NGAD USAF:Radical Plan: New Fighters Every Five Years

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
User avatar


Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1862
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post04 Sep 2022, 04:23

Lowest possible drag is clearly the way to go for range and signature. High-alt cruise with adaptive engine optimization with altitude and adaptive skin & leading edge shapes with speed-change, would be the next (range + speed + altitude + VLO) optimization.

This would raise the bar far beyond where Chinese technology can follow any time soon.

This time make sure more of them and new variants can be built as required.

Plus produce an A2G optimized version ASAP, as that combination produces a 'PCA'-like multi-platform approach, that can decide the outcome on Day-1.

Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth


Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1350
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2004, 20:14
  • Location: Las Vegas

Unread post26 Sep 2022, 07:35

Late to this thread but...having "seen behind the curtain" of this program, Roper's plan was sensible and executable. Problem was when traditional requirements and developmental guys got ahold of it they started doing the old crappy things which delayed it. Then Roper left and the muscle behind the plan died. Kendall is Mr Conservative and is pushing back to the old way of doing business (slow and $$).

I'm glad I retired...the frustration of seeing the old guard fight off new ideas was wearing on me.
F-16 Program Manager
USAF Test Pilot School 92A

"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns" - Dos Gringos


Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1668
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post28 Sep 2022, 18:56

Looks like Kendall miss spoke when he claimed an NGAD prototype flew... ... t-be-done/

Kendall offered the fullest update so far on the status of NGAD during a Sept. 19 roundtable with reporters at the Air and Space Forces Association’s Air, Space and Cyber conference.

The service is still designing NGAD, Kendall said, and the program has not yet gone through the Milestone B review process. That milestone marks the completion of a program’s technology maturation phase and the formal start of an acquisition program, when the service takes its preliminary design and focuses on system integration, manufacturing processes and other details ahead of production.
Asked about his June comments during the Defense News Conference on Sept. 7, Kendall suggested he hadn’t meant the implication.

“I’m an old-school guy,” Kendall said. “I’ve been around doing this stuff for a long time, and I still think of engineering and manufacturing development as a phase in which you are working on the new design.”

So it seems NGAD is less finished than what was claimed. Seems like the F-22 will be around a lot longer than 2030...


Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3585
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post28 Sep 2022, 20:25

Amen, Roscoe.

I said this in the summer of ‘21 re: JSF —

“I think the biggest impact to the program was the alteration of the USG’s approach to systems engineering and risk tolerance. I think I’ve mentioned this before but most have forgotten (or never knew…) that the F-35 started its program life as a new model for how to do acquisition (faster, better, cheaper). Acquisition leadership at the OSD level were the champions of this approach.

When those ‘champions’ migrated out of government (as is the norm over time) the praetorians of the status quo re-emerged to nearly hen-peck the program to death. Why? Because the departure of program champions and the coincidental arrival of an altogether new level of transparency in program/technical matters as a consequence of the information revolution altered how the new government leaders were forced to address risk; the sausage-making common to aircraft development now became very public in unprecedented ways. And when there were new problems (which there always are) they were blamed on the new approach to systems engineering. That was the game changer — risk tolerance over very common problems got very, very small.”

Sounds strangely familiar doesn’t it? :wink:

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: disconnectedradical, Google [Bot] and 46 guests