With all due respect, I like to disagree. Given an NGAD demonstrator has been flown already, I think USA in principle has a conceptual understanding of what they want out of NGAD and the whole system of systems.
Certainly. What
is a 6th gen tho, what it entails? Can whatever comes out of NGAD be called 6th gen? 5th gen was networked warfare, stealth and supercruise. 4th gen was fly by wire and higher maneuverability, and first real instance of a multi role fighter. I'm not seeing any great leaps from 5th to 6th for now. Nothing game changer. "6th gen" has become a buzzword, I think that was made clear when Northrop dubbed B-21 as a "6th generation aircraft". That's bs, there have been at least 7-8 generations of aircraft since Wright brothers. It's semantics, yes, but I love semantics.
Edit, ooh, my 1000th message.
edit 2.
I think using fighter gens for drones and future unmanned fighters takes away from their potential, of what could really be possible. We are now in a century of war, costs will have to lower, or we can't have wars. Attritability is the name of the game.
This was a good recent piece.
The key to victory will rely on the adoption of weapon systems simplistic in design, rapidly reproducible and highly lethal.
www.defensenews.com
"The idea of securing every inch of a complex weapon system’s supply chain — while an imperative — is perhaps a near-impossible task. A forward-thinking way to solve this problem is to design and produce war machines that are as simplistic as a paper airplane and as easily replaced as a toy tank, but highly lethal."
Maybe 6th gen fighters won't cost 100 million apiece but 20 million apiece. Maybe 6th gen is unmanned and NGAD is just an F-22 replacement, but not a 6th gen, although it will be dubbed that way. If KE is a 50-60 million dolar drone fighter, losing it in combat is still akin to losing an F-16 cost wise. How many 50 million dollar planes can we lose and still call it a victory? 15-20?