Test model 1
Test model 2
Test model 3
Some test aircraft
Posted on 06/02/2022 6:41:21 PM PDT by American Number 181269513
The Air Force’s sixth generation fighter has officially entered development, the Air Force’s top official confirmed today.
“We have now started an [engineering, manufacturing and development] program to do the development aircraft that we’ll take into production,” Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said during an event at the Heritage Foundation. “We think we’ll have the capability by the end of the decade.”
Due to the classified nature of the design effort, Kendall provided few details about the manned sixth-generation fighter that is set to be the centerpiece of the Air Force’s so-called Next Generation Air Dominance family of systems, which will also feature new weapons, sensors and a variety of drones that will tag team with the new fighter.
The Air Force first flew a prototype version of the NGAD fighter 2020, but officials at the time declined to disclose information about the plane or its manufacturer.
“What we did was an experimental prototype,” Kendall said. “We basically had an X plane program which was designed to reduce the risk of some of the key technologies that we would need for a production program.”
Moving to the EMD stage more than likely means that the Air Force has coalesced around a single fighter design made by a single prime contractor, said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with AeroDynamic Advisory.
While Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman are all possible contenders to build the NGAD fighter, Northrop’s current workload producing the B-21 bomber makes it an unlikely choice to develop an advanced fighter, Aboulafia said. Far more likely, he said, is that Lockheed is leading the program, having already shepherded the stealthy F-22 and F-35 fighters from development through production.
However, Boeing could emerge as the dark horse developer of the NGAD fighter, Aboulafia acknowledged.
“There were rumors that Boeing was not out of it. And the rebuttal to that rumor is that they can prototype, but can they really build a clean sheet combat aircraft?” he said. “If it’s Boeing, it implies that they’ve achieved a miracle. That’s why I’d probably go with Lockheed Martin.”
Each of the companies have previously declined to comment on any involvement in the NGAD program. Although little information about NGAD has been released to the public, Air Force senior leaders have recently tossed a handful of breadcrumbs to hungry aviation geeks.
In April, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown told reporters that the NGAD fighter’s flight control software had been decoupled from its mission system software — a feature that could allow it to be more easily upgraded with new technologies.
Later that month, Kendall told lawmakers that the NGAD fighter would cost “multiple hundreds of millions of dollars” per plane and would be accompanied by drones and other systems that are “not as expensive and give overall mission capability.” That means the cost of NGAD could dwarf that of the F-22 Raptor, which had a unit cost of about $143 million per plane, according to the Air Force.
Still, many mysteries about the NGAD fighter persist.
The Air Force has yet to describe how many NGAD fighters it plans to buy to replace the 183 F-22 Raptors currently in operation, making it unclear whether NGAD will be “the next big aircraft program” or a “boutique production program” in line with the Digital Century Series acquisition strategy proposed by former acquisition executive Will Roper, Aboulafia said.
However, the service could face an unwinnable scenario if Congress puts pressure on the program due to high unit costs, ultimately forcing it to buy too few fighters, which would then be expensive and difficult to maintain, he added.
“The complication there is that [Kendall] may need a full production program, but cost [per unit] might get in the way,” Aboulafia said.
Another big question raised by Kendall’s acknowledgement that development has started: What companies will be responsible for the engines, mission systems, sensors, weapons and other equipment inside the plane?
“The biggest implication for me if you’re bringing it to EMD is that it’s missionized,” Aboulafia said. “It’s not just a prototype [air vehicle].” That means that some integration work has likely already taken place, and an expensive new air superiority jet would likely have a huge list of suppliers, he said.
Later that month, Kendall told lawmakers that the NGAD fighter would cost “multiple hundreds of millions of dollars” per plane and would be accompanied by drones and other systems that are “not as expensive and give overall mission capability.” That means the cost of NGAD could dwarf that of the F-22 Raptor, which had a unit cost of about $143 million per plane, according to the Air Force.
and if lucky, in 15 years or so it will start entering squadron service.
And I forgot to say, it will be flown by the sweetest little people they can find. DIE don’t you know?
Goofy airplane.
1 - if they didn’t get it they’d have zero military aircraft contracts
That statement is simply not true.
2 - boeing had done a late-stage partial redesign which made their plane work a lot better...
Partial redesign?
They completely redesigned the wing and they added horizontal stabilizers.
Here's 2 pics of Boeing's design that they built and flew.
Here's a pic of their redesigned plane which was never built or flown.
During the flyoff, Lockheed Martin's design flew "Mission Alpha"...Short field takeoff, Burner climb to 25,000ft, Supersonic dash, vertical landing.
Boeing claimed they could demonstrate all items, however, it would take 2 flights. The inlet used for vertical landings kept the aircraft from supersonic flight. They claimed they could fix it during EMD.
Fighter aren’t replaced by drones. Fighters run drone swarms.
I was under the impression
—
Wrong impression. Still a plane designed by committee that is supposed to do everything, but nothing well, plus having a $4 trillion maintenance budget.
It would not last more than a few minutes in any actual combat for lack of a gun with almost no ammo that does not aim true and missiles that are out-ranged. Not to mention, its only stealthy from the frontal aspect and only to old radars.
Pilots love it because it flies nice ... when they can manage to get it away from the maintenance guys. Its combat readiness is something like 20%, one of the lowest scores recorded.
They will be $1 trillion each and we will build 2 of them.
Pointless. This is just pork barrel spending at this point. It is good to be a Defense Contractor getting rich off the tax payers.
What can this do that an F22 can’t do. Why not just make the F22 cheaper and quit making the same mistake of massively costly replacements that fail because they cost too much.
It all circles back to pork barrel.
““There were rumors that Boeing was not out of it. And the rebuttal to that rumor is that they can prototype, but can they really build a clean sheet combat aircraft?” he said. “If it’s Boeing, it implies that they’ve achieved a miracle. That’s why I’d probably go with Lockheed Martin.””
Anyone that ignorant of Boeing should not be listened to about this subject. They are absolutely clueless.
“He was told the F-35 would be the last manned fighter.”
Common statement by those not in such programs. Comic book types, really.
“They will be $1 trillion each and we will build 2 of them.”
We lost the concept that quantity is a quality all its own. We make a few hundred airplanes that at best could support two or three theaters of operations when dozens might be needed.
The Big Guy gets his cut.
Multiple hundreds of millions per plane. Well we just gave Ukraine 40,000 million (40 billion aid package). Makes that cost seem like chump change.
Let’s just face it. The Boeing didn’t look cool enough!
My father was a test pilot in the 50’s. When the military defined their desires for a new plane the manufactures would build a prototype for the fraction of what it cost just to make a proposal today.
Northrop with the F-20 was the last example of this approach with a bid and a prototype. They lost out to the F-16 because the US had already invested too much in the F-16 even though there was still no prototype.
Your information is incorrect.
The prototype YF-16 ( #72-1567) was rolled out at Fort Worth on December 13, 1973.
The Northrop F-20 Tigershark (initially F-5G) was a lightweight fighter, designed and built by Northrop. Its development began in 1975 as a further evolution of Northrop's F-5E Tiger II
The Lightweight Fighter (LWF) program was a United States Air Force technology evaluation program initiated in the late 1960s by a group of officers and defense analysts known as the "Fighter Mafia".
It resulted in the development of the General Dynamics YF-16 and Northrop YF-17. Late in the program, in 1974, with the promise of European sales, the Air Force changed the program name to Air Combat Fighter (ACF), and committed to purchasing 650 models of the YF-16, adopted as the F-16 Fighting Falcon.
Northrop's entrant in the LWF competition was the YF-17, not the F-20.
The USAF selected the F-16 as the LWF (ACF) winner before development of the F-20 even began.
It is still a pretty aircraft.
THanks,
I think I was getting confused over stories I heard years ago (from people flying these). This must have been about the FX sales. I am now thinking Northrop had the plane and General Dynamics had a proposal for an f-16 version for FX but not built an example yet.
I know they were plenty pissed and felt politics, $ etc. were screwing them. Also know they poured a lot of private investment into F-20, but they were still beholden to the Gov allowing them to sell. I do think it was the last time a manufacturer poured so much of their own $ into military product development. FYI my dad was killed flying an F-4 in 1959. I have these recollections from visiting friends of our family during vacations we took throughout my youth.
My recollection is that the F-20 was developed specifically for Taiwan as an upgrade to their F-5A/B. I believe you are correct that the aircraft was developed on their own $$.
I have one sortie in an F-5F. (2 seater). My freerepublic home page has a link to my web site which contain a lot of my details.
Regards,
FtrPilot
Thanks, I read up on this a bit. I do believe it was to meet the foreign sales requirements. The logical reason for choosing the F-16 was the parts availability but it was still way more expensive to purchase and fly it. I think this boiled down to Northrop had the plane ready for eval and G.D. was just proposing what they would do to the F-16 for the role. As I look at the dates this would make sense I was hearing about it real time but I was a teenager on vacation visiting family friends. I was only 1 when my dad was killed in 59.
I checked your web site but can only get the photography (beautiful by the way). Couldn’t link to any flying stuff but it looks as if you were involved with F-4’s? You would find it interesting my father put a 16mm cartridge load movie camera on his helmet in Korea. The Navy patented the “helmet camera”.
I was only 1 when my dad was killed in 59.
I'm speechless. I don't know what to say other than it must have been difficult growing up without a father. I bet he would have been a great dad.
You would find it interesting my father put a 16mm cartridge load movie camera on his helmet in Korea. The Navy patented the “helmet camera”.
I certainly am interested and impressed. Your dad is part of Navy aviation history. You should be proud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.