- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,702
- Reaction score
- 7,559

How US And UK Could Work Together On Sixth-Gen 'Fighter' Programs
A U.S. official has stated that American and British next generation air combat programs could cooperate in certain ways.

Physical, RF datalinks may become less relevant. But the conceptual, virtual data link--the expanse of time that connects the human software-developer/pilot and his understanding of air combat requirements with the vehicle executing his software in actual air combat, becomes an ever more severe problem. If we are assuming that a given vehicle has capabilities much in advance of a 1970's vintage Ryan 147 recon drone, the software development issue becomes a huge one.But if the UCAV is flown by AI, the data link is less relevant, not that most modern fighters don't have datalinks with each other and the ground anyway.But that was in a simulator, it wasn't a live package fitted into a real UCAV and actually operating in real 3D space or reliant on a potentially vulnerable datalink. Indeed DARPA stated that it was possibly being 10 years away from being ready to actually 'fly' a fighter in combat.
There were some flaws, such as not observing 500ft separation distances which meant that in real combat some of those AI drones (having been programmed as 'expendable') would have flown through debris fields from their kills and actually risk damaging or downing themselves in the process. A Loyal Wingman has to be loyal and on your wing, if it dies in its own fratricide then its not really useful as a reliable wingman.
The software has to be run in the UCAV unless you want to jam up the network so that adds cost to the drone. If it is shot down, potentially your adversary can access the AI system and find out its weaknesses. That means programming it make sure its not expendable and therefore the AI must be as concerned about its own life preservation as a human and therefore desist from Hollywood epic style stunts. It can probably still perform better in dogfights than a fighter constrained by human physiology but it might blunt the edge.
Besides wouldn't a smart AI think that dogfighting is a waste of effort and no go for the long-range sniper kill if it could? One of the AI systems tested went in for the close-in cannon kill option every time, but is that necessarily the best way? Yes these systems learn but are they necessarily learning the best methods? Lots of work to be done I feel before we can elevate these from high-end gaming software to real fighter pilot brains.
I have a suspicion the "one year" NGAD X plane was in fact a modified F-22
What if the USAF had secretly dug out of secure storage some of the F-22 production jigs and tooling and used it to be build a new F-22 with upgrades?
Not the whole production line just enough applicable jigs and tooling to use for building an F-22 based demonstrator aircraft.In essence restarting a broken-down production line for ONE plane would be... <British accent>Rather expensive and perhaps a bit wasteful.</British accent>
I thought the tooling and jigs had been disposed off....destroyed??
Eh? I thought the LCAS D program that Valkyrie won was open? It was to a BAA from AFRL.Laughingly enough I popped by the Kratos booth to talk about their programs especially the Valkyrie as it was originally a classified program. It flew for first time few years back, semi officially released to the media. I chatted with the senior executive and he was open but wry about the classified background of it.
Yes. That requires the majority of the production line to be reactivated. You need all of that stuff to build an F22.Not the whole production line just enough applicable jigs and tooling to use for building an F-22 based demonstrator aircraft.In essence restarting a broken-down production line for ONE plane would be... <British accent>Rather expensive and perhaps a bit wasteful.</British accent>
Finally someone said it.![]()
The Air Force we need now can't be sacrificed for the force we need in the future - Breaking Defense
"Shortchanging what you can deliver today for a dream sheet regarding the future is a dangerous course given the current fragility of the existing force and scope of demand," writes Doug Birkey.breakingdefense.com
Interesting this dropped shortly after Lockheed revealed their vision for a future Family of Systems, but no Conceptual Art, no nothing this time?Several UAVs Under Development for Next-Generation Carrier Air Wing
By: Sam LaGrone
July 13, 2022 9:48 PM
Several new unmanned aerial vehicles are under development as part of the Navy’s air wing of the future concept in addition to the unmanned aerial tanker[...]
The new aircraft are being designed to meet growing requirements for range for carrier air wings, Rear Adm. Andrew Loiselle, the Navy’s air warfare director (OPNAV N98) ,said during a naval aviation panel at the Naval Institute, co-hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies[...]
[...]The next step for the Navy is to bring an unmanned aerial refueling aircraft to operate further from the carrier to extend the range of the existing airwing. The first operational MQ-25A Stingray aerial refueling UAVs are set to deploy aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-73) by 2026[...]
As for new aircraft, he did not elaborate on the UAVs in the works. The Navy has kept mum on its research and development efforts into almost all of its new carrier air wing aircraft.
The Navy has classified the spending for the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program that is expected to produce a manned fighter to replace the Super Hornets in the 2030s.
Loiselle did define three categories of unmanned aircraft his office is considering.
“The first set is something that can go into a hostile environment, high threat environment, and it can stay there, it can persist in a high threat environment.
The second set is something that can go to that high threat environment, perform a given mission, briefly – a strike mission –and then leave and have a very high chance of coming home,” he said.
“The last set is something that is at an attritable price point, a much smaller vehicle that might perform any number of different missions. Anything from going out there with our fighter aircraft and carrying more air-to-air missiles… or we might someday integrate that type of thing into our electronic warfare, a distributed architecture that would conduct that mission. And then we might also use those same types of drones for a distributed command and control network.”
The UAVs aren’t part of the NGAD (pronounced En-JAD by the Navy, Loiselle said) program but would be part of the ongoing development of the fighter.
“They are not exclusively for that platform. Okay, there’s equal applicability in the manned-unmanned teaming concept for any small [UAS] to be used with any aircraft on our flight deck. It’s not limited to that one capability,” he said.
From page 2:![]()
Report to Congress on Current, Future Unmanned Aircraft Systems - USNI News
The following is the July 28, 2022, Congressional Research Service report, Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Current and Potential Programs. From the report Since the dawn of military aviation, the U.S. military has been interested in remotely piloted aircraft. Present-day unmanned aircraft systems...news.usni.org
No, the flying wing drone which crashed in Iran was an RQ-170.Is the RQ-180 the one that the Iranians claimed they successfully hacked and brought down?
From page 2:![]()
Report to Congress on Current, Future Unmanned Aircraft Systems - USNI News
The following is the July 28, 2022, Congressional Research Service report, Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Current and Potential Programs. From the report Since the dawn of military aviation, the U.S. military has been interested in remotely piloted aircraft. Present-day unmanned aircraft systems...news.usni.org
"In addition, several other reported programs are either in development or currently undergoing experimentation. These programs include the Air Force’s B-21 Raider and the Air Force’s RQ-180."
Curious food for thought - could they be acknowledging "RQ-180" designation as the official one ?
I suspect they are focusing publicly so much on the unmanned component because Northrop will be getting the manned part.
![]()
Several UAVs Under Development for Next-Generation Carrier Air Wing - USNI News
ANNAPOLIS, Md. – Several new unmanned aerial vehicles are under development as part of the Navy’s air wing of the future concept in addition to the unmanned aerial tanker set to deploy in 2026, Navy officials said on Wednesday. The new aircraft are being designed to meet growing requirements for...news.usni.org
The only thing is, would two seats make sense for a UAV operator?The problem the author of the article makes, among the many, is we don't have the most basic clue about the requirements of NGAD. It's the requirements that drive the design. Granted, we know it will be supersonic and it will be stealthy and it will most likely have twin engines. I say the last mainly because of the size class the vehicle is likely to be in, trying to package one engine that large would be silly. It also may have no vertical tails or variable geometry vertical tails; flat for stealth, butterfly for maneuverability. Also, it will have a crew of one. We also don't have any clue on the load out. Will it carry just enough for self defense and rely on UCAV for the offensive attack? Or will it carry as much as an F-22 and use the UCAVs as adjuncts and deeper weapons magazines? That's the balance that I think is going to be critical to the sizing of NGAD. That and the required range. Having said that, I expect it to have some form of arrow / delta or diamond wing (supersonic with a lot of volume for fuel) versus a trapezoidal wing (good for subsonic and transonic performance, but limited fuel capacity).
The only thing is, would two seats make sense for a UAV operator?
As others say, with automation what it is it doesn't need to be. It may be a benefit but costs are already said to be astronomically high.Given its size and the complexity of its role in battle field management, hopefully the NGAD will be 2-manned.
If recent lockheed graphics are to be believed, NGAD is intended to operate ahead of the drone formation.
Frankly speaking, doesn't seem to be the right spot to do the control. F-35s (from within the formation) or even F-15EXs (from behind it) can do the same just as well.
It is quite likely it is the plan once again.If recent lockheed graphics are to be believed, NGAD is intended to operate ahead of the drone formation.
Frankly speaking, doesn't seem to be the right spot to do the control. F-35s (from within the formation) or even F-15EXs (from behind it) can do the same just as well.
Way back when that was sorta the plan with the Raptor. Target something and have another plane in the back take the shot.
Fourth option, GE gets NGAD and PW NGAP goes to USN 6th gen.So AETP (F-35) for GE
NGAP goes to PW
Enhanced PW F-135 mounted on Marines F-35B?
Or
Enhanced PW F-135 for all F-35
NGAP for GE
And AETP dies of a good death with PW left without an advanced modern engine design for the next decade or more.
There is probably a third solution:
NGAP is made a twin engines and GE NGAP goes on the left while PW fits the starboard side!
For sure, but if the past is any indicator, they'll drop the ball and be stuck with F-35Cs for the next 40 years.
The Fifth Horseman is Stupidity and - stop me if you've heard this one before - Kelly Johnson's fifteenth rule of management is 'Starve before doing business with the damned Navy. They don't know what the hell they want and will drive you up a wall before they break either your heart or a more exposed part of your anatomy.'For sure, but if the past is any indicator, they'll drop the ball and be stuck with F-35Cs for the next 40 years.
Uhhh, you know, the origins of JSF/JAST can be traced back to the joint US-UK studies on a stealth supersonic VTOL fighter that will replace Harrier?The F-35C is a variant of the F-35 programme and very much tied up with the basic F-35A architecture. How likely is it that the USN will get the funding to build its own 6th Gen super fighter independent of NGAD when for 50 years it's been able to piggyback on USAF development programmes?
Yes I knew that. CALF and JAST were catch-alls, replace every medium-class fighter with one airframe. Not quite the same thing. Design compromises were inevitable. A larger wing and weight reduction being the necessary mitigations for the F-35C.Uhhh, you know, the origins of JSF/JAST can be traced back to the joint US-UK studies on a stealth supersonic VTOL fighter that will replace Harrier?