be good, but what the F-22 can do thanks to F119 advance it to a new level
its not necessarily a matter of "leap frogging the US" in terms of fighter range because the US has been using aerial refueling or shipboard operations this whole time. so its different solutions to a common range problem. The pacific is the pacific and always has been. its not necessarily realistic to expect bomber sized range out of fighter sized aircraft.
I do agree with others that short of a revolutionary advance in propulsion the NGAD is likely to be large. My mind goes to YF-12. in the end to get more range and weapons capability they will simply have to make things bigger. F-35 has a high fuel fraction, and for a fighter it has very good range. but its still a fighter nonetheless and one that is only about the size of the aV-8B harrier which is strikingly small comparatively. I find myself laughing at these company shown NGAD concepts that look like a small leaf and seemingly barely have room for the pilots legs. The fuel must be hidden somewhere, I just can't seem to find it!
China is behind in terms of range extension via ships (aircraft carriers) or aerial refueling compared to the US. in both areas I am sure that China are pushing forward to improve things. but pilots have said "depends on the tanker" when people ask them about range of their mounts and they are right. the answer is the idea that their individual fighter range is not nearly as relevant as how often they can "AAR" and continue on. For countries like Canada the CF-18s were nothing without the help of large aerial refuelers. even the dirty little secret of the USN is that its fighters would be largely out of the fight if just limited to the range of the fighters operating from the ship alone. F-18s in Iraq were refueling 4 times for one mission. (2 to get there, 2 to get home)
F-22s can cross the pacific in one go if they have a tanker. NKAWTG
Tankers severely limit bandwidth. The problem is that almost all targets of interest in the Pacific are skewed towards China, so longer legged fighters/bombers from Chinese bases as well as land-based missiles can strike almost everything of note but American ones cannot without tankers. They could base closer to China, but that puts them against enormous fires disparity and will suffer very high attrition.
I surmise the hope is for NGAD to have sufficient range so as to not need to need go through the bandwidth compression that is tanker support and still operate from bases in relative safety. China doesn't have anywhere close to this degree of problem with range.
I think you mean tanker(s). An F-22 would still need multiple refuellings to cross the Pacific.
indeed F-22s will need multiple refueling especially as the standard procedure is to follow the tanker and top off whenever fuel gets to about 50 percent (this is to create the largest safety margins possible in case of an emergency divert) but it typically means multiple F-22s following 1 tanker (perhaps more if needed) for the duration of the crossing.to be clear though they basically just follow the tanker to the destination on ferry flights. topping off constantly
That is not likely to change with NGAD in the sense that there is simply not going to be enough NGAD anyway. The US is already saying the cost and expense of these airplanes is going to make them rare and the magic number being brought about is "100" presuming every one of them is diverted to the war against China (including all the test and training aircraft) that is not exactly a lot to hold off all of China until more can be built (I think it takes 2-3 years to build a modern fighter)
There are going to be losses. and I think a lot of people still struggle to understand that in a full war with China the attrition is going to be nasty no matter what.
if we are going to say the F-22 and F-35 can't do this in terms of range, then its safe to say the F-15s and F-16s and F-18s are not going to be able to do this as well. Which means the entire thing will hinge on NGAD alone. I don't think that is really realistic. It will be a matter of making due with tankers and the US and other allies in the pacific must also be careful to not "trick themselves" into obscurity. caution is important, but if the fear of losses forces everyone to retreat to New Zealand or California, then we might as well not bother. if one looks at the US Marines they are basically making peace with operating in "missile envelopes" they really don't have much other option, which means the US Navy is in the same boat (haha) Some of this is the cold war problem form the 1980s were AWACS, Tankers, and Airfields were all prime targets. There are ways of mitigating some of it, but in the end, people are going to die.
I agree that NGAD will hopefully be able to forgo a lot of tanking and that it will be able to be based far afield, but how far is a big question. and to wrap up my too long post, we must be careful not to trick ourselves into positioning NGAD so far away that it becomes nearly useless in terms of its ability to loiter in important areas when needed. We don't want 12 hours of flying, with 11 of those hours commuting.
The US military which has been very risk averse the last 30 years is going to have to wake up a little and get ready to be punched in the face, early and often. Not there yet at all, but a big fat loss might be the only thing that works I'm afraid. and some things are just geographic realities, we can't ask Japan to move east toward California. if it is a matter of a "meeting engagement over the vast expanse of the pacific, perhaps that is a different equation. but from my point of view, Japan is unsinkable. and so long as its around it forms a base to hit back with.
Following the "RQ-180 successor" breaking news.
Could NGAD be the golden ticket for Boeing to stage a comeback in the US fighter-building industry?
In the meantime, could the USN's F/A-XX get an earlier headstart than the USAF's NGAD?
More in this The Drive article:
Could NGAD be the golden ticket for Boeing to stage a comeback in the US fighter-building industry?
In the meantime, could the USN's F/A-XX get an earlier headstart than the USAF's NGAD?
More in this The Drive article:
Last edited:
Given Boeing's recent technical program management record, we should expect each NGAD to cost $1B and North Korea to deliver their first 6th gen before Boeing does.