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

[BlackBat242]

I hope not, but IMO the Air Force might end up delaying the NGAD/PCA, without cancelling it outright...and then spend the next four years (25-28) developing the CCAs, F-35 block 4 and ECU, and the upgraded Raptors, but without much in the way of further investment in a crewed sixth gen fighter beyond NGAP, which might still be allowed to run to completion.

Then, with some of those costs in the rearview mirror, more info about both the domestic funding environment and Chinese plans, and finalized CCAs and NGAPs, the administration after next, starting in 2029 and definitely making its mark with the budget prepared in spring 2030, could make the final decusion

to buy into the Navy's FA-XX program for the manned component of NGAD, thus sharing development and reducing costs for both programs.

 

[books]

to buy into the Navy's FA-XX program for the manned component of NGAD, thus sharing development and reducing costs for both programs.

It'd sure make a lot of budgetary sense to make F/A-XX and then have the Air Force order a bunch of minimally modified ones for itself, a la the F-4, or like the A/F-X might have been.

I'm still ambivalent about F/A-XX vs F-35C for the Navy though, in the short term. I might rather have the F-35C and more Air defense ships & subs?

 

[BlackBat242]

It'd sure make a lot of budgetary sense to make F/A-XX and then have the Air Force order a bunch of minimally modified ones for itself, a la the F-4, or like the A/F-X might have been.

I'm still ambivalent about F/A-XX vs F-35C for the Navy though, in the short term. I might rather have the F-35C and more Air defense ships & subs?

F/A-XX is to replace the F/A-18E/Fs that outnumber the F-35Cs in the USN - and are expected to continuing outnumbering them until F/A-XX enters production or the USN drops F/A-XX and moves to an all F-35C force (which the USN does NOT want to).

The long-term plan is F/A-XX + F-35C on the carriers.

 

[DrRansom]

I suspect a UCAV operating in enemy airspace is face less challenging than a car. You do not have to worry about Rito things and you can shoot at anything not explicitly friendly.

That's a great set of logic to exhaust your entire missile payload against a bunch of decoys. Fixing that problem requires a bunch of sensor and CONOPs logic, which costs development time and money to create and maintain, and you very quickly find yourself in the exact same position as autonomous cars. Constantly adding new features until the software stack eats its entire SWAP budget.

Yes, autonomous cars operate in a very difficult sensor fusion environment. The road, however, is not actively trying to deceive them.

 

[books]

F/A-XX is to replace the F/A-18E/Fs that outnumber the F-35Cs in the USN - and are expected to continuing outnumbering them until F/A-XX enters production or the USN drops F/A-XX and moves to an all F-35C force (which the USN does NOT want to).

The long-term plan is F/A-XX + F-35C on the carriers.

I was under the impression that the long term idea these days was more like 1 squadron F/A-XX, 1 squadron F-35C, and then like 60-70 % (2-3 squadrons) of UCAVs. Of course before getting to Hawkeye, MQ-25, V-22 COD, or helos.

 

[FighterJock]

What would that mean for the overall production of the F/A-XX per squadron if that means there will only be one per carrier in that scenario?

 

[books]

What would that mean for the overall production of the F/A-XX per squadron if that means there will only be one per carrier in that scenario?

I think there's a variety of scenarios that the Navy has avoided committing to firmly, in the name of flexibility, and in hopes of being able to play the options off each other.

But basically, if you figure ten aircraft per squadron, one squadron per carrier, and 11 carriers, it might mean 125 or so combat coded F/A-XX, plus maybe another several dozen to be distributed across the testing community, the RAGS, Topgun, prototypes, etc. Possibly also another twenty or so for a Guard unit on either coast to keep some highly qualified older people involved.

 

[Josh_TN]

That's a great set of logic to exhaust your entire missile payload against a bunch of decoys. Fixing that problem requires a bunch of sensor and CONOPs logic, which costs development time and money to create and maintain, and you very quickly find yourself in the exact same position as autonomous cars. Constantly adding new features until the software stack eats its entire SWAP budget.

Yes, autonomous cars operate in a very difficult sensor fusion environment. The road, however, is not actively trying to deceive them.

How is a human any better equipped to separate decoys, short of closing to visual range?

 

[raptor82]

GA CCA new rendering：

https://twitter.com/x/status/1810290373157105667

View: https://x.com/genatomics_asi/status/1810290373157105667?s=46&t=5THFve96Abhx7VANdlTzrg

 

[Forest Green]

CCA Contract Expected in Fall; First Versions Under Construction

The Air Force is expected to award one or two Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) contracts this fall, toward fielding hardware in two years.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[Hydroman]

F/A-XX is to replace the F/A-18E/Fs that outnumber the F-35Cs in the USN - and are expected to continuing outnumbering them until F/A-XX enters production or the USN drops F/A-XX and moves to an all F-35C force (which the USN does NOT want to).

The long-term plan is F/A-XX + F-35C on the carriers.

F/A-XX, F-35Cs, MQ-25s tanking and no medium attack capability with a decent payload, not a good situation.

 

[Shoes31]

F/A-XX, F-35Cs, MQ-25s tanking and no medium attack capability with a decent payload, not a good situation.

I'd be surprised if the Navy didn't have their bomb truck version of a CCA by the time F/A-XX comes online and the F/A-18 E/Fs are being retired. All you'd need would be relatively simple commands with the humans in the F-35 or F/A-XX picking targets and giving weapon release commands to the CCA.

 

[Hydroman]

I'd be surprised if the Navy didn't have their bomb truck version of a CCA by the time F/A-XX comes online and the F/A-18 E/Fs are being retired. All you'd need would be relatively simple commands with the humans in the F-35 or F/A-XX picking targets and giving weapon release commands to the CCA.

The USN CCA would have to have reasonable payload and would probably have to be a little larger in size. When I was on CVN-65 in the 80s, we had the A-6 and A-7, excellent attack platforms with large payload for their sizes. If the right "USN" CCA is developed, could have minimal, first strike internal payload then more payload (internal and external), external when LO is not an issue.

 

[B2Blain]

An autonomous NGAD will not cost less than a manned NGAD. I haven't any doubt that the NGAD will probably have an optionally manned option like the B-21 eventually will, though. Although, I do enjoy laughing at all of the bed wetters here pissing themselves over NGAD being resized. They're the same people who were crying that the new bomber wasn't going to be a hypersonic super cruising multi-MOAB carrying death machine, because it had to be more affordable. Oh, how they had the vapors over that. As a result, we've all seen what a big failure the B-21 is. (<= Sarcasm for the sarcastically challenged.)

Remember when Frank Kendall floated the idea of an unmanned companion to the B-21, then changed his mind because of the cost of the system. The guy is an engineer he should have been aware that the cost per pound paradigm for combat aircraft has not changed.
This whole NGAD thing is a pattern with Kendall. He needs to stop brainstorming in public and fish or cut bait.

 

[quellish]

Remember when Frank Kendall floated the idea of an unmanned companion to the B-21, then changed his mind because of the cost of the system. The guy is an engineer he should have been aware that the cost per pound paradigm for combat aircraft has not changed.
This whole NGAD thing is a pattern with Kendall. He needs to stop brainstorming in public and fish or cut bait.

First, the “B-21 companion” was not going to be as large as the B-21. Larger than the CCA concepts, but not B-21 sized.

Second, this isn’t all Kendall’s ideas. It’s several DoD components and industry. Some of those DoD components have experienced sudden and unexpected leadership changes in the last year, which may be connected with the NGAD program.

Remember investigative journalism?

 

[B2Blain]

There is a need for a powerful aircraft able to fight in face of J-20 and SU-57 and the futur of Russian and Chinese futur fighter , this is a work for NGAD , GA CCA is not a dog fighter or able to make pursuit of mach 2 supersoni fighter of Russia and China, Anduril max speed is in the 1000 KMH and GA one 800 kmh .

Despite what Kendall and the AF says, they seemed to be focused on price and not the threat. They say the F-35 and F-22 is inadequate to serve as a PCA platform, but want to water down the capabilities of NGAD or delay and rescope the program after setting its requirements in the first place and settling on a flyaway cost of $300 million per aircraft.

There hasn't been anything that has reduced the price per pound of combat aircraft. If they think they can reduce costs through open architecture and using the Century Fighter series of a model then why don't they try to do that with NGAD. Instead, Kendall wants to reduce cost the old fashion way - by watering down the requirements. You might save money on the R&D side by the government owning the intellectual property and adopting open mission systems and iterating over time, but I really don't see how you can reduce the fly way cost of an large aircraft necessary for the expanse of the Pacific. You are confronted by the tyranny of distance. There are no easy or cheap solutions. All the ideas to reduce costs - removing the pilot, reducing the range, payload, and engine size - only affects the flyaway cost at the margins. A Block 70 F-16 is $70 million. An F-15EX cost more than an F-35. You won't have the benefits of economy of scale like the F-35. You will have an aircraft less capable and just a vulnerable as the current fighter fleet to be destroyed on the ground in the First Island Chain.

But more importantly, watering down NGAD or even delaying it will not stop the Chinese from improving their counter air capabilities. What will the US do when the Chinese deploy CCAs to work along side the J-20 or a new 6th Gen fighter?

 

[B2Blain]

First, the “B-21 companion” was not going to be as large as the B-21. Larger than the CCA concepts, but not B-21 sized.

First, the “B-21 companion” was not going to be as large as the B-21. Larger than the CCA concepts, but not B-21 sized.

Second, this isn’t all Kendall’s ideas. It’s several DoD components and industry. Some of those DoD components have experienced sudden and unexpected leadership changes in the last year, which may be connected with the NGAD program.

Remember investigative journalism?

I said a B-21 companion not an unmanned B-21 or drone the size of the B-21. Whatever its payload, an unmanned companion to the B-21 would have needed to be a larger platform than the NGAD's CCAs and be more expensive in order to match the performance of the B-21.

https://www.twz.com/44627/stealth-b...-raider-could-be-pushed-into-development-soon

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/d...anned-long-range-bomber-and-fighter-projects/

 

[Scott Kenny]

At the same time, you need more than 200 high end fighters. Didn't they learn that lesson with the F-22? Which puts into question the idea of adopting a model based on the Century Fighters. Small batches of fighters are difficult to support and sustain over time. This they knew. Hopefully, they alway have run the numbers to determine if they can throw away a $300 million fighter or even a $20 million CCA after ten years.

The idea is for the CCAs to be like the Century Series, not the NGAD. Two or three runs of CCAs are good interceptors, medium to long range, speed varies (F101, 102, 106 equivalents). Another one is a fast, short ranged interceptor (F104). One is a striker (F105). One is a giant, high speed long range interceptor/bomber escort (F108). One is a low level penetration bomber and interdictor (F111). And one ends up being a really good multirole aircraft, able to carry 8x AAMs and still carry a big load of bombs (F110/F4).

The elimination of the cockpit, ECS, ergonomics factors, OBOGS, HMI, aircrew courseware/training, salary, simulators etc. is bound to save some. The question is whether it's a good idea in general. It's turning into the 'Top Gun Maverick' storyline policy debate - drones vs pilots.

The systems of an F35 take up ~35% of the total costs of the aircraft.

If you still have the radar, EOTS, DAS, and all the defensive systems, you're not going to save much money on that airframe!

 

[Forest Green]

The systems of an F35 take up ~35% of the total costs of the aircraft.

If you still have the radar, EOTS, DAS, and all the defensive systems, you're not going to save much money on that airframe!

When you say 'systems', not all systems are non-pilot related, 'systems' is a very broad term indeed. Want to make it clear, I'm not making an argument for unammned only here, I don't think it's a good idea. But 35% is a long way short of 100% and there are lots of non-airframe costs involved in maintenance of pilot systems, training and wages for a manned fighter. It can't be said that a cockpit costs nothing either. The helmet alone on the F-35 costs almost half a million.

Behind the scenes at BAE Systems Rochester to test fighter pilot equipment | Aerospace Testing International

Industry-leading environmental and synthetic testing combine to prove the performance and reliability of the latest equipment for fighter pilots

www.aerospacetestinginternational.com

 

[Josh_TN]

We have not seen any system requirements for the CCAs, however I suspect that a lot of capability gets left out in favor of offloading it to other manned or unmanned platforms. No A2G is required, so no EOTS. A DAS like system is a must have as the primary sensor for target detection, missile warning, and maneuvering/avoidance. Some kind of MADL type link as well. There is no way these platforms could support a fighter sized radar, and a smaller radar likely does not impart a relevant detection range. So I suspect if anything they will be receiver only, or else dependent on an OBSS or manned fighter for any radar contact. Arguably a modern IRST might have a detection range similar to an x band radar against a 5th gen aircraft at altitude anyway. Similarly, CCA is not going to have the SWAP for the F-35s ESM system, and will probably have to be band limited and possibly omnidirectional (thus relying on DToA across several closely positioned platforms). I’d think disposable countermeasures and stand alone towed decoys are an easy add and can be cued by DAS, and ECM at least as capable as a MALD decoy.

This would give you a UCAV with significant passive detection capabilities when operating in groups, capable of making itself a mildly hard target to engage, and also capable of acting as a decoy itself when called upon. That and a pair of AAMs would make them relatively inexpensive but still dangerous and impossible to ignore. If possible there might be significant advantages to incorporating a pair of datalinked MALDs so that a CCA formation would have its own set of decoys to directly control, though that’s probably going to require a very clever AI. Probably a future goal.

 

[quellish]

I said a B-21 companion not an unmanned B-21 or drone the size of the B-21. Whatever its payload, an unmanned companion to the B-21 would have needed to be a larger platform than the NGAD's CCAs and be more expensive in order to match the performance of the B-21.

First, there is no reason that a "B-21 companion" would have to match any of the performance parameters of the B-21. In fact it's very likely their performance would be very different - that would be a benefit of a companion / collaborative platform. Maybe it can sprint ahead of the B-21 and get on station faster. Maybe it can carry different sensors. Maybe it has different signature characteristics.

Second, even if it did "match" some performance characteristics of the B-21 that does not mean it would be the same size, complexity, or cost as the B-21.

Third, a B-21 companion / collaborative platform could very well be the size of the NGAD CCAs. Or smaller, or larger. They were looking at larger primarily for payload reasons. Payload is a primary driver of the size and complexity of aircraft. The B-21 collaborative aircraft was not found to be worthwhile for the missions they had in mind for it.


Collaborative platforms - wether for the B-21 or NGAD - offer capabilities that expand those of the host manned aircraft. That is the whole point of them. They are going to have different capabilities and performance than the host aircraft.

 

[Scott Kenny]

We have not seen any system requirements for the CCAs, however I suspect that a lot of capability gets left out in favor of offloading it to other manned or unmanned platforms. No A2G is required, so no EOTS. A DAS like system is a must have as the primary sensor for target detection, missile warning, and maneuvering/avoidance. Some kind of MADL type link as well. There is no way these platforms could support a fighter sized radar, and a smaller radar likely does not impart a relevant detection range. So I suspect if anything they will be receiver only, or else dependent on an OBSS or manned fighter for any radar contact. Arguably a modern IRST might have a detection range similar to an x band radar against a 5th gen aircraft at altitude anyway. Similarly, CCA is not going to have the SWAP for the F-35s ESM system, and will probably have to be band limited and possibly omnidirectional (thus relying on DToA across several closely positioned platforms). I’d think disposable countermeasures and stand alone towed decoys are an easy add and can be cued by DAS, and ECM at least as capable as a MALD decoy.

This would give you a UCAV with significant passive detection capabilities when operating in groups, capable of making itself a mildly hard target to engage, and also capable of acting as a decoy itself when called upon. That and a pair of AAMs would make them relatively inexpensive but still dangerous and impossible to ignore. If possible there might be significant advantages to incorporating a pair of datalinked MALDs so that a CCA formation would have its own set of decoys to directly control, though that’s probably going to require a very clever AI. Probably a future goal.

Yes, most of the CCA concepts I've seen as publicly-available have had just a DAS or IRST system, no radars.

But if you want a plane that is able to replace an F35 (carrying 2x AMRAAMs and 2x 2000lb class weapons or 2x SiAW and 2x 2000lb for ground attack), you end up with a plane that is most of the size of an F35. Weight-wise, I'd be surprised if the total cockpit weight including pilot life support systems was over 4000lbs, and I expect it to be under 2000lbs. (500lbs of pilot and parachutes in the seat, ~200lbs of canopy, ~300lbs of display systems, 500lbs of OBOGS, 500lbs of whatever else there is).

If the plane is the size of an F35 due to payload and range, you might as well give it the radar so it has all the AESA electronic warfare capabilities. Plus having the same radar means that it doesn't say "I'm a CCA" to anyone with a working ESM stack.

Any CCA needs some defensive systems, or else you give the bad guys some free headlines about "Houthis shoot down US most advanced drone." Having the same defensive systems as an F35 means that it doesn't say "I'm a CCA" to anyone with a working ESM stack.

But now you have a CCA that is pretty much an F35 without a cockpit, so guess what? It's going to cost most of what an F35 does!


See also the B21, where they started out talking about wanting an unmanned adjunct and about the time the B21 was revealed the USAF publicly said that they'd discarded the idea of an unmanned adjunct because there just weren't the savings that they'd expected. When you need a B2 ranged+ aircraft (6000+nmi) the cockpit systems are a very small part of the overall costs. Even payload ends up being a relatively small driver in terms of size and costs. It's not totally fair, but a Strike Eagle has about the same total bombload as a B21. So did the F-111. Both were much smaller airframes because of the shorter range demands compared to a B21.

 

[Josh_TN]

Yes, most of the CCA concepts I've seen as publicly-available have had just a DAS or IRST system, no radars.

But if you want a plane that is able to replace an F35 (carrying 2x AMRAAMs and 2x 2000lb class weapons or 2x SiAW and 2x 2000lb for ground attack), you end up with a plane that is most of the size of an F35. Weight-wise, I'd be surprised if the total cockpit weight including pilot life support systems was over 4000lbs, and I expect it to be under 2000lbs. (500lbs of pilot and parachutes in the seat, ~200lbs of canopy, ~300lbs of display systems, 500lbs of OBOGS, 500lbs of whatever else there is).

If the plane is the size of an F35 due to payload and range, you might as well give it the radar so it has all the AESA electronic warfare capabilities. Plus having the same radar means that it doesn't say "I'm a CCA" to anyone with a working ESM stack.

The NGAD system of systems is explicitly counter air. I do not see any reason for it to concern itself with air to ground missions; IMO the penetrating bomber force and F-35 already cover that mission. Perhaps in the future a bomb truck type UCAV would be useful, but I think there is no consideration of a2g in the program currently. Certainly not in Incr1; those aircraft could not possible support Mk 84s.

Any CCA needs some defensive systems, or else you give the bad guys some free headlines about "Houthis shoot down US most advanced drone." Having the same defensive systems as an F35 means that it doesn't say "I'm a CCA" to anyone with a working ESM stack.

A CCA does not necessitate a defensive system. I would argue that it is worth carrying some kind of basic defense because the aircraft are still somewhat expensive and it likely is cost ineffective to make the UAV too easy to shoot down. If an opponent can reliable shoot one down with a single AAM at extreme range, then it can rapidly negate large numbers of them (assuming it has good target information). If the CCA is able to detect missile launches (which should be quite easy with a DAS like system; I believe it serves as the missile warning sensor in F-35), then it can be aware enough to attempt evasion. It also can easily deploy expendable decoys, both ejected and towed, and time those actions with its maneuvering (in fact an AI likely could execute turns and present engagement angles with precise decoy timing in a far superior manner than a human pilot). That at least would force opponent aircraft to double tap and fire well within AAM envelope as is generally necessary with a high performance piloted aircraft. No easy trash shots.

Whether a CCA needs anything more than though I do not know - I would actually rather doubt it. The goal in my mind is to have a low enough signature such as to be able to passively detect and track a 5th generation target, and close to within the no escape zone of the AIM-120. If that goal is achieved, platform survival is not a super high priority - if I am trading a CCA for every opponent fighter, that is cost effective and sustainable. Is a more elaborate defensive system worth while? Maybe, but if I were the USAF I would definitely want to run a lot of tests and simulations to prove the case. Perhaps some kind of spoof jammer is cost effective as well; who knowns. If there is already a frequency agile electrically steerable x band emitter on the aircraft, then using it as a jammer is just a question of software. But it might not be worth installing extra hardware vs just throwing more expendable decoys on the airframe.

But now you have a CCA that is pretty much an F35 without a cockpit, so guess what? It's going to cost most of what an F35 does!

Indeed, which is why it is extremely clear that the USAF is not going down that path. We know the GA-ASI is submitting a modified XQ-67 and it seems likely the Anduril submission is based on the Blue Force Fury. Those aircraft clearly cannot support a number of F-35 systems, nor could they carry anything like an F-35 payload.

See also the B21, where they started out talking about wanting an unmanned adjunct and about the time the B21 was revealed the USAF publicly said that they'd discarded the idea of an unmanned adjunct because there just weren't the savings that they'd expected. When you need a B2 ranged+ aircraft (6000+nmi) the cockpit systems are a very small part of the overall costs. Even payload ends up being a relatively small driver in terms of size and costs. It's not totally fair, but a Strike Eagle has about the same total bombload as a B21. So did the F-111. Both were much smaller airframes because of the shorter range demands compared to a B21.

Indeed, if the companion aircraft was to have similar range and payload then removing the pilots would do almost nothing for cost, same as having a CCA equivalent of F-35. That is why the USAF is trying to calibrate exactly how much capability a CCA needs to still be effective. It may well be that Incr 1 CCAs are a move in the wrong direction - not enough capability, or even possibly too much. But the USAF has decided that they have gone as far as they can with theory and simulation and needs to start producing something now for real life testing and to provide at least some capability going forward. I suspect if anything, future CCAs actually get smaller and more numerous, but we shall see.

EDIT: I think you're being pretty fast and loose with payload numbers. B-21 is credited with at least 20,000 lbs, and in at least one USAF slide I saw stated 30,000. And it must minimally be able to drop the GBU-57, possibly with reduced fuel load. You can load a lot of crap onto an F-15, but not nearly that much, and it will not travel super far with those kind of load outs. Payload is definitely a big driver of size, and one of the sacrifices the CCAs seem to make is minimizing their payload to 2-4 AAMs and nothing more to keep the thrust and fuel requirements (and thus size and cost) down.

 

[quellish]

See also the B21, where they started out talking about wanting an unmanned adjunct and about the time the B21 was revealed the USAF publicly said that they'd discarded the idea of an unmanned adjunct because there just weren't the savings that they'd expected.

Originally there would be an unmanned variant of the B-21. This was dropped.

Then it was optionally manned/semi autonomous. This capability is still there.

The companion platform was a different thing that came later and was not an unmanned B-21

 

[Forest Green]

Originally there would be an unmanned variant of the B-21. This was dropped.

Then it was optionally manned/semi autonomous. This capability is still there.

The companion platform was a different thing that came later and was not an unmanned B-21

So bombers have to be manned but not fighters it seems.

 

[Josh_TN]

So bombers have to be manned but not fighters it seems.

There is little advantage to an unmanned bomber. The air crew and their associated systems do not take up enough of the airframe volume or mass to make much difference, and the number of B-21 aircrew is never going to be above the low hundreds. Plus a long range bombing mission is perhaps the most challenging mission set with the most that can go wrong. Losing a 20 million dollar UCAV with a pair of AIM-120s because it did something stupid is not nearly as bad as losing an $750 million dollar aircraft with 30,000 lbs of bombs...or nuclear weapons. And clearly that last mission always requires a man in the loop.

 

[Scott Kenny]

A CCA does not necessitate a defensive system. I would argue that it is worth carrying some kind of basic defense because the aircraft are still somewhat expensive and it likely is cost ineffective to make the UAV too easy to shoot down. If an opponent can reliable shoot one down with a single AAM at extreme range, then it can rapidly negate large numbers of them (assuming it has good target information). If the CCA is able to detect missile launches (which should be quite easy with a DAS like system; I believe it serves as the missile warning sensor in F-35), then it can be aware enough to attempt evasion. It also can easily deploy expendable decoys, both ejected and towed, and time those actions with its maneuvering (in fact an AI likely could execute turns and present engagement angles with precise decoy timing in a far superior manner than a human pilot). That at least would force opponent aircraft to double tap and fire well within AAM envelope as is generally necessary with a high performance piloted aircraft. No easy trash shots.

Whether a CCA needs anything more than though I do not know - I would actually rather doubt it. The goal in my mind is to have a low enough signature such as to be able to passively detect and track a 5th generation target, and close to within the no escape zone of the AIM-120. If that goal is achieved, platform survival is not a super high priority - if I am trading a CCA for every opponent fighter, that is cost effective and sustainable. Is a more elaborate defensive system worth while? Maybe, but if I were the USAF I would definitely want to run a lot of tests and simulations to prove the case. Perhaps some kind of spoof jammer is cost effective as well; who knowns. If there is already a frequency agile electrically steerable x band emitter on the aircraft, then using it as a jammer is just a question of software. But it might not be worth installing extra hardware vs just throwing more expendable decoys on the airframe.

That is in my mind an expendable CCA if I can basically expect to launch one, have it kill an opposing aircraft, and not return afterwards.

IIRC the "attritable" exchange rates were somewhere between 5:1 and 10:1, though I think 10:1 is going to require enough defensive systems to make the CCA very expensive. We should probably aim at exchange rates of somewhere between 3:1 and 7:1 as the definition of "attritable".

Indeed, if the companion aircraft was to have similar range and payload then removing the pilots would do almost nothing for cost, same as having a CCA equivalent of F-35. That is why the USAF is trying to calibrate exactly how much capability a CCA needs to still be effective. It may well be that Incr 1 CCAs are a move in the wrong direction - not enough capability, or even possibly too much. But the USAF has decided that they have gone as far as they can with theory and simulation and needs to start producing something now for real life testing and to provide at least some capability going forward. I suspect if anything, future CCAs actually get smaller and more numerous, but we shall see.

Which is a good thing.

Now we get to the Century Series equivalence and iterate a few times to see what size CCAs we actually need. Look at the variety of aircraft sizes that got produced in the Century series. Empty weights ranging from 14k to 51klbs. 3x 500nmi combat radius interceptors (F101, F102, F106), a 1000nmi radius interceptor or bomber escort (XF-108), a short range point defense interceptor (F104), 3x nuclear strike fighters (F100, F101A, F105), and finally the first multirole fighter-bomber (F110/F4). At the tail end of the Century Series we even got a very capable interdiction bomber with a variant designed for BARCAP or super long range interception (F111). No, the F-117 doesn't count as part of the Century Series.

And that's about the development path/scatter I expect to see. The current desired CCA is basically a long range interceptor, they're not expecting any dogfighting out of it. So something conceptually equivalent to an F101 or F102 F-86(!!!! because they're subsonic) right now. So there's a couple of iterations to go before we get to the Ultimate Interceptor/F106 equivalent CCA. Gotta get one supersonic (M1.4-1.8, F-35 speed), then one as fast as the F22 or NGAD. (Two iterations, not 3-4)

As a side note, the just-supersonic CCA would be a good accompaniment to F35s so you could still get good use out of them, even if they'd struggle to keep up with an F22 or NGAD while supercruising.​

But all of those are still about the size of a big cruise missile but with a few AMRAAMs internally instead of a single big warhead.

I'm not sure we will see a point defense interceptor CCA (F104 equivalent). That role has really been taken over by capable SAMs. The only real advantage a CCA would have is being able to be redeployed a lot faster than a Patriot battery. The physics of trying to intercept any hypersonics makes it so that any defense has to basically be sitting on top of the target to be able to get the intercepting missile in front of the hypersonic. So a plane that can scoot 200km or so (2min from launch to altitude and 3min at ~Mach 2.9) in the time between "hypersonic launch detected" and "interceptor needs to launch" may prove a viable option to cover enough ground versus how many SAM sites you'd need.

A BARCAP or Air Policing CCA is an interesting idea, but I expect that to remain a manned aircraft role for the forseeable future. Partly because it's going to be a big airframe to fly 500nmi and then orbit for 2 hours, and partly because someone is going to want to have eyes on scene for Air Policing. Just flat better situational awareness with a pilot on scene.


Then we get into questions about weapons load. Most of the Century Series assumed one engagement and one or two kills per mission, 2-4 missiles carried. That lasted up till the F110/F4 and F111. F110/F4 carried 4x Radar guided and 4x IR missiles, so could arguably intercept 4 enemy planes per mission. Then the F111B was set up to have 6x Phoenix missiles which would be launched in a volley but guided to individual targets and a pair of Sidewinders for cleanup, so arguably intercepting 7 enemy planes/AShMs per mission. The F110 and F111 conceptual equivalents are also getting into "CCAs the size of the plane they're escorting", though, so are unlikely to be built due to expense.




One of the biggest limits on the CCAs is "small" afterburning engines for supersonic flight. The only relatively recent engine is the F125 used in the F-CK-01, but that was designed in 1979! The other option is the RR Adour, but that first ran in 1968... USAF really needs to pony up some development funds for a "~10klb-in-afterburner" class engine for CCAs. Or they end up buying F404/F414s designed for the Navy, ewwwwwwww... Plus, F404/F414 are about twice the power you need. Might be good for the 104-equivalent CCA, though.

And the bigger problem is that there's only 2 engines designed for supercruise currently available and they're both huge. F119 and F135. No small engine is designed with the low pressure ratio needed for supercruise. So that's going to need some help as well if we want CCAs that can supercruise along with their controller.

EDIT: I think you're being pretty fast and loose with payload numbers. B-21 is credited with at least 20,000 lbs, and in at least one USAF slide I saw stated 30,000. And it must minimally be able to drop the GBU-57, possibly with reduced fuel load. You can load a lot of crap onto an F-15, but not nearly that much, and it will not travel super far with those kind of load outs. Payload is definitely a big driver of size, and one of the sacrifices the CCAs seem to make is minimizing their payload to 2-4 AAMs and nothing more to keep the thrust and fuel requirements (and thus size and cost) down.

As far as the B21 payload goes, carrying the GBU-57 means they drop the rotary launcher out of the bay, which gives them several thousand pounds of load back. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the B2 guys tells me that the rotary launcher weighs 8000lbs, or that the Bomb Rack Assembly weighs 10,000lbs! So yes the B21 can carry a 30,000lb bomb with a payload of 24,000lbs, but it doesn't change the gross weight of the plane or impact the fuel load as much as it sounds like it should.

So bombers have to be manned but not fighters it seems.

There isn't any cost advantage to making a long range high capacity aircraft unmanned, no.

The question is, "at what capacity-at-range point does unmanned get a cost advantage over manned for a strike aircraft?"

Obviously not at 24klbs over 3000nmi radius (B-21).

What about 24klbs over 1100nmi (F111 capacity)? Or what about 24klbs over 700nmi (Strike Eagle capacity)? 6000lbs over 700nmi (F-35 internal capacity)? ~17,000lbs over 300nmi (F-16 capacity)? 16,000lbs over 250nmi (A-10 capacity)? 12,000lbs over ~250nmi* (AH-56 capacity)?

* I'm not sure about that range, I'm not seeing a combat radius for the Cheyenne so I used the Apache's. Cheyenne stated range is the same as Apache ferry range, and the Cheyenne was originally supposed to be able to self-deploy from the US to UK, which means a ~2000nmi ferry range from Gander to Heathrow.​

​

Because if you can get a cheaper CAS plane out of a drone, you'd better believe that both Army and USAF will jump all over it.

 

[Josh_TN]

That is in my mind an expendable CCA if I can basically expect to launch one, have it kill an opposing aircraft, and not return afterwards.

IIRC the "attritable" exchange rates were somewhere between 5:1 and 10:1, though I think 10:1 is going to require enough defensive systems to make the CCA very expensive. We should probably aim at exchange rates of somewhere between 3:1 and 7:1 as the definition of "attritable".

I would just say that a CCA is going to cost less than any PLA fighter, even considering the economic parity purchase discrepancy. I'd like to get it back; if it gets killed shooting down an enemy fighter that's fine. Way better than and F-35, which has much higher costs of purchase and ownership.

Which is a good thing.

Now we get to the Century Series equivalence and iterate a few times to see what size CCAs we actually need. Look at the variety of aircraft sizes that got produced in the Century series. Empty weights ranging from 14k to 51klbs. 3x 500nmi combat radius interceptors (F101, F102, F106), a 1000nmi radius interceptor or bomber escort (XF-108), a short range point defense interceptor (F104), 3x nuclear strike fighters (F100, F101A, F105), and finally the first multirole fighter-bomber (F110/F4). At the tail end of the Century Series we even got a very capable interdiction bomber with a variant designed for BARCAP or super long range interception (F111). No, the F-117 doesn't count as part of the Century Series.

And that's about the development path/scatter I expect to see. The current desired CCA is basically a long range interceptor, they're not expecting any dogfighting out of it. So something conceptually equivalent to an F101 or F102 F-86(!!!! because they're subsonic) right now. So there's a couple of iterations to go before we get to the Ultimate Interceptor/F106 equivalent CCA. Gotta get one supersonic (M1.4-1.8, F-35 speed), then one as fast as the F22 or NGAD. (Two iterations, not 3-4)

As a side note, the just-supersonic CCA would be a good accompaniment to F35s so you could still get good use out of them, even if they'd struggle to keep up with an F22 or NGAD while supercruising.​

But all of those are still about the size of a big cruise missile but with a few AMRAAMs internally instead of a single big warhead.

I'm not sure we will see a point defense interceptor CCA (F104 equivalent). That role has really been taken over by capable SAMs. The only real advantage a CCA would have is being able to be redeployed a lot faster than a Patriot battery. The physics of trying to intercept any hypersonics makes it so that any defense has to basically be sitting on top of the target to be able to get the intercepting missile in front of the hypersonic. So a plane that can scoot 200km or so (2min from launch to altitude and 3min at ~Mach 2.9) in the time between "hypersonic launch detected" and "interceptor needs to launch" may prove a viable option to cover enough ground versus how many SAM sites you'd need.

A BARCAP or Air Policing CCA is an interesting idea, but I expect that to remain a manned aircraft role for the forseeable future. Partly because it's going to be a big airframe to fly 500nmi and then orbit for 2 hours, and partly because someone is going to want to have eyes on scene for Air Policing. Just flat better situational awareness with a pilot on scene.


Then we get into questions about weapons load. Most of the Century Series assumed one engagement and one or two kills per mission, 2-4 missiles carried. That lasted up till the F110/F4 and F111. F110/F4 carried 4x Radar guided and 4x IR missiles, so could arguably intercept 4 enemy planes per mission. Then the F111B was set up to have 6x Phoenix missiles which would be launched in a volley but guided to individual targets and a pair of Sidewinders for cleanup, so arguably intercepting 7 enemy planes/AShMs per mission. The F110 and F111 conceptual equivalents are also getting into "CCAs the size of the plane they're escorting", though, so are unlikely to be built due to expense.




One of the biggest limits on the CCAs is "small" afterburning engines for supersonic flight. The only relatively recent engine is the F125 used in the F-CK-01, but that was designed in 1979! The other option is the RR Adour, but that first ran in 1968... USAF really needs to pony up some development funds for a "~10klb-in-afterburner" class engine for CCAs. Or they end up buying F404/F414s designed for the Navy, ewwwwwwww... Plus, F404/F414 are about twice the power you need. Might be good for the 104-equivalent CCA, though.

And the bigger problem is that there's only 2 engines designed for supercruise currently available and they're both huge. F119 and F135. No small engine is designed with the low pressure ratio needed for supercruise. So that's going to need some help as well if we want CCAs that can supercruise along with their controller.

Incr2 I believe gets bid literally next year, with production targeted for 2030. Inc3 likely follows. I believe the program will follow the same rough course as the SDA proliferated satellite program: iterations every two years to allow for tech refresh. In particular, I think at some point we will see either independent engine producers or the prime contractors themselves build afterburning engines in this weight class, likely based off existing engines. There is enough of a market for the CCA program that building an engine with reheat in this class will be a long term money maker. I believe GA-ASI explicitly has stated they are working on their own engine in house.

As for warload - F-35s already make due with four missiles. I know that will go up to six for some types in the future, but four seems like a doable number. The existing UAVs likely can already shoulder that load if needed - the XQ-58 is supposed to be able to carry 600 lbs internally and 600 lb more externally. So perhaps two missile internal/conformal, with two more optional on the wings at the expense of performance and RCS. I do not see a need for more than that, and in fact two is a good enough number to make them dangerous, IMO. The idea is that these systems will at least equal if not outnumber opponent aircraft, at least when combined with their manned controllers.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I would just say that a CCA is going to cost less than any PLA fighter, even considering the economic parity purchase discrepancy. I'd like to get it back; if it gets killed shooting down an enemy fighter that's fine. Way better than and F-35, which has much higher costs of purchase and ownership.

The problem is that the CCAs don't stretch the cost of an F-35 very far. The comparison is F-35 plus 3x CCAs versus 4x J15s or J20s.

A quick google gives the estimated cost of a J15 at ~60milUSD, and the J20 at ~100-120milUSD.

At that level, you need the total of F-35 plus 3x CCAs to be somewhere around 240mil on the low end and 400-480mil on the high end.

For a quick back of the envelope guesstimate, say the F35 has a total cost of 140mil, so the 3x CCAs can't cost more than ~33mil on the low end. Versus J20s, well, J20s are expensive enough that you can almost trade F-35s one for one and can trade 4 for 3 to come out ahead.

Incr2 I believe gets bid literally next year, with production targeted for 2030. Inc3 likely follows. I believe the program will follow the same rough course as the SDA proliferated satellite program: iterations every two years to allow for tech refresh.

I can see that being good for keeping the computers up to date at least.

In particular, I think at some point we will see either independent engine producers or the prime contractors themselves build afterburning engines in this weight class, likely based off existing engines. There is enough of a market for the CCA program that building an engine with reheat in this class will be a long term money maker. I believe GA-ASI explicitly has stated they are working on their own engine in house.

Good!

As for warload - F-35s already make due with four missiles. I know that will go up to six for some types in the future, but four seems like a doable number. The existing UAVs likely can already shoulder that load if needed - the XQ-58 is supposed to be able to carry 600 lbs internally and 600 lb more externally. So perhaps two missile internal/conformal, with two more optional on the wings at the expense of performance and RCS. I do not see a need for more than that, and in fact two is a good enough number to make them dangerous, IMO. The idea is that these systems will at least equal if not outnumber opponent aircraft, at least when combined with their manned controllers.

I grew up in the 1980s, my dude. 4+4 or go home! Nevermind the AIM152 load on an F14: 15x LRAAMs and still space for a pair of Sidewinders. F-22s pack 6+2, and I'm sure there was/is a plan to hang more on the wings if needed (I'm picturing F-15 like wing pylons with 2x Sidewinders each and maybe that paired AMRAAM rack on the bottom).

Besides, an F-35 is a glorified supersonic stealth A-7, it's a "fighter" because the USAF doesn't want to own anything not called a "fighter" or a "bomber."

 

[Josh_TN]

I grew up in the 1980s, my dude. 4+4 or go home! Nevermind the AIM152 load on an F14: 15x LRAAMs and still space for a pair of Sidewinders. F-22s pack 6+2, and I'm sure there was/is a plan to hang more on the wings if needed (I'm picturing F-15 like wing pylons with 2x Sidewinders each and maybe that paired AMRAAM rack on the bottom).

Besides, an F-35 is a glorified supersonic stealth A-7, it's a "fighter" because the USAF doesn't want to own anything not called a "fighter" or a "bomber."

The F-35A fly away cost is something like $80 million. CCA is supposed to be 1/4 to 1/3 of that, which should keep it in the $20-30 million price range. The way you keep it in that price range is by keeping its size down. You can have one aircraft with 6-8 weapons internally or you can have three with 2-4. Which one presents a more distributed passive sensor network and challenges opponent targeting more?

As for F-35, it’s the only game in town in production, outside a very modest F-15 buy. So 4, or 6 in the future, is what the west is stuck with. Quite honestly it doesn’t seem like J-20s with WS-10s have either a kinetic or weapons storage advantage, at least until WVR. And while the J-20s will get faster with WS-15, the F-35s will get two more AAMs and a massive sensor upgrade. Seems good enough for now, especially if the CCAs can rapidly be built in large numbers. I personally get the feeling that the USAF will try to buy both models so they can have two existing hot lines to buy into in the future.

 

[B2Blain]

First, there is no reason that a "B-21 companion" would have to match any of the performance parameters of the B-21. In fact it's very likely their performance would be very different - that would be a benefit of a companion / collaborative platform. Maybe it can sprint ahead of the B-21 and get on station faster. Maybe it can carry different sensors. Maybe it has different signature characteristics.

Second, even if it did "match" some performance characteristics of the B-21 that does not mean it would be the same size, complexity, or cost as the B-21.

Third, a B-21 companion / collaborative platform could very well be the size of the NGAD CCAs. Or smaller, or larger. They were looking at larger primarily for payload reasons. Payload is a primary driver of the size and complexity of aircraft. The B-21 collaborative aircraft was not found to be worthwhile for the missions they had in mind for it.


Collaborative platforms - wether for the B-21 or NGAD - offer capabilities that expand those of the host manned aircraft. That is the whole point of them. They are going to have different capabilities and performance than the host aircraft.

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/07/exclusive-air-force-scraps-b-21-drone-wingman-concept/

After doing some analysis, the idea appears to be “less attractive than we thought it might be,” Kendall said, with the reasoning coming down to value. Bombers are by nature large planes — not only so they can carry large weapons payloads, but so they can fly at the long ranges needed for an aircraft to conduct a strategic strike anywhere in the world. But that size can drive cost, and in the end, the Air Force determined it wasn’t worth developing an unmanned B-21 counterpart that would be comparable in size to a large bomber.

I wasn't brainstorming in public about the B-21 companion. It was Frank Kendall. I was going off of his/their concept of a large, long range, companion for the B-21 and not mine. The idea was shelved within a year of talking about it because of cost.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The F-35A fly away cost is something like $80 million.

That's what I've seen, but that's also supposedly not including GFE like the engine and weapons systems.

$140mil seems to be what we're charging our friends that don't have production offsets in their country to buy them, which likely includes spares and training. IMO, spares should be part of the flyaway cost of a fighter, we can argue about training elsewhere.

CCA is supposed to be 1/4 to 1/3 of that, which should keep it in the $20-30 million price range. The way you keep it in that price range is by keeping its size down. You can have one aircraft with 6-8 weapons internally or you can have three with 2-4. Which one presents a more distributed passive sensor network and challenges opponent targeting more?

I think the defensive systems and necessary RAM are going to drive the cost up higher than what the USAF wants.

As for F-35, it’s the only game in town in production, outside a very modest F-15 buy. So 4, or 6 in the future, is what the west is stuck with. Quite honestly it doesn’t seem like J-20s with WS-10s have either a kinetic or weapons storage advantage, at least until WVR. And while the J-20s will get faster with WS-15, the F-35s will get two more AAMs and a massive sensor upgrade. Seems good enough for now, especially if the CCAs can rapidly be built in large numbers. I personally get the feeling that the USAF will try to buy both models so they can have two existing hot lines to buy into in the future.

Yes, that's the other point of the Century Series idea. You have multiple hot production lines going. Not just 2, either. 5 of the first 6 Century Series were made by different companies. Convair (F102/106) and McDonnell (F101/F110) were the only repeated companies, and more importantly for this discussion, Convair was the only replaced production line. (XF-108 didn't replace F-100 production, and F110s didn't really replace F101s in service)

 

[B2Blain]

The idea is for the CCAs to be like the Century Series, not the NGAD. Two or three runs of CCAs are good interceptors, medium to long range, speed varies (F101, 102, 106 equivalents). Another one is a fast, short ranged interceptor (F104). One is a striker (F105). One is a giant, high speed long range interceptor/bomber escort (F108). One is a low level penetration bomber and interdictor (F111). And one ends up being a really good multirole aircraft, able to carry 8x AAMs and still carry a big load of bombs (F110/F4).




The systems of an F35 take up ~35% of the total costs of the aircraft.

If you still have the radar, EOTS, DAS, and all the defensive systems, you're not going to save much money on that airframe!

I mentioned the revisiting of Roper's idea of using the Century Series model for NGAD because it was raised again on the Defense and Aerospace podcast by Vago Muradian because of the current debate over NGAD's future.

Wether it be CCAs or NGAD, I hope the AF has done the analysis and run the numbers. The MQ-9 cost around $30 million. It's a long endurance ISR platform designed for permissive environments. But it's the only thing we have to evaluate the value of CCAs. It's price per pound is much higher than a F-35. Kratos said they could produce its XQ-58 for $4 million. What kind of capability did Valkyrie bring is not fully known besides a 600 lbs internal payload, 3,000 nm range, and runway independence. Whatever Kratos proposed, the AF thought there were better options.

In Increment 1 we are left with the requirement of a $20-30 million price tag. I would hope that it will be a more capable platform than Valkyrie. If one of the main objectives is affordable mass it can't be an exquisite UCAV like the X-47B. Less sensors, less range, less performance. You might be able to purchase three for each F-35. Can you afford to throw away a CCA after ten years? Is this sustainable. It reminds me of the divest to invest strategy. The AF says they can reuse for different missions such adversary aircraft but essentially you are pulling them from frontline service and will need to refresh 1,000 CCAs every ten years. That's the equivalent of around 375 F-35s. I am very skeptical.

Similarly, as you increase the kinematic performance, range, payload, and add sensors and capabilities like in flight refueling to the CCA, its cost rises. At some point it might make more sense to purchase Block 4 F-35s. For 1/3 the cost of an F-35 do you get a similar return on payload, internal or external? Overtime the AF has changed its requirements for CCAs. https://www.twz.com/signs-point-to-less-range-higher-performance-for-cca-drones. It would seem that at minimum it needs to carry at least two AMRAAM sized weapons internally. May be the CCA has attributes than an F-35 does not have that synergistically could provide a manned fighter much more capability than a F-35? A lower signature?

 

[Forest Green]

There is little advantage to an unmanned bomber. The air crew and their associated systems do not take up enough of the airframe volume or mass to make much difference, and the number of B-21 aircrew is never going to be above the low hundreds. Plus a long range bombing mission is perhaps the most challenging mission set with the most that can go wrong. Losing a 20 million dollar UCAV with a pair of AIM-120s because it did something stupid is not nearly as bad as losing an $750 million dollar aircraft with 30,000 lbs of bombs...or nuclear weapons. And clearly that last mission always requires a man in the loop.

So what happens when it comes to tactical nukes on unmanned fighters? You ask it to stop but it replies, "no disassemble no.5."

 

[Rhinocrates]

So what happens when it comes to tactical nukes on unmanned fighters? You ask it to stop but it replies, "no disassemble no.5."

Try phenomenology?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h73PsFKtIck

 

[Rhinocrates]

Seriously tho', tactical and 'theatre' nukes have been a critical rung in the ladder of escalation to strategic nuclear weapons use and why they've been the object of many arms reduction negotiations. Ban those weapons and you take that rung out of the ladder and make climbing it much more difficult.

The fact that such an intermediate rung still exists now in material and doctrine is why Putin's sabre-rattling is so disturbing. Which he knows.

This is why NATO and the US have suggested that if Russia were to use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, their response might not be exactly in kind and instead may involve, for example, destruction of the Russian Black Sea fleet assets by conventional forces.

 

[Forest Green]

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/supply-chain/fighter-industry-rebuilding-capacity-after-dismal-streak

Fighter Industry Rebuilding Capacity After Dismal Streak​

 

[Josh_TN]

I mentioned the revisiting of Roper's idea of using the Century Series model for NGAD because it was raised again on the Defense and Aerospace podcast by Vago Muradian because of the current debate over NGAD's future.

Wether it be CCAs or NGAD, I hope the AF has done the analysis and run the numbers. The MQ-9 cost around $30 million. It's a long endurance ISR platform designed for permissive environments. But it's the only thing we have to evaluate the value of CCAs. It's price per pound is much higher than a F-35. Kratos said they could produce its XQ-58 for $4 million. What kind of capability did Valkyrie bring is not fully known besides a 600 lbs internal payload, 3,000 nm range, and runway independence. Whatever Kratos proposed, the AF thought there were better options.

In Increment 1 we are left with the requirement of a $20-30 million price tag. I would hope that it will be a more capable platform than Valkyrie. If one of the main objectives is affordable mass it can't be an exquisite UCAV like the X-47B. Less sensors, less range, less performance. You might be able to purchase three for each F-35. Can you afford to throw away a CCA after ten years? Is this sustainable. It reminds me of the divest to invest strategy. The AF says they can reuse for different missions such adversary aircraft but essentially you are pulling them from frontline service and will need to refresh 1,000 CCAs every ten years. That's the equivalent of around 375 F-35s. I am very skeptical.

Similarly, as you increase the kinematic performance, range, payload, and add sensors and capabilities like in flight refueling to the CCA, its cost rises. At some point it might make more sense to purchase Block 4 F-35s. For 1/3 the cost of an F-35 do you get a similar return on payload, internal or external? Overtime the AF has changed its requirements for CCAs. https://www.twz.com/signs-point-to-less-range-higher-performance-for-cca-drones. It would seem that at minimum it needs to carry at least two AMRAAM sized weapons internally. May be the CCA has attributes than an F-35 does not have that synergistically could provide a manned fighter much more capability than a F-35? A lower signature?

Remember that sustainability costs are a big part of this. AI doesn’t need to train, at least not on every airframe. Just focusing on fly away costs does not bring the whole picture. If you do not have to fly to train, you skip a lot of maintenance as well.

 

[Josh_TN]

So what happens when it comes to tactical nukes on unmanned fighters? You ask it to stop but it replies, "no disassemble no.5."

No one here is suggesting manned fighters have no role.

 

[Josh_TN]

Seriously tho', tactical and 'theatre' nukes have been a critical rung in the ladder of escalation to strategic nuclear weapons use and why they've been the object of many arms reduction negotiations. Ban those weapons and you take that rung out of the ladder and make climbing it much more difficult.

The fact that such an intermediate rung still exists now in material and doctrine is why Putin's sabre-rattling is so disturbing. Which he knows.

This is why NATO and the US have suggested that if Russia were to use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, their response might not be exactly in kind and instead may involve, for example, destruction of the Russian Black Sea fleet assets by conventional forces.

As far as I know, tactical nukes were never regulated. Intermediate range missiles were, as a delivery system. Outside that delivery stipulation I do not they were regulated.

In any case, there’s no shortage of F-35s for that role.