The USAF has built and flown a full-scale Next Gen Fighter

New and old developments in aviation technology.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2424
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post16 Sep 2020, 03:45

BDF wrote:4. Twin engine because I'm guessing payload will be fairly large. Hard to tell what performance requirements there will be and I'm sure they've studied what the trade offs are for things such as super cruise. If that is still valuable that will probably push engine requirements towards a twin engine design.


The Roper hints of "records being broken" strongly hints at this. Twin adaptive cycle engines being most likely the case.

CBO has already highlighted the following DoD plans. "CBO's projection includes purchases of 414 PCA aircraft with an average procurement cost of about $300 million each. Procurement appropriations would begin in 2028, and the first PCA aircraft would enter service in 2030."

Clearly the likelihood of a 2030 service entry date is now realistic.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2424
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post16 Sep 2020, 03:56

Recalling now the F-35 timelines. X-35 first flight was year 2000. First lot was ordered FY 2007 for delivery year 2009 (but ended up as 2011). This seems consistent with a 2030 service entry date.

If FY 2028 1st lot procurement. This may not affect F-35A or F-15EX plans. Both will continue at projected pace with F-15EX budget moved (and supplemented) to PCA/NGAD from FY 2028 onwards so there could be 80-100 F-15EX bought by then.

It should be noted that current navy F-35 program (both B&C) will complete in FY 31 which will further provide budget for either a naval version or free up the budget for the AF. So FRP could be from FY 31 onwards...
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1319
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post16 Sep 2020, 04:11

weasel1962 wrote:
BDF wrote:4. Twin engine because I'm guessing payload will be fairly large. Hard to tell what performance requirements there will be and I'm sure they've studied what the trade offs are for things such as super cruise. If that is still valuable that will probably push engine requirements towards a twin engine design.


The Roper hints of "records being broken" strongly hints at this. Twin adaptive cycle engines being most likely the case.


NGAP isn't supposed to start until 2022 and concludes in 2025.
And it is supposed to overlap with the tail end of AETP.

weasel1962 wrote:CBO has already highlighted the following DoD plans. "CBO's projection includes purchases of 414 PCA aircraft with an average procurement cost of about $300 million each. Procurement appropriations would begin in 2028, and the first PCA aircraft would enter service in 2030."

Clearly the likelihood of a 2030 service entry date is now realistic.



CBO did their study without consulting anyone in the AF. It's complete invention.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2424
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post16 Sep 2020, 04:31

The sentence before the Dec 2018 CBO quote was "The Air Force has not determined the characteristics of the PCA aircraft, but the Air Force Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan indicated the need for a highly advanced air-superiority aircraft to be fielded in the early to mid-2030s.8"

The below is thus the "complete invention" that the CBO relied upon in terms of timeline. Not counting of course what was said on pg 5 of the CBO report relating to the section "How CBO Made Its Projection"

https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/ ... 20Plan.pdf

By inference also in Sep 2020, the Air Force now knows at least what they want the PCA to be as least in terms of a prototype.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1319
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post16 Sep 2020, 04:49

weasel1962 wrote:The sentence before the Dec 2018 CBO quote was "The Air Force has not determined the characteristics of the PCA aircraft, but the Air Force Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan indicated the need for a highly advanced air-superiority aircraft to be fielded in the early to mid-2030s.8"

The below is thus the "complete invention" that the CBO relied upon in terms of timeline. Not counting of course what was said on pg 5 of the CBO report relating to the section "How CBO Made Its Projection"

https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/ ... 20Plan.pdf



The NGAD AOA wasn't completed until 2019; CBO's "study" not only predates that but
relies on an Air Superiority plan that predates the current administration.

And CBO consulted nobody in the Air Force. Consequently, CBO's projections in terms of timelines,
quantity, capability and cost are dated, unfounded and invented.

weasel1962 wrote:By inference also in Sep 2020, the Air Force now knows at least what they want the PCA to be as least in terms of a prototype.


They've flown a full scale technology demonstrator. Not a prototype.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2424
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post16 Sep 2020, 07:11

Its strange to argue that the 2016 air force air superiority plan is dated, unfounded and invented since the basis of NGAD starts with that plan.

More "invented" stuff. 2030 is the defining year even for the latest NGAD PB.
https://apps.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2 ... B_2021.pdf

As to the all important American definition, whilst Roper did indicate its a flight demonstrator which I don't dispute, I fail to see why it is not also a prototype which as defined in the English dictionary happens to be:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prototype
- a first full-scale and usually functional form of a new type or design of a construction (such as an airplane)

Not sure which of that definition is incorrect.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1319
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post16 Sep 2020, 07:50

weasel1962 wrote:Its strange to argue that the 2016 air force air superiority plan is dated, unfounded and invented since the basis of NGAD starts with that plan.

More "invented" stuff. 2030 is the defining year even for the latest NGAD PB.
https://apps.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2 ... B_2021.pdf


Anything before the AoA is going to be wrong on capability, timeline, cost and quantity.
They've had a notional placeholder 2030 timeframe capability since that's when the F-22
restart study indicated the F-22 would begin to be challenged.

And the budget lines are for AS2030+ which is nice and amorphous.

Go back far enough and B-21 started as the 2018 bomber.

The restart study also urged an AoA be completed by 2017.
Clearly that didn't happen. So who knows where the the timeline is now.

The F-22 restart study is an official Air Force document that CBO did not leverage at all.

weasel1962 wrote:As to the all important American definition, whilst Roper did indicate its a flight demonstrator which I don't dispute, I fail to see why it is not also a prototype which as defined in the English dictionary happens to be:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prototype
- a first full-scale and usually functional form of a new type or design of a construction (such as an airplane)

Not sure which of that definition is incorrect.


A complete irrelevancy since DOD has definitions for technology demonstrators and definitions for prototypes.
Roper is very careful with his word choice and its consistent with what Goldfein outlined last year.

Clearly, the significance is lost on the uninitiated whose first instinct is to reach for an English language dictionary.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2424
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post16 Sep 2020, 08:17

So when does one procure planes for 2030+ air superiority? In 2040?

Just because the 2016 Air Superiority plan happens to be before 2019 doesn't invalidate it. It sets an objective for air superiority in 2030. The AoA adds detail but doesn't change the goals. Its still 2030 last I read.

Just like how people don't need to "consult" god to quote the bible (or that the bible is the lord's words). The CBO report doesn't need to consult the AF to rely upon the USAF air superiority plan. The best part is the CBO gets access to the classified version of the plan. Have you seen it?

I don't treat the FY 2028 procurement/2030 in service dates as gospel but from what I see, it ties in neatly with many other timelines as stated. Sure, it could be earlier than 2030 but the USAF/DoD will have to do better than the F-35 or the F-22 to achieve that. YF-22 first flight was in 1990. Lot 1 was year 2000?
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2424
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post16 Sep 2020, 08:28

marauder2048 wrote:A complete irrelevancy since DOD has definitions for technology demonstrators and definitions for prototypes. Roper is very careful with his word choice and its consistent with what Goldfein outlined last year.

Clearly, the significance is lost on the uninitiated whose first instinct is to reach for an English language dictionary.


Really, where? Don't see it here or is this one of those "invented" dictionaries...
https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Document ... 073638-727

Don't see it in the air force glossary either but guess what...
https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/ ... SARY-O.pdf

The Air Force Glossary contains terms and definitions that are unique to the US Air Force and not found in the Department of Defense (DOD) Dictionary. If a term is not contained in this glossary, then check the DOD Dictionaryfor standard DOD terms. Ultimately, the AF Glossary and DOD Dictionary are a supplement to common English-language dictionaries.
Last edited by weasel1962 on 16 Sep 2020, 08:35, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1319
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post16 Sep 2020, 08:30

weasel1962 wrote:So when does one procure planes for 2030+ air superiority? In 2040?


The 2018 bomber is being procured in the 2020s. Thanks for playing.

weasel1962 wrote:Just because the 2016 Air Superiority plan happens to be before 2019 doesn't invalidate it. It sets an objective for air superiority in 2030. The AoA adds detail but doesn't change the goals. Its still 2030 last I read.


If the AoA approach is a family of systems approach vs. single material solution approach
it radically changes things and would tend to invalidate all of CBO's assumptions.

And from what Roper has said, it sounds like he discarded all of the ECCT, 2030 flight plan
stuff.

Although Pentagon and Air Force planners have been thoroughly analyzing requirements for future air dominance technology since 2015, Roper says the NGAD program is not ready to move beyond the realm of internal studies and into the acquisition phase. Despite a two-year study by the Air Superiority 2030 Enterprise Capability Collaboration Team (ECCT), followed by an extended, two-year Analysis of Alternatives, Roper still is not satisfied that the Air Force has settled on the right strategy.

“I have a strong opinion that we need to not have it devolve into a traditional program,” Roper told reporters at the Air Force Association-sponsored symposium.

The acquisition process that Roper inherited starts with a highly detailed analysis of the operating environment, which, in the case of NGAD, is set to begin at least a decade into the future. The military’s operational planners then craft an intricate set of requirements for a future weapon system based on those analytical conclusions. But Roper calls that process “naive.” The Air Force's acquisition chief wants to steer the Next-Generation Air Dominance program away from a traditional approach, such as Boeing's concept for a tailless supersonic fighter.


weasel1962 wrote:Just like how people don't need to "consult" god to quote the bible (or that the bible is the lord's words). The CBO report doesn't need to consult the AF to rely upon the USAF air superiority plan. The best part is the CBO gets access to the classified version of the plan. Have you seen it?


Where does CBO indicate they relied on classified documents?

I mean why would you have detailed discussions with program managers and analysts who are willing
to provide more data and insight than they would ever put in nebulous documents for a pre-Milestone A program?


weasel1962 wrote:I don't treat the FY 2028 procurement/2030 in service dates as gospel but from what I see, it ties in neatly with many other timelines as stated. Sure, it could be earlier than 2030 but the USAF/DoD will have to do better than the F-35 or the F-22 to achieve that. YF-22 first flight was in 1990. Lot 1 was year 2000?


LRIP was authorized in 2001.
Last edited by marauder2048 on 16 Sep 2020, 08:56, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1319
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post16 Sep 2020, 08:33

weasel1962 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:A complete irrelevancy since DOD has definitions for technology demonstrators and definitions for prototypes. Roper is very careful with his word choice and its consistent with what Goldfein outlined last year.

Clearly, the significance is lost on the uninitiated whose first instinct is to reach for an English language dictionary.


Really, where? Don't see it here or is this one of those "invented" dictionaries...
https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Document ... 073638-727


Cites a dictionary that has absolutely nothing to do with DOD acquisition or RDT&E terms...

Stop it.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2424
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post16 Sep 2020, 09:08

marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:So when does one procure planes for 2030+ air superiority? In 2040?


The 2018 bomber is being procured in the 2020s. Thanks for playing.


Don't quite see the point you are making.
https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/ ... 111017-150

The 2006 QDR stated an objective to field the next gen bomber by 2018. They are 2 years late. Doesn't invalidate the QDR. Lot 1 of F-35 was delivered 2 years late. Besides all the initial hoo-ha that entailed, eventually the program is now on track.

Can the NGAD be late by 2 years, sure. If that happens, all I can see is 2 more years of F-15EXs. Not exactly the end of the world stuff.

I'm not sure why CBO needs to state whether their version of the air sup plan was classified or not? What they did state is they relied on it. I'm not the one making the contention that the CBO took all those data out of thin air, without even knowing what the CBO relied upon....I think the CBO criticism thus far has no logic.

p.s. The YF-22 was both labelled as flight demonstrator & prototype by virtually almost every agency.

I agree there is no value add in arguing this further and will leave this as my final word on the CBO numbers.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1319
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post16 Sep 2020, 09:28

weasel1962 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:So when does one procure planes for 2030+ air superiority? In 2040?


The 2018 bomber is being procured in the 2020s. Thanks for playing.


Don't quite see the point you are making.
https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/ ... 111017-150

The 2006 QDR stated an objective to field the next gen bomber by 2018. They are 2 years late.


This bomber won't field until the "mid 2020s" in conventional capability only and won't be nuclear capable
until maybe 2030. That's a far cry from the 2018 bomber goals. Stop moving goal posts.

Or: you don't understand that "fields" means "IOC." Guess that wasn't in m-w.com


weasel1962 wrote:I'm not sure why CBO needs to state whether their version of the air sup plan was classified or not? What they did state is they relied on it.


The F-22 restart study indicated what data was classified and what data wasn't. It has an actual bibliography.
That's what an analysis looks like. CBO indicates that it relied on official statements, cites unclassified
documents and does not indicate that it relied on classified documents.

IOW, it's not a serious study.

weasel1962 wrote:I'm not the one making the contention that the CBO took all those data out of thin air, without even knowing what the CBO relied upon....I think the CBO criticism thus far has no logic.


That CBO study talks about a F-22 with F-35 avionics but gives no color whatsoever. No numbers.
Nothing. Yet, that was precisely the configuration that the F-22 restart study looked at in detail!

You presented a deeply flawed source and have meandered through one feeble defense after another.
It predates the AoA lead by someone who has indicated he's all but discarding what came before
from the ECCT.

The CBO report is useless on several fronts.

weasel1962 wrote:
p.s. The YF-22 was both labelled as flight demonstrator & prototype by virtually almost every agency.


Translation: you still don't comprehend the difference.
But your google skills didn't permit you to find a non-irrelevant dictionary.
Offline

knowan

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 317
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post16 Sep 2020, 13:28

jessmo112 wrote:2. Lasers or no lasers?


I suspect at least provisions for a laser; by the time this plane enters production, there is a strong possibility of lasers having advanced enough for use by tactical aircraft.

Existing aircraft will likely be adapted first to carry lasers in external pods, but one of the definitions of 6th generation aircraft may be lasers carried internally.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4895
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post16 Sep 2020, 14:36

Directed Energy weapons at least. More to DE than just lasers.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
PreviousNext

Return to Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests