USAF/US NAVY 6G Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS news

I think what will happen is that large numbers of UAVs with relatively small payload capacity are simply bought in larger numbers rather than dedicated interdiction airframes. But I think manned bombers will continue for some time.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think what will happen is that large numbers of UAVs with relatively small payload capacity are simply bought in larger numbers rather than dedicated interdiction airframes. But I think manned bombers will continue for some time.
Click to expand...
May be, probably depends on range of the interdiction needed.
 
Let's wait and see with the 100 CCAs by 2029, I would like that to happen but at the same time I am highly cautious.
 
I suspect that is not a heavy lift for GA, and probably not Anduril either considering they made the cut. Both vendors have an off shelf vehicle that could carry a pair of AIM-120s externally, and I think that’s all the USAF is looking for for Incr 1 if you can meet their development and production deadlines. The USAF mantra now is “speed to ramp”, and I suspect the team that can deliver the the most aircraft in the smallest space of time is the winner.
 
FighterJock said:
Let's wait and see with the 100 CCAs by 2029, I would like that to happen but at the same time I am highly cautious.
Click to expand...

It's an incredibly long timeline for what are very nearly production ready pieces today. 2027 would be somewhat ambitious.
 
Question:

Has there been any discussion as to whether the Strike Eagles would be replaced by NGAD or if NGAD is purely air superiority?

Because honestly, if you spec out NGAD to have a 125klb MTOW and bays big enough for ~24-27klbs of ordnance, it'd be flying at ~105k MTOW in a pure air-to-air loadout with some 40klbs of fuel onboard. Even if that was a pretty absurd 16x BVRAAM and 4x WVRAAM loadout.

Though honestly, I don't expect the NGAD to be designed around more than about 10klbs internal. 4x2000lb bombs, 2x AMRAAM-sized, 2x Sidewinders. Not that the USAF would fly with bombs in the bays very often, I just mean in terms of having enough space for 2000lb bombs or an SM6 or SM2 Active minus booster (~4.8m long weapons) for absurd range shots.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Question:

Has there been any discussion as to whether the Strike Eagles would be replaced by NGAD or if NGAD is purely air superiority?

Because honestly, if you spec out NGAD to have a 125klb MTOW and bays big enough for ~24-27klbs of ordnance, it'd be flying at ~105k MTOW in a pure air-to-air loadout with some 40klbs of fuel onboard. Even if that was a pretty absurd 16x BVRAAM and 4x WVRAAM loadout.

Though honestly, I don't expect the NGAD to be designed around more than about 10klbs internal. 4x2000lb bombs, 2x AMRAAM-sized, 2x Sidewinders. Not that the USAF would fly with bombs in the bays very often, I just mean in terms of having enough space for 2000lb bombs or an SM6 or SM2 Active minus booster (~4.8m long weapons) for absurd range shots.
Click to expand...

I think it’s a fair question but one no one is asking this early in the NGAD cycle. But it basically is an F-111/15E ish sized thing with internal bays.
 
Purpletrouble said:
Those famous immortal words “very nearly ready”. Oh that did give me a chuckle.

To change the subject entirely, are you interested in buying a bridge I happen to have for sale…? One careful owner.
Click to expand...

Well XQ-67 has certainly flown, so that seems fairly near ready for anything that uses most of those components. Fury seems like more of a stretch and I’d be pretty surprised if they won this thing.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think it’s a fair question but one no one is asking this early in the NGAD cycle. But it basically is an F-111/15E ish sized thing with internal bays.
Click to expand...
It gets into how big you're making the bays. For example, the F22 has bays that are too shallow to hold much of anything bigger than an SDB or maybe a 500lb JDAM. While the A12 bays were explicitly sized for 2000lb LGBs, and JSF bays were sized for 2000lb JDAM depth and JDAM+AMRAAM width.

And "How big are the bays going to be" is the kind of question you really NEED to ask now!
 
Scott Kenny said:
Q-58s are in production. MQ-28 Ghost Bats have at least 5 flying examples, and will be in service (as in, already contracted) either this year or 2025.
Click to expand...

Only Anduril or General Atomics is in the running for this production run. GA certainly has the capacity; they practically invented the U.S. MALE UAV market. The inclusion of Anduril is curious.
 
Re: CCA weapons bays. My guess is that AAMs will be carried externally on the first increment of CCAs. The XQ-67 appears to about the size of the XQ-58. The latter only has released an expendable drone from its weapons bay, but nothing larger.

But why not build a CCA around around the requirement to carry two AMRAAM sized weapons carried internally? AMRAAM is about a third the size of the XQ-58. The main tactical advantage of carrying missiles internally would be that it would preserve the low observable signature of the CCAs and whatever manned/unmanned formation that is conducting the counter air mission. Would it need to? Could the CCAs with external weapons act to a decoy that masks the manned element? Or would it announce its presence?

The critical question is what is the concept of operations for the CCAs in the air to air fight? F-35 flights and elements fly at much greater distances from each other. Would this be the case with CCAs? Would they operate independently? Or would they operate as an extension of the manned element, like a loyal wingman? That would somewhat depend on the type of sensors carried by the CCA, the range of the aircraft and sensors, and the range of its weapons.

To keep the cost of the CCAs down, it is highly likely that they would not have similar sensors to manned platforms. Maybe mainly just passives ones? IRST? Would relying on off board sensors be enough to target and engage enemy aircraft? It would seem they would need to operate closer to the controlling manned element and would need to be low observable.

Key trade offs for the first increment of CCAs will be:
Size, internal weapons load, sensors, range, speed, runway independence, stealth, cost

It will be interesting what the AF comes up with.
 
B2Blain said:
Re: CCA weapons bays. My guess is that AAMs will be carried externally on the first increment of CCAs. The XQ-67 appears to about the size of the XQ-58. The latter only has released an expendable drone from its weapons bay, but nothing larger.

But why not build a CCA around around the requirement to carry two AMRAAM sized weapons carried internally? AMRAAM is about a third the size of the XQ-58. The main tactical advantage of carrying missiles internally would be that it would preserve the low observable signature of the CCAs and whatever manned/unmanned formation that is conducting the counter air mission. Would it need to? Could the CCAs with external weapons act to a decoy that masks the manned element? Or would it announce its presence?

The critical question is what is the concept of operations for the CCAs in the air to air fight? F-35 flights and elements fly at much greater distances from each other. Would this be the case with CCAs? Would they operate independently? Or would they operate as an extension of the manned element, like a loyal wingman? That would somewhat depend on the type of sensors carried by the CCA, the range of the aircraft and sensors, and the range of its weapons.

To keep the cost of the CCAs down, it is highly likely that they would not have similar sensors to manned platforms. Maybe mainly just passives ones? IRST? Would relying on off board sensors be enough to target and engage enemy aircraft? It would seem they would need to operate closer to the controlling manned element and would need to be low observable.

Key trade offs for the first increment of CCAs will be:
Size, internal weapons load, sensors, range, speed, runway independence, stealth, cost

It will be interesting what the AF comes up with.
Click to expand...

+1

There’s no way the two venders produce an internal AAM capable aircraft. Both are sub 10,000 lb platforms and you cannot just bolt a bomb bay that takes an AAM that is, by itself, half the length of the entire aircraft. Incr 1 will not have internal weapons.
 
Purpletrouble said:
Those famous immortal words “very nearly ready”. Oh that did give me a chuckle.
Click to expand...

It's entirely possible, as XQ-58 has spent the past 6 years never getting a production order, but the Marines seem at least interested now. Kratos certainly has the capacity to tool up too, even if they lack the contracts to afford to do so, so it's not like Q-58 is some impossible hurdle.
 
Kat Tsun said:
It's entirely possible, as XQ-58 has spent the past 6 years never getting a production order, but the Marines seem at least interested now. Kratos certainly has the capacity to tool up too, even if they lack the contracts to afford to do so, so it's not like Q-58 is some impossible hurdle.
Click to expand...
The aircraft you are describing are X-35 equivalents. Concept demonstrators.

The manufacturer literally describe it as experimental.

This is where enthusiasm and reality depart.
 
Purpletrouble said:
The aircraft you are describing are X-35 equivalents. Concept demonstrators.

The manufacturer literally describe it as experimental.

This is where enthusiasm and reality depart.
Click to expand...

Considering the RAAF already has a squadron, expanding to a wing, of MQ-28s, which is Q-58's direct competitor, well...

"Concept demonstrator" is a stretch when the concept is extremely modest in physical and digital terms. Unlike X-35 which was actually novel for its time, Q-58's a tiny UCAV with a single weapons bay for a pair of SDBs (at most) and a very boring turbofan. It's not exactly "state-of-the-art" in any sense of the word.

Right now it is just waiting for a production order, which it may get from the Marines, and no one else.

The Air Force simply isn't interested, probably because it's (rightfully) afraid it will impinge on JSF, NGAD, and NGB orders/funds, while the Navy isn't interested because they don't care about planes, and both would be more interested in front loading their manned fighter numbers before committing to a robotic plane that will make those platforms harder to justify in the future.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Yeah, because they had to basically hyperinspect the aircraft after discovering a bunch of mini liquor bottles stashed in it. (Fault of Boeing Commercial)

And then they could start work on the updates: gut all the old electrical system to install the new USAF one that's EMP shielded. Install additional fuel piping for the Air Refueling receptacle. Probably 5x the generator power.

Oh, and that's after they get all the workers cleared Yankee White to be able to work on Presidential Transports, which takes a year or more.


EB is effectively a separate entity from NG, and it's a USN project. Changing specifications after the area has been built is depressingly normal for the USN...
Click to expand...
Well, Electric Boat is owned by General Dynamics . . .
 
Josh_TN said:
There’s no way the two venders produce an internal AAM capable aircraft. Both are sub 10,000 lb platforms and you cannot just bolt a bomb bay that takes an AAM that is, by itself, half the length of the entire aircraft. Incr 1 will not have internal weapons.
Click to expand...
Sure you can. Remember that an AMRAAM is ~350lbs, carrying two of those is easy for a 10klb platform. Crud, you could probably stuff 2 of them into a 3500lb platform (Tomahawk or ALCM).
 
Scott Kenny said:
Sure you can. Remember that an AMRAAM is ~350lbs, carrying two of those is easy for a 10klb platform. Crud, you could probably stuff 2 of them into a 3500lb platform (Tomahawk or ALCM).
Click to expand...

I think they can carry the weight easily. XQ-58 is supposed to carry 600 lbs internally and 600 lbs more on the wings; that’s nearly four missiles. But trying to fit a 12’ missile inside a 30’ aircraft is going to run into problems with volume and load bearing structure. I do not see any place on Fury or XQ-67 that could support a twelve foot/four meter long moving bay door.
 
Sundog said:
When they say 10% more thrust, they mean for a given weight of engine. It doesn't necessarily mean the baseline size is the F135. The mission profile(s) will determine the optimum size of the engine. So, if the T/W ratio of the F135 is 10 (because it's an easy number), then the NGAD engine will have a thrust to weight ratio of 11.
Click to expand...
Remember that the variable cycle three stream engines have an additional internal fan duct, additional variable geometry & actuators, and probably a more complicated nozzle. Don’t bet on a higher thrust to weight ratio unless some other technology insertions such metal matrix composites for compressor and / or turbine disks comes to fruition.
 
F119Doctor said:
Remember that the variable cycle three stream engines have an additional internal fan duct, additional variable geometry & actuators, and probably a more complicated nozzle. Don’t bet on a higher thrust to weight ratio unless some other technology insertions such metal matrix composites for compressor and / or turbine disks comes to fruition.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that's definitely a very good point I hadn't considered. As with everything in aviation, nothing's free. Weight vs. performance.
 
F119Doctor said:
Remember that the variable cycle three stream engines have an additional internal fan duct, additional variable geometry & actuators, and probably a more complicated nozzle. Don’t bet on a higher thrust to weight ratio unless some other technology insertions such metal matrix composites for compressor and / or turbine disks comes to fruition.
Click to expand...
Unless the YF120 tech and balancing gets dug out of storage...
 
Scott Kenny said:
Unless the YF120 tech and balancing gets dug out of storage...
Click to expand...
The YF120 had lots of supercruise thrust, but was very thirsty. I saw YF-22 / YF-119 at minimum AB holding the same supersonic flight point as the YF120 supercruise demo, burning 1000 lbs/hour less than the YF120 fuel burn quoted in Aviation Week. I don’t know how good the YF120 SFC was in its high bypass mode in subsonic cruise, but I have my doubts it was as good as many believe.
 
I was mostly referring to the very lightweight and fully automatic mode switching based on various internal air pressures. IIRC, YF120 was maybe 10lbs heavier than the YF119. Nope, 200lbs heavier. It was the variable cycle gear that added 10lbs to the engine weight.

F119Doctor said:
The YF120 had lots of supercruise thrust, but was very thirsty. I saw YF-22 / YF-119 at minimum AB holding the same supersonic flight point as the YF120 supercruise demo, burning 1000 lbs/hour less than the YF120 fuel burn quoted in Aviation Week. I don’t know how good the YF120 SFC was in its high bypass mode in subsonic cruise, but I have my doubts it was as good as many believe.
Click to expand...
But holy crap is that absurdly thirsty!
 
Elysium said:
Is there a chance that the USAF (not Navy) NGAD might simply not materialize? What would be its niche that the F-35 and B-21 (both likely be relevant for half a century) can't fill?
Click to expand...
Think we've hammered this one to death already, but the primary niche is replacing F15C/D and F22s. At least replacing them in the Pacific theater. F15s and F22s are still good enough to fly over Europe, though they really need to be based in Germany or Poland not UK.

Longer range than an F22 with VLO drop tanks, and I'm seeing a ferry range of 1740nmi with non-stealthy fuel tanks. Combat radius seems to shake out to about 1/3 of Ferry Range. The F22 has 26klbs of fuel onboard with drop tanks.

F-35s are strikers, only carry 2x AMRAAM normally and IIRC 6x AMRAAM with the new racks that replace the 2000lb bombs.
B-21s are strategic range medium bombers. Longer range than the B2 but roughly half the bomb load. Don't even ask one to do air-to-air.
F-15C/Ds are reaching their end of service life, but I'm expecting most of the Eagle squadrons in the continental US and any in Europe to get EXs.

I really hope someone is on the ball with an F-15E replacement long range interdictor out of the NGAD, even if that means a ~125k-150klb MTOW variant. Design the weapons bays to be deep enough to hold 2000lb bombs, not just AMRAAMs, and do that in the first place. Like the F-111, how the -B model was designed as a "fighter", okay, Fleet Air Defense BARCAP, and the other versions were designed as bombers.
 
Scott Kenny said:
F-15C/Ds are reaching their end of service life, but I'm expecting most of the Eagle squadrons in the continental US and any in Europe to get EXs.
Click to expand...

www.twz.com

F-15EX Fleet To Be Cut Down To 98 Jets In New Air Force Budget

The USAF is still trying to get a handle on how many F-15EXs it actually wants, but how many it really needs is another question.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

The currently planned 100 or so (changes a bit every month it seems) are enough to equip 5 squadrons.
18 jets per squadron and no dedicated training squadron means 5 front line squadrons. 3 of those have already been named: Oregon, Californa and Louisiana ANG. Meaning there's room for 2 more squadrons to re-equip with the F-15EX.

The remaining 3 F-15C/D ANG squadrons will get F-35A.
This leaves the 8 F-15E squadrons. But there's also the possibility that Kadena will regain permantly based jets. So that's 8-10 squadrons...
My bet is Kadena will get the F-15EX. The F-15E force will shrink with no direct replacement in sight. Unless more F-15EX will be bought...
 
eagle said:
www.twz.com

F-15EX Fleet To Be Cut Down To 98 Jets In New Air Force Budget

The USAF is still trying to get a handle on how many F-15EXs it actually wants, but how many it really needs is another question.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

The currently planned 100 or so (changes a bit every month it seems) are enough to equip 5 squadrons.
18 jets per squadron and no dedicated training squadron means 5 front line squadrons. 3 of those have already been named: Oregon, Californa and Louisiana ANG. Meaning there's room for 2 more squadrons to re-equip with the F-15EX.
Click to expand...
I think they're going to have to have some flavor of conversion/training squadron. I doubt it will be full strength, though. I'd guess half strength, ~8-10 birds, though.

And as a result I suspect that Europe will get one of those EX squadrons. I'd put the last one in Japan until the NGAD arrives, then move the F-15EX to Europe.

At 18 birds per squadron, you can get 5 full squadrons and 8x more for your conversion squadron out of 98 planes.

(Also, 18 birds per squadron? I thought it was 12 or 16 birds, 3-4 4-ship flights? Or is that 12-16 in flying condition plus a couple more birds for readiness?)

eagle said:
This leaves the 8 F-15E squadrons. But there's also the possibility that Kadena will regain permantly based jets. So that's 8-10 squadrons...
My bet is Kadena will get the F-15EX. The F-15E force will shrink with no direct replacement in sight. Unless more F-15EX will be bought...
Click to expand...
No, I think the F-15Es need to be replaced by a "Strike NGAD" not by an F-15EX. Even with CFTs, F-15E/EX just don't have the range for the Pacific. One look at NGAD I did gave it a ~3400nmi combat range on ~40klbs internal fuel, basically double that of the F-111B and about 4x better than the F-15E (if that ~700nmi Combat Range number is correct, of course). A "Strike NGAD" would need at least that much range, while carrying about 2x-3x the bombload.

I wouldn't expect the "Strike NGAD" to be built until the end of the A2A NGAD production run, though, since the F-15Es will still have fatigue life left through about 2050.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom