NGAD / F/A-XX - General Discussion and Speculation

After the presentation of Boeing's F-47 by Trump, it was expected that the US Navy's 6th Gen Fighter, the F/A-XX, would also be unveiled that same week. But was there any official announcement? Why hasn't it been revealed yet?
 
NikolasTz said:
Why hasn't it been revealed yet?
Click to expand...
Most likely due to all the fallout in Washington because of signalgate or how they call it, the literal group chat leaks so to speak. At least it's a reasonable and commonly cited explanation.

It will most likely get publicly announced once that whole ordeal isn't the main story anymore.
 
NikolasTz said:
After the presentation of Boeing's F-47 by Trump, it was expected that the US Navy's 6th Gen Fighter, the F/A-XX, would also be unveiled that same week. But was there any official announcement? Why hasn't it been revealed yet?
Click to expand...
Isn't there a big USN or Naval Aviation meeting coming soon?
 
It may be that the navy decision will be announced in a low key way. Like simply through a press statement, who got the contract. then in the months and years to come, further details may leak out, like designation, images and so on.
 
Kat Tsun said:
The real economy is building as big a carrier as your shipyards can handle. For some people, this number is increasing. For others, it isn't.
Click to expand...
At this point, the economy is to build a shipyard that can handle a ~1000ft long hull and 100ktons, then have it build your carriers.
 
Is this possible that the delay about FA/XX announcement could be a come back of Lockheed in the game ?
 
dark sidius said:
Is this possible that the delay about FA/XX announcement could be a come back of Lockheed in the game ?
Click to expand...
Unlikely the bidders or proposals have changed. Keep 2 things in mind: First, we only had rumors that an announcement was coming this past week and rumors can be wrong. Second, as I said earlier this is a program which will run decades from beginning to end, a week or two slippage for an announcement doesn't mean much. There is as yet not evidence of a Kendall-like "whoa, we need to throw on the brakes and have another look!" delay. Stay calm.
 
Moose said:
Unlikely the bidders or proposals have changed. Keep 2 things in mind: First, we only had rumors that an announcement was coming this past week and rumors can be wrong. Second, as I said earlier this is a program which will run decades from beginning to end, a week or two slippage for an announcement doesn't mean much. There is as yet not evidence of a Kendall-like "whoa, we need to throw on the brakes and have another look!" delay. Stay calm.
Click to expand...
Also, USN has been much more tightly focused on what they wanted.
 
Scott Kenny said:
At this point, the economy is to build a shipyard that can handle a ~1000ft long hull and 100ktons, then have it build your carriers.
Click to expand...
That's not even that big by modern ship standards. The Ford class is 337m long, but some cargo ships are larger, like the Ever Given is 400m (the one that got stuck in the Suez canal). I'm not really a ship nerd, there might be larger ships out there.
 
Elysium said:
That's not even that big by modern ship standards. The Ford class is 337m long, but some cargo ships are larger, like the Ever Given is 400m (the one that got stuck in the Suez canal). I'm not really a ship nerd, there might be larger ships out there.
Click to expand...
It's not, but carriers/military ships in general are significantly more complex. More systems, more subdivisions, etc.

But if you're stuck building your military ships in civilian dockyards, sizing your new drydocks to NeoPANAMAX is probably the best option. And pay for the really huge crane that can clear the width of a carrier while you're at it.
 
www.twz.com

Air Force’s Next Batch Of Collaborative Combat Drones Could Be Less ‘Exquisite,’ Cheaper

The Air Force also confirms it is looking at teaming CCAs with platforms other than fighters, including the B-21 stealth bomber and E-7 radar plane. The Air Force also confirms it is looking at teaming CCAs with platforms other than fighters, including the B-21 stealth bomber and E-7 radar plane.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

www.airandspaceforces.com

Air Force Futures Boss Leans Toward ‘Low End’ CCA in Next Increment | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The next increment of the Collaborative Combat Aircraft, or CCA, is likely to be less complex, the head Air Force futurist said.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
www.twz.com

Air Force’s Next Batch Of Collaborative Combat Drones Could Be Less ‘Exquisite,’ Cheaper

The Air Force also confirms it is looking at teaming CCAs with platforms other than fighters, including the B-21 stealth bomber and E-7 radar plane. The Air Force also confirms it is looking at teaming CCAs with platforms other than fighters, including the B-21 stealth bomber and E-7 radar plane.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
Can't see a cheaper or less exquisite CCA being an effective companion for a B-21. For E-7 or even C-130/17/5 and all KC aircraft would be a good option.

Sounds like the USAF still hasn't defined the requirements for Increment 2 yet but I suppose some testing of Increment 1 helps define what they want from 2.
 
I think incr2 is still an A2A focused aircraft. That was always the goal and A2A is low hanging fruit. If your CCAs can push AD back, anything as simple as a C-130 can dump munitions. I’ll say it again: I don’t see any CCA ever having more payload than a couple BVRs or a quarter of SDB. That’s not why they are there.
 
A simple LO long endurance, LO flying missile pylon with literally nothing besides fuel, flight and automation sensors, data link, small power generation, engine, and four JATMs would be interesting and hopefully cheapish early node - hopefully incr 2. A larger cousin with the ability to refuel and carry 8-12 JATMs would be an interesting escort for HVAA. Lots of fun possibilities.
 
Ozair said:
Can't see a cheaper or less exquisite CCA being an effective companion for a B-21.
Click to expand...
recon. A Sensorcraft type. That's the only CCA I can really see being a useful companion for B-21s.

And I guess technically two different sensorcraft. One subsonic and one supersonic. Yes, think "U-2 and SR-71 but VLO," though I don't think the supersonic one would be Mach 3 due to heating. I'd expect Mach 2.2 or so.



Ozair said:
For E-7 or even C-130/17/5 and all KC aircraft would be a good option.
Click to expand...
Sticking a couple of A2A CCAs with the E7 and KCs would be worth it.

Not sure how well making a CCA Heavy Tanker would work.

Depending on what mission the Cs are doing would depend on what kind of CCAs I'd want with them. A2As for long flights, but add some A2G and jammers for tactical flights.


Ozair said:
Sounds like the USAF still hasn't defined the requirements for Increment 2 yet but I suppose some testing of Increment 1 helps define what they want from 2.
Click to expand...
That's how I understand it as well.
 
Scott Kenny said:
recon. A Sensorcraft type. That's the only CCA I can really see being a useful companion for B-21s.
Click to expand...
I envision the CONOPS for the B-21 being a ghost and any CCA that accompanies it that is not exquisite, ie having similar VLO capability, os.goong to highlight the general area the B-21 is operating in and subsequently draw unwanted attention..

Scott Kenny said:
And I guess technically two different sensorcraft. One subsonic and one supersonic. Yes, think "U-2 and SR-71 but VLO," though I don't think the supersonic one would be Mach 3 due to heating. I'd expect Mach 2.2 or so.
Click to expand...
Not sure that spees regime is required from a CCA, hopefully the B-21 plugs into the joint picture that contains all the sensor fused data available in the battle space. That obviously requires the recon CCAs to be more generic and feeding into that architecture which also points to a higher acquisition cost and less attritable.
 
I suspect recce assets are largely separate from the CCA. There might be an A2A sensor platform like OBSS, but ground based reconnaissance is probably handled by separate programs/platforms, and the data offloaded to satellites for dissemination.

I think supersonic CCAs are probably off the table; the costs associated with capability probably make the value of the platform questionable.
 
Forest Green said:
www.twz.com

Air Force’s Next Batch Of Collaborative Combat Drones Could Be Less ‘Exquisite,’ Cheaper

The Air Force also confirms it is looking at teaming CCAs with platforms other than fighters, including the B-21 stealth bomber and E-7 radar plane. The Air Force also confirms it is looking at teaming CCAs with platforms other than fighters, including the B-21 stealth bomber and E-7 radar plane.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
“This whole CCA thing started a long time ago,” Kunkel reflected. “You had a bunch of baby F-22 drivers sitting around the bar at Elmendorf going, ‘Man, I ran out of missiles five minutes into the fight. ...
Yeah, well the loyal wingman is going to run out of missiles five minutes after that. An admission that a Persistent/Penetrating Counter Air (PCA) probably makes sense over sole dependance on CCAs. This is not to mention can self-protect w/ a deep magazine DEW.
A rebuild Lancer 'missile truck' for counter-air which can also operate as a 'bomb truck' for counter-aircraft shelter makes the most sense. All emphasis on CCA w/o dividing the labor is short sighted.
 
Ozair said:
I envision the CONOPS for the B-21 being a ghost and any CCA that accompanies it that is not exquisite, ie having similar VLO capability, os.goong to highlight the general area the B-21 is operating in and subsequently draw unwanted attention..
Click to expand...
Exactly.

So they're not going to cheap, probably most of the cost of a B-21 due to range and VLO requirements. I'd be shocked if they were anything less than half the cost of a B-21, considering the cost of an RQ/MQ-4.

So they're not going to be attritable except in the sense of "at least we hadn't lost any pilots."



Ozair said:
Not sure that spees regime is required from a CCA, hopefully the B-21 plugs into the joint picture that contains all the sensor fused data available in the battle space. That obviously requires the recon CCAs to be more generic and feeding into that architecture which also points to a higher acquisition cost and less attritable.
Click to expand...
The speed is needed for a sudden "rush to war" scenario, since subsonic CCAs would not be able to push ahead of the B-21s to watch the mobile ICBMs leave their bases and go to their dispersal sites. So it needs a supersonic speed to get ahead of the Raiders on their way to their targets/hunting zones.

Note that I'm assuming that a rush to war scenario includes something wrecking the orbital constellations.
 
Forest Green said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

Air Force Futures Boss Leans Toward ‘Low End’ CCA in Next Increment | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The next increment of the Collaborative Combat Aircraft, or CCA, is likely to be less complex, the head Air Force futurist said.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...
The Air Force has experimented with launching pallets of missiles from the back of cargo planes, under a series of tests called Rapid Dragon, which Kunkel seemed to reference.

A less-sophisticated CCA would overlap with the utility of cruise missiles, said one industry critic who questioned the concept. “We already have missiles that don’t come back,” he said. “Why build something that is meant to have hundreds of hours of use if you’re going to use it like a missile? The math doesn’t add up.”
Once again (again) the UCRAV/missile concept is more of the future than CCA.
 
jsport said:
A less-sophisticated CCA would overlap with the utility of cruise missiles, said one industry critic who questioned the concept. “We already have missiles that don’t come back,” he said. “Why build something that is meant to have hundreds of hours of use if you’re going to use it like a missile? The math doesn’t add up.”
Once again (again) the UCRAV/missile concept is more of the future than CCA.
Click to expand...
That's someone (possibly deliberately) conflating "we don't care if the CCA is lost" with "we only plan to use the CCA once".

Those two statements are not synonymous.

Firebee recon drones, for example, were intended to be reused (in order to recover their recon data they had to make it back out of hostile territory, so reuse was trivial once recovered), but losing one was not considered a major loss. Indeed, Firebees were sent into places where the commanders didn't think a manned plane could get back out!

The problem is that the 20 years of the GWOT has gotten the US used to being able to operate non-stealthy drones that do not carry any jammers or countermeasures with impunity, and has gotten commanders told to fill out accident reports because they had a 10mil glorified target crash or be shot down.

The USAF doesn't have anyone left from the time when they flew into anything resembling defended airspace, so they have a grossly over-cautious nature right now. Iraq 1991 or 2003 barely count, and Afghanistan 2001 doesn't count at all.
 
Seven Reapers shot down in six weeks over Yemen totaling over $200m, and this is not against a sophisticated adversary. CCAs are just not going to be cheap enough to make sense.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Exactly.

So they're not going to cheap, probably most of the cost of a B-21 due to range and VLO requirements. I'd be shocked if they were anything less than half the cost of a B-21, considering the cost of an RQ/MQ-4.

So they're not going to be attritable except in the sense of "at least we hadn't lost any pilots."
Click to expand...
Which today means they won't exist, unless they are being pursued via the black budget.
Scott Kenny said:
The speed is needed for a sudden "rush to war" scenario, since subsonic CCAs would not be able to push ahead of the B-21s to watch the mobile ICBMs leave their bases and go to their dispersal sites. So it needs a supersonic speed to get ahead of the Raiders on their way to their targets/hunting zones.
Click to expand...
Isn't the whole point of autonomous platforms that they can operate ahead of and without direct control from manned platforms? I doubt a supersonic CCA is going to be any more effective deployed forward than a gaggle of lower cost subsonic CCA that take twice the time to arrive but are potentially either less visible or more numerous so harder to engage all.

Scott Kenny said:
Note that I'm assuming that a rush to war scenario includes something wrecking the orbital constellations.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is a valid assumption. There are too many space assets on both sides now for that to be correct.
 
jsport said:
Seven Reapers shot down in six weeks over Yemen totaling over $200m, and this is not against a sophisticated adversary. CCAs are just not going to be cheap enough to make sense.
Click to expand...
I think there are some key differences, a Predator essentially cannot fight back, it is completely reliant on being flown by pilots half a world away and still has no means of identifying it is being targeted.

A true autonomous platform would have more understanding of its current place the targeting cycle and be able to react in a way a Predator today cannot.
 
jsport said:
Seven Reapers shot down in six weeks over Yemen totaling over $200m, and this is not against a sophisticated adversary. CCAs are just not going to be cheap enough to make sense.
Click to expand...
Start with the mission and it's life in total flight hours. In the US we have would like to have cheap but we gold plate everything. Use small companies for internal subsystem components like EMAs or even mini and micro hydraulics hydro is not dead as examples, don't go to the big guys, you'll get high costs and long lead-times. Design them so you can build bunches of them. But the services have to figure out in regards to requirements; get the baseline then block upgrade them if required, if you don't have to, even better. If you are going to make a 75 flight hour target drone then carry that mentality to the final product. No gold plating and no but if we only add this and this and this then then you get a $30M, 75 flight hour, expendable drone and you get 5.
 
The F-22 & F-35 have different datalinks and now if other datalinks such as E-7, B-21 etc must also be integrated costs will spiral. This was pointed out by Defense News journalists in a post from jsport, CCA's defensive measures you mention will also become an ever spiraling cost. A contractor's motivation is for spiraling capability and thus cost.
 
jsport said:
Seven Reapers shot down in six weeks over Yemen totaling over $200m, and this is not against a sophisticated adversary. CCAs are just not going to be cheap enough to make sense.
Click to expand...
Reapers aren't that expensive.

They're ~33mil a system, which is 4x airframes, the ground control station(s), and the comms uplink. Reapers are ~7-8mil per airframe (at the 33mil/system price).

Reapers are also COMPLETELY UNDEFENDED. No chaff/flares, no jammers, no RHAWS, no MAWS, NOTHING.



Ozair said:
Which today means they won't exist, unless they are being pursued via the black budget.
Click to expand...
Disagree, for reasons I'll get into below.



Ozair said:
Isn't the whole point of autonomous platforms that they can operate ahead of and without direct control from manned platforms? I doubt a supersonic CCA is going to be any more effective deployed forward than a gaggle of lower cost subsonic CCA that take twice the time to arrive but are potentially either less visible or more numerous so harder to engage all.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. The problem is that the place we're talking about them operating is inside a foreign nation's airspace.

Can't have drones overhead all the time like we've been doing with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen. Russia or China could legitimately say "these American drones in our airspace are an act of war" and be 100% correct, with the nukes to back up their statement that the US has declared war on them.

So the supersonic drones are needed to get overhead before the mobile ICBMs are away from their bases, to watch them arrive at their dispersal areas.

This operational need for both supersonic and subsonic recon drones was identified clear back in B-2 days.



Ozair said:
I don't think that is a valid assumption. There are too many space assets on both sides now for that to be correct.
Click to expand...
The Russians don't have the assets in space, which means they're not losing anything by using nukes to take out mass numbers of satellites via radiation kills. Assuming that they're not doing anything kinky with nuclear shaped charges aka Casaba Howitzers.

The Chinese are far enough behind the US in terms of large numbers of space assets that they might be willing to consider sacrificing their existing satellites in order to depopulate the US constellations.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom