Among other topics, the research effort will work closely on what 6th–generation fighter aircraft technologies will be needed to build an aircraft to succeed the 5th–generation F-35...DoD Buzz
via Yahoo
The Pentagon said on Wednesday its fiscal 2016 budget proposal will fund early technology development and prototyping of a "next-generation X-plane" that would eventually succeed the F-35 fighter jet being developed and built by Lockheed Martin Corp.Don't listen to the talking points.
Defense Undersecretary Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's chief arms buyer, said the funding would be part of a new "aerospace innovation initiative" aimed at ensuring that the U.S. military continued to dominate the skies despite development of so-called fifth-generation stealth fighters by China and others.
He told the House Armed Services Committee the initiative would be headed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, with help from the Air Force and the Navy.
Speaking with reporters during a break in the hearing, Kendall declined to give details on the amount of funding involved in the new initiative since the Pentagon's budget will not be delivered to Congress until Monday.
Watch the budget.
And what does this budget request tell us? It says that the F-35 is a complete and utter failure. It says that it will not deliver as promised and that the services will make it work...at least for awhile, but that a replacement needs to be worked on now.
Have you noticed something else? We don't hear talk about the F-35 serving until 2050 anymore. Also consider this. Before this airplane has made it into service the replacement is being planned.
Please no STOVL requirement.
ReplyDeleteYou can ask for a 400 m STOL like what Gripen's doing right now, but please no STOVL.
Bye-bye F-35, don't let the door hit ya.
ReplyDeleteYou are being replaced by a better less complicated plane with a proper engine. We won't let China steal the plans on this project to be "headed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, with help from the Air Force and the Navy." --We are tired of the Bogdan types and we need a properly managed program run by technically qualified people and not kiss-ass sycophants who substitute misplaced optimism, for intelligent program management and informed technical decisions..
Now let's get after that phony "combat capable" label they want to pin on the Failed F-35 this July, and also knock out any increased prototype production they have in mind.
Breaking Defense defense has a story up about the air force putting 105's back on the must have list for the AC130J gunships. Another acknowledgement that the are expecting the F35 not to cut it for CAS?
ReplyDeleteHere is a better source.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/01/28/sixth-generation-fighter-2016-budget/22477329/
It's a new "Air Dominance" fighter project, ie an F-22 replacement, NOT something that will compete for the F-35's mission set.
More details will be in Feb 2nd budget.
Day 1. F-35 is cheap workhorse
DeleteDay 2. F-35 is not-cheap but super air dominating
Today: F-35 is..not-cheap and not air dominating?
F-35's marketing can be quite confusing...
absolutely spot on Jokuvaan
DeleteThe F-35 was NEVER put forward as an "Air-Dominance" platform, that was ALWAYS the F-22.
DeleteSorry Spud, your source only mentions the F-35.
Delete""The work will eventually "lead to the systems that will ultimately come after the F-35," he said, adding that "part of the program is an airframe-oriented program with those X- plane prototypes." Another is a jet engine development program "for the next generation, also competitive prototypes for the next generation propulsion.""
"It will be a program that will be initially led by DARPA," Kendall said, "but it will involve the Navy and the Air Force as well. And the intent is to develop prototypes for the next generation of air dominance platforms, X-Plane programs, if you will."
DeleteDid you notice that you are quoting the ONLY mention in that article of the F-35. IT also cam in the second to the last paragraph.
Unfortunately we do not have the exact testimony that he gave in front of Congress, only a reporter's interpretation thereof.
Like I said before, we will have to wait for the Feb 2nd budget docs to get a better idea of what it entails.
One thing is clear, nothing in the article hits to an early end or reduced buy for the F-35.
Except the existence of this new program, which is being instituted before the F-35 has even been properly certified.
DeleteIt's a 'prepare for the worst' move, a hedge, and you're being willfully blind if you can't see it.
What a ridicilous argument.
ReplyDeleteHow the hell do you make a huge claim of ''utter failure'' without even knowng the numbers in budget, considering that LRIPs continue rolling on and next Blocks of F-35 are in the works.
Grasping at straws.
6th gen aircraft is not meant to be a replacement for F-35 - both of them will fly together as F-15 and F-16 have been doing for decade.
Besides, knowing the production rates and pathological procurement problems that Pentagon has, 6th gen jet will be entering service en masse by late 2030s.
By that time,F-35 will be owning the skies for more than two decades.
There is nothing unique in this case about USAF looking ahead of the time before current plane enters IOC fully.
your desperation is obvious and my argument not only makes sense but points to a problem in our acquisition system.
Deletethe fact that you REFUSE to see the problem in a 20 year development cycle for an airplane tells more about you and lax expectations than it does about the issue at hand.
Elderrerr
DeleteIf we rewind back the clock to the beginning of original JSF X-plane competition in 1995, the JSF would be operational by 2012.
Going by same schedule, the 6th gen jet could be ready by 2032, and then the USAF and USN could stop buying the F-35 and switch over to the 6th gen jet by 2030.
This is entirely possible, as long as Lockheed Martin is not allowed to compete.
I said this in the other thread but I guess you didnt read it.
DeleteShameless copy.Lets take everyones adored ''stepchild'' ie F-22.
F-22 was in development for +15 years.
Its oxygen issue was fixed only two years ago.
It was a bug-ridden mess for 20 years since its inception.
Its ''outdated''.
Its computing power relies on mid-90s Cray supercomputer that my laptop in benchmarks would wipe the floor.
F-22 CIP, capable of performing 700 Million, up to 2 Billion instructions per second.
i7 2600K, capable of performing 128 Billion instructions per second.
i7 980X, capable of performing 147 Billion instructions per second.
i7 3960x, capable of performing 177 billion instructions per second.
Yet everyone daydreams (read:hallucinates) about restarting F-22 line - nevermind the fact that airframe would have to redesgined for fit as youd clearly want - modern radars,modern sensors,modern computing power.
De facto, look at all programs - everyone that entered service has been ''outdated''.
Its fucking idiotic,moronic to pretend that F-35 is some sort of ''unique'' case in this.
Zumwalts software - and lets not forget the ship is practically a sailing computer - and the requirements have been in works for almost a decade too.
Its architecture also relies on the computing power that was ''topnotch'' at best +5 years ago.
Lockheed now allow to compete?
DeleteThe naivete is nauseating - their lobby with buy everyone and everything to get next program in their pockets.
Watch Northrop loose LRSB contract.Just watch.
If DARPA is just getting the tech dev stage now then we are 5-10 years from even an X-Plane contract (+3-5 years), then there is SDD after than (+12-15 years). That's 20-30 years from today before IOC.
DeleteNo way in hell 6th gen is operational "en masse" in the 2030's.
SpudmanWP
DeleteWell, the US is back to sort of a cold war with China, so projects must move faster.
If that were true then they would accelerate F-35 SDD and Post-SDD dev, not stretch it out.
DeleteEven the F-22 took 24 years to go from "Requirement" to IOC. The whole 6th gen issue is not even at the "Requirement" stage yet.
Just to refresh your memories on the F-22 timeline:
1981 - Requirement
1986 - X-Plane contracts signed
1990 - First flight of the YF-22
1991 - SDD Contract
1997 - F-22 First Flight
2005 (December) - IOC
SpudmanWP
DeleteAnd our timeline would be
2012 - Requirements
2017 - X-Plane contracts signed.
2021 - First flight
2022 - Somebody other than Lockheed gets the deal
2028 - First Flight
2032 - IOC
You seemed to have missed the fact that we are not even at the "Requirements" stage yet.
DeleteBut as I said, the Feb2 budget docs will provide more details as to exactly what is being budgeted.
SpudmanWP
Delete"Requirements" must be classified like the LRS-B, because Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrop wouldn't be showing their concepts without a requirement somewhere since 2012.
http://blog.executivebiz.com/2015/01/tom-vice-northrop-prepares-to-compete-for-navy-air-force-nextgen-fighter-programs/
Col. Tom Coglitore, chief of air superiority core function team at Air Combat Command, told the publication in September the branch could launch its F-X air dominance acquisition program in early fiscal 2018.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWe are not talking about LRS-B requirements, but this so-called 6th gen fighter Requirements.
DeleteDid you even read the article you linked to? Here is the first sentence:
"Northrop Grumman has formed two internal teams to design and build a “sixth-generation” fighter in anticipation of future aircraft requirements at the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy, Defense News reported Thursday."
Did you notice the word "anticipation"? In other words, the Requirements have not been set yet so no "2012 Requirements" date.
Did you see the quote from Kendall where he stated that they do not even know if it will be manned or unmanned?
They are years from setting requirements.
As far as Col. Coglitore, I'd like to see the actual quote because I think he was misquoted. If he means X-Plane contract start by 2018, then maybe.
It looks like a lot of people are confused about what an X-Plane is, and I missed this as well.
DeleteAn X-Plane is not a prototype of a production requirement, but a plane built to explore technology that "might" find it's way into a production plane.
The DoD just muddied the waters when they named the JSF contest planes X-32 and X-35 as they should have been YF-32 and YF-35.
Examples of recent manned X-planes that fit this criteria are the X-29/31/36/39/44/53.
Now, read the articles in context of the classic definition of X-Planes and the make more sense.
are you really that deep into the F-35 that you refuse to see the obvious? your baby. your sweet airplane that was suppose to guarantee US supremacy in the sky and be a jack of all trades is anything but! this article can be read upside down and the results are the same. they're working on a replacement before this flying piece of shit even enters ACCELERATED service. oh and lets not fool ourselves. it won't really be ready for action until 2019 at best (have you read the latest about the software issues with this puppy?)...the former Commandant, that diseased piece of shit simply played games and is trying to turn off the heat. even this budget is a hail mary pass. they're trying desperately to lower the price so they MIGHT be able to make the programmed buy but just like everything else with this program its simply throwing good money after bad.
DeleteWANT TO KNOW THE MOST SICKENING THING ABOUT THIS???? the bastards that wear stars in the Pentagon always talk about saving money, operating like a business etc...but in the end they do the samething. they cut people that laid it on the line for their fucked up strategies and they buy useless toys while needed gear can't even get funding (AAV replacement)...so no. you can't twist or spin this shit Spudman, its a heaping pile of manure and the only thing that will take care of it are barrels of diesel fuel.
Elderrerr
ReplyDeleteJust ban Lockheed Martin from competing as a prime contractor and problem solved.
Lockheed Martin has a serious management problem. They already botched the F-22 and the F-35 program, they must not be allowed to botch the 6th gen program.
Its not Lockheed as such, its the way procurement and the system works.
DeleteThey get away with it because no one in Pentagon can stand up for the nightmare of lawsuits that would ensue,theyd cost more than the programs themselves.
The sum of government contractors - it is a much larger group than the mere Military Industrial Complex, which is only a subset - has since 1990 successfully intimidated the US Government. This is not corruption or incompetence. It is intimidation. In the US government, they essentially have the perfect customer- it prioritizes quality over cost; it barely makes a noise when deliverables are late; and it's willing to accept delivery of incomplete goods with promises to complete later. The Obamacare fiasco with CGI Federal isn't surprising in fact - its the norm. It is entirely the normal procedure for the government to accept ownership of something partially done and pay the contractor well for that. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter by Lockheed Martin has been flying for a good 5 years now, but still has only about 20% of it's software written. It could be until the mid 2020s before all the software for the F-35 is written. What does that translate to? It can't fire some weapons and lacks fundamental capability.
DeleteSo how did it get to be like this? Because the government canceling a contract is extremely hard. As the letter of the law, it isn't hard. It's fair. But contractors take the government to court and litigate for years. In 1991 Dick Cheney canceled (as Secretary of Defense) the A-12 Avenger II stealth attack aircraft program. MacDonald Douglas was building it. The contract for it was their golden ticket. But in the early 1990s business declined for them, and the cancellation of the A-12 for a mere $2 billion cost overrun was the killing blow essentially. They sued the Government. The two are STILL in litigation, over 20 years later. Cancellation of a contract turned into a 20 year lawsuit. And on top of that, to make matters worse for the government, the cancellation was blamed for killing MD, which was absorbed by Boeing, which continued the suit.
So to sum it up, from canceling one contract, the government got in return MORE industry consolidation (which raised costs) and a lawsuit for it's troubles. What didn't it get? A Navy stealth attack aircraft.
no we got consolidation because Bush pushed another flawed economic policy that for some strange reason thought that fewer defense contractors would somehow be a benefit to the nation. you can blame that idiot for the mess that is the current defense industry.
Deleteadditionally the reason why its so hard to cancel a project is because the govt doesn't hold contractors feet to the fire which is another indication of corruption. there is no way that Lockheed Martin should be earning bonuses OR getting more orders but they do because they have the US govt by the balls...not the other way around.
Slowman is right. the only real solution is to bar LM from competing on the next gen fighter and to simply award a sole source contract to Boeing.
THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO GET THE PLANE ON TIME!!!! besides it'll give us adult designers instead of pussified fools that are better at propaganda than engineering.
Boeing can't handle a simple Tanker contract, what makes you so sure it can deliver a 6th Gen fighter without Dev issues?
DeleteYou have my blessing to start ''Ban LM from ever getting involved in USAF!''.
DeleteJust dont stress about it too much,the odds of getting a heart-attack are greater than achieveing anything like that.
I`ll be laughing and crying when they get LRSB contract, mark my words.
Eldererr
Delete> You have my blessing to start ''Ban LM from ever getting involved in USAF!''.
Not a permanent ban, but sort of a probation. No more bid participation in contracts worth more than $5 billion until Lockheed demonstrates it could deliver on time and on budget on half a dozen smaller projects.
Eldererr
Delete> I`ll be laughing and crying when they get LRSB contract, mark my words.
Lockheed is not competing as a prime contractor in the LRS-B program; it's Boeing(Lockheed is Boeing's subcontractor) vs Northrop.
The same bidding structure should apply to the next X-plane contest.
if the LRSB goes forward...which i seriously doubt...ain't no way LM will win. Northrop is everyone's favorite, they have the know how, they don't have the terrible reputation from two FUCKED UP stealth programs and they've built bombers before.
Deleteyou know the USAF isn't serious about the plane when they talk about 500 million dollars a copy. it ain't gonna happen. that's why you have airplanes being named like they're ships. they're so fucking expensive they're no longer worth the effort.
SlowMan
Delete''Not a permanent ban, but sort of a probation. No more bid participation in contracts worth more than $5 billion until Lockheed demonstrates it could deliver on time and on budget on half a dozen smaller projects.''
Name me a company which has ever done that.
Textron AirLand doesnt count.
LRSB is happening. The hard-cap price is reasonable in fact - it`ll be built with pre-existing technology unlike F-35 which is a high-tech voodoo machine.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/01/18/air-force-bomber-industry/21805275/
Easy. Nationalize Lockheed Martin or break it up a la AT&T. Finding the legal justification shouldn't be too hard.
DeleteThere probably already very close to giving NG the LRS-B contract with all their secret work in the desert... should know shortly. Might even see reports of strange sightings within the next year or two..
DeleteCharley :
Deletehttp://theaviationist.com/2014/04/23/two-different-black-projects/
Odds are, protot-prototype of LRSB is already flying.
Yea, but Boeing uses its money to cover for its delays - unlike Lockheed Martin. And a year delay on the KC-46, compared to the multiyear delays with F-22 and F-35 - and more than doubling of the unit costs? No comparison. The F/A-XX would be here in 2025 if the Navy was allowed to divert its F-35 money - and not have to develop a tri-service aircraft. It takes discipline to develop aircraft. If everyone has a seat at the table, you get a F-35.
ReplyDeleteBoeing wins -- news report:
ReplyDeleteBOEING WAS NO. 1 LAST YEAR IN DEFENSE LOBBYING: Boeing topped all other major defense firms in spending last year to lobby Congress and executive agencies as it fought successfully to stave off a tea party-backed effort to kill the Export-Import Bank that finances many of its deals abroad. The aerospace giant spent $16.7 million on lobbying last year, edging out United Technologies, which spent $15.5 million, and Lockheed Martin, which spent $14.4 million.
This isn't ground breaking or really a surprise.....
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/u-air-force-picks-boeing-747-8-replace-200607308--finance.html
The first thing I thought after ready this was: "how did that concurrency work out for BA? and wonder how many "terrible teen" JSFs we are buying that will never be integrated with the fleet?"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2015/01/28/boeing-insists-it-can-sell-the-so-called-terrible.html?ana=yahoo&page=all
Well, at least BA has the consolation of still being the provider of Air Force One.
Wonder if the 6th gen teams can cheat like the X-35 LM team did and not have to demo weapons bays. Then admit later they goofed weight assumptions of the aircraft (Burbage statement).
ReplyDeleteOr simply go over-budget on the prototype, hit an auto-lose condition, and have it waved away. Even as the aircraft requirements are changed to screw over the company that actually followed the rules.
DeleteNot kicking LM out of the competition for breaking their budget was the DOD's first big mistake. Every other failure in this program has come from their increasing inability to say 'get the fuck out!".
---"The F-35 was NEVER put forward as an "Air-Dominance" platform, that was ALWAYS the F-22."--- That is history revisionism. LM brief to Israel 2007 (and other briefs). F-35 is a "go-it-alone" aircraft.
ReplyDeleteAgree Eric. If it's not an air-dominance fighter, why does LMT insist on showing it shooting down Su27s in all it's animations/videos?
DeleteSo USAF wants the F35, new tanker coming up, new bomber, new 6th Gen fighter requirements and now, we need to worry about replacing Minuteman.....I wonder if Vegas has the odds out if this will ever see the day or by how much the contractor will be over budget, this actually might make the F35 budget look reasonable.....
ReplyDeletehttp://aviationweek.com/defense/strategic-cruise-missile-defined-usaf-seeks-minuteman-replacement
Time for some F-15G "wild weasel" new builds along with some F-16 block 70 or XL variant for TAC air.
ReplyDelete20+ years to develop and get into operating shape? And of course we know that the DoD never changes its mind mid stream on requirements that the project needs to cover.
ReplyDelete"The prototype NA-73X airframe (P-51 Mustang) was rolled out on 9 September 1940, 102 days after the contract was signed and, with an engine installed, first flew on 26 October."
Gone are the days when the U.S. could do such amazing things.
"USS Casablanca CVE-55, first of the class, was commissioned 8 July 1943. The building program was completed 8 July 1944. During this period, fifty of the Casablanca-class carriers were built at an average rate of almost one ship a week."
The U.S. does not have the ship building expertise to accomplish this feat these days.
What kind of precedent are we setting for oursleves when we take this long to design, build and deploy something as critical as items that will ensure our Nation and our way of life? When initial requirements are written down and agreed upon, why are we letting the manufacturer slide on those agreed upon milestones and requirements? And then continuing to pay them bonuses like they are doing something right?
I just can't get my head around it.
Lockheed gets its head around it -- LM stock rose 32% in the last year because they can afford to buy full publicity for their propaganda including that from the project office., the government arm of Lockheed on F-35.
DeleteYou're forgetting that those programs were started during war-time, a particularly pressing war-time at that. We still have the ability to rapidly design, build, and field equipment - you just (sadly) have to have a pressing need AT THAT MOMENT.
DeleteCase in point: The MRAP.
In light of the casualties due to IED's and ambushes in Iraq/Afghanistan around 2004, urgent needs requirements went out (after the Marines fielded early MRAPS and had significant casualty reductions). A standard of protection was set, COTS vehicles were designed/redesigned, evaluated and approved for production from early 2005-2007 with limited fielding of various vehicles during that time frame.
By 2012, several companies had delivered almost 30,000-40,000 vehicles, such as the Cougar 4x4/6x6, RG-31, RG-33 4x4/6x6, RG-35, Caiman 4x4/6x6, MaxxPro, MaxxPro Dash, and M-ATV across several programs such as the:
1. Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP) program,
2. Medium Mine Protected Vehicle (MMPV) program, and
3. Joint-Explosive Rapid Response Vehicle (JERRV) program.
Were they perfect? Absolutely not. Did they do what they were designed to do? Yup. And now, industry has designed, adapted, and leveraged the technology used in those vehicles into long-term solutions for the future of ground combat (HMMWV Recaps).
It is asinine though that a need has to be smacking us in the face before we can do something.