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

https://mitchellaerospacepower.org/episode-196-ngad/

Good high level discussion of the issues surrounding the NGAD platform pause. I am not sure whether the excuse that they are pausing because of some unexplained PLA advancement is valid, but if it is, I think having an engineer running the Air Force is a bad thing. Engineer often want the perfect design and want to tweak and add things along the way. That is where the Navy ran afoul on the new Constellation Class. Warfighters want an 80% solution to deal with the current threat and would prefer to iterate over time like the AF did with the F-16. By the time we figure out how to refocus NGAD to deal with whatever the Chinese have developed, they will have something else that will prompt another pause in a few years. More concerning...have the Chinese got inside of our decision cycle? Are we in reactive mode to maintain air superiority?

CCAs risks being a panacea. We have ample evidence showing the value of manned 4th and 5th gen fighters. The only evidence we have on the value of CCAs are simulations and marketing by unmanned aircraft primes and military leaders. Until proven otherwise, CCAs should be viewed as force enablers for the manned component.
 
B2Blain said:
In a comms degraded environment it may be like shooting fish in a barrel. I think that's what LM and NG are trying to tell us. CCAs will have limited sensors and be dependent on off board sensors like from NGAD and other manned and unmanned platforms. NGAD and 5th Gen fighters have more a capability to autonomously than CCAs.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's certainly a risk.
 
Seems they do indeed have embraced the new paradigm and are preparing to go Cactus:

“As an Air Force, we are learning that we are all going to be on the front lines,” said Maj. Gen. Christopher Niemi, U.S. Air Force Warfare Center commander. “The USAF no longer has the luxury of projecting power from sanctuary bases. Airmen will be required to sustain the same operational tempo as before, but under the threat of large-scale enemy fires at a magnitude this nation has never seen. Unlike Red Flag, which only exposes operators to enemy tactics, techniques and procedures, Bamboo Eagle exposes the entire blue kill chain to enemy threats, from the logistics airman loading pallets on a C-130 to the F-22 pilot engaging the enemy.”
A piece of the Air Force’s reoptimization efforts includes reorienting Air Combat Command. Bamboo Eagle is an example of what this reorientation looks like. By synchronizing this large-scale exercise in concert with Joint Force elements, ACC aims to increase the Air Force’s competitiveness for Great Power Competition.
Click to expand...


Would the circumnavigating Global Air superiority fighter be back in its devil box?
 
Last edited:
No surprises there for anyone playing at home, the basing situation is untenable. World's greatest air defense power with secure GLOCs, massive cold war stockpiles and a full wartime economy for 1.5 years is currently getting dunked on by drip fed 90s overmatch TBMs and Europe's poorest country's trashfire. The money is much better spent to turn SCS into a ghoulish automated hellscape from standoff and give TSMC a Parthian shot should things go sour.
 
Air Force official: CCAs to team with 'all fighters,' 'joint assets' and 'international partners'

The Air Force's Collaborative Combat Aircraft will not only pair with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the Next Generation Air Dominance platform , but also the F-15EX Eagle II, F-22 Raptor and platforms from other services or allies, according to a top Air Force official. “We’re in lockstep with the Navy to collaborate, looking at specific areas that allow us to move forward together,”…
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Pyrrhic victory said:
No surprises there for anyone playing at home, the basing situation is untenable. World's greatest air defense power with secure GLOCs, massive cold war stockpiles and a full wartime economy for 1.5 years is currently getting dunked on by drip fed 90s overmatch TBMs and Europe's poorest country's trashfire. The money is much better spent to turn SCS into a ghoulish automated hellscape from standoff and give TSMC a Parthian shot should things go sour.
Click to expand...
If the concern is that USAF tactical air in general won't have the range for the South China Sea after the nearest airbases get targeted with a few hundred ballistic and cruise missiles, what are the sort of unmanned assets that could possibly turn it into a hellscape? The UAVs will need to operate from somewhere.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
If the concern is that USAF tactical air in general won't have the range for the South China Sea after the nearest airbases get targeted with a few hundred ballistic and cruise missiles, what are the sort of unmanned assets that could possibly turn it into a hellscape? The UAVs will need to operate from somewhere.
Click to expand...
Q58 Valkyries can be launched off a truck/trailer.
 
That's pretty much a one-way approach, unless they can equip them with a robust and reusable rough landing system such as airbags (which, along with operational issues such as long-term maintenance and spares, would likely eat into available payload).
 
Grey Havoc said:
That's pretty much a one-way approach, unless they can equip them with a robust and reusable rough landing system such as airbags (which, along with operational issues such as long-term maintenance and spares, would likely eat into available payload).
Click to expand...
This kind of aircraft have nothing to be an air dominance unmanned fighter.
 
To start, the USAF faces the same problem as the USN. Fundamentally, the US is badly positioned to fight China. It has a worse industrial base, less fiscal headroom to increase defense spending, and the accumulated habits of 30 years of total superiority. In this situation, it makes perfect sense that China has decisively gotten inside the US decision-making loop. China can buy J-20s, J-10s, and convert their 3rd gen fighters to pseudo-CCAs. The US can hardly manage a single aircraft program, much less three.

In this environment, decisive leadership (technical and military) is required, but that decisive leadership is just the sort that wouldn't be promoted through the ossified military apparatus. Can you imagine an Admiral Fisher making it through review boards today?

The situation in Asia has not changed in the last 15 years. The US military and defense apparatus pretended that things were different, perhaps now something has made them face reality. What seems bizarre to me, is that nothing really has changed, there are no new threats that were not foreseeable, no technological trends that were not already predicted.

The Asian operating environment is close to late 1980s early 1990s NATO basing environment, maybe start from there and see what turns up?

Which means the solution remains as it always was: go to a NATO-style airbase buildup in Japan and Philippines. Turn every regional airport and decent highway into a dispersion airfield. Airbases are missile sinks (the US sent 90 into a Syrian airbase and it was operational the next day), give the enemy too many targets to shoot at.

To compliment that, the USAF needs tactical aircraft designed to operate from forward and dispersed airfields. That means STOL (variable geometry, blown wings, pick a combination), and accepting less absolute performance. To counter-balance that, just buy more. USAF has to get bigger, USN has to get bigger, this is the price of 30 years helping China. Either spend more on the military or lose to China outright.

The rocket-boosted CCAs are a dead-end, because you can't get anything from there. NATO learned this with rocket-boosted F-104 Starfighters, the USAF could have saved itself 10 years of misguided development by looking there.

Strategically, the US advantage over China is geography. Our allies box China in completely. Any aircraft development program should reinforce this strategic advantage, not abandon it entirely.
 
Grey Havoc said:
That's pretty much a one-way approach, unless they can equip them with a robust and reusable rough landing system such as airbags (which, along with operational issues such as long-term maintenance and spares, would likely eat into available payload).
Click to expand...
The XQ-58 version uses a parachute to land.


Scott Kenny said:
Q58 Valkyries can be launched off a truck/trailer.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is the cost using the current jet assisted take-off is approx $200k USD per launch. It isn't sustainable and the reason why Kratos are developing trolley launch and also a new version with undercarriage.
 
jsport said:

Opinion: Why U.S. Air Force Might Make The Fighter Aircraft Obsolete | Aviation Week Network

Predicting the end of dogfighting has been a cottage industry for decades, but the prospect is now very real.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Click to expand...
I feel like the USAF cannot make the right decision here. If NGAD does happen and is a big long range speedy/stealthy beast but not much of a turner the first time it is captured in the gunsights of an F-16 or Rafale etc the internet will explode. The only times it will prove itself is in exercise and conflict where those who know won't be able to detail how potentially advantageous the platform is.

As for end of the dogfight, perhaps DEW will finally end it, or alternatively bring it back as no missiles will make it past the DEW and the pilots will have to go back to guns.
 
Just want to add this here: the blindingly obvious use case for CCA aircraft is Ground-Controlled Interception for Defensive Counter Air, especially against reconnaissance UAVs. This eliminates a bunch of the autonomy and communication challenges and maximally profits from lower cost-per-flight hour and decent expendability. (Don't mind if it gets a long-range SAM hit or someone tracks it back to a temporary airfield - so long as you're not dumb enough to co-locate CCAs and actual manned fighters.)

PS. If the Kratos cost per rocket launch truly was $200k, then that program, which lasted for a decade?, was borderline fraud against the US public.
 
Ozair said:
The XQ-58 version uses a parachute to land.



The problem with that is the cost using the current jet assisted take-off is approx $200k USD per launch. It isn't sustainable and the reason why Kratos are developing trolley launch and also a new version with undercarriage.
Click to expand...
That ship has possibly sailed. Here are some of the challenges to launching short ranged CCAs like the XQ-58 within the first island chain.

You are going to lose a lot of them. How big is your stockpile day one? Similarly, how quickly can they be resupplied - not only the aircraft themselves but fuel and munitions. If you cannot continually generate mass then you undermine the rationale of affordable mass.

How difficult will it be to operate disaggregated Air Force CCAs squadrons? If the strategy to counter China is based on affordable mass how do operate hundreds of CCAs from cities, parks, highways, farms, etc? How do you effect command and control with small units that must synchronize the launching of CCAs with the arrival of manned aircraft?

A better option might be expendable CCAs with air refuelable CCAs with the range and performance of current manned fighters.
 
I can make a case for a "spear carrier" CCA, one that packs a pair or quartet of AMRAAMs for 1500+ nmi. It'll be somewhere between JASSM sized and 1.25x those dimensions (just under 2x the weight/volume). We know the shape is stealthy. The challenge would be adding LO doors for the missiles to come out. The only other major issue would be finding an engine the appropriate power.
 
B2Blain said:
That ship has possibly sailed. Here are some of the challenges to launching short ranged CCAs like the XQ-58 within the first island chain.

You are going to lose a lot of them. How big is your stockpile day one? Similarly, how quickly can they be resupplied - not only the aircraft themselves but fuel and munitions. If you cannot continually generate mass then you undermine the rationale of affordable mass.

How difficult will it be to operate disaggregated Air Force CCAs squadrons? If the strategy to counter China is based on affordable mass how do operate hundreds of CCAs from cities, parks, highways, farms, etc? How do you effect command and control with small units that must synchronize the launching of CCAs with the arrival of manned aircraft?

A better option might be expendable CCAs with air refuelable CCAs with the range and performance of current manned fighters.
Click to expand...

Agree on field options becoming limited in the first island chain although at 3000nm range I think the XQ-58 is well placed.

There needs to see some serious inventiveness when it comes to CCAs though. A couple of suggestions;
- Airship motherships such as this, https://atlas-lta.com/atlant_cargo_airship/ The mid and large variants would potentially have enough payload to handle multiple XQ-58s and generate multiple strike missions. An automated docking and rearming system is conceivable and if the airship is also unmanned then the platform can stay on station for as long or as little time required, being refuelled by other airships.
- Submarine launched CCAs. Would love to see how a new UUV that could be a mothership for CCAs. Surface launched and can parachute back to the ocean surface, stay buoyant with its airbags and recover and rearm.

Scott Kenny said:
I can make a case for a "spear carrier" CCA, one that packs a pair or quartet of AMRAAMs for 1500+ nmi. It'll be somewhere between JASSM sized and 1.25x those dimensions (just under 2x the weight/volume). We know the shape is stealthy. The challenge would be adding LO doors for the missiles to come out. The only other major issue would be finding an engine the appropriate power.
Click to expand...
It becomes a targeting issue more than a range/payload issue, would need sufficient platforms, ie NGAD, down range for this to be a worthwhile investment?

I suggest you don't even need the doors, operating in a modern IADS likely has sufficient low frequency radars to detect a JASSM sized target, so just design a shell The intent with CCAs isn't current platform levels of stealth and in this context you're probably not even suggesting a CCA by the definition, just a long loitering missile with a unique warhead. If you want to give the missile its own radar and other sensors then you might as well go bigger into reusable territory.
 
Ozair said:
Agree on field options becoming limited in the first island chain although at 3000nm range I think the XQ-58 is well placed.

There needs to see some serious inventiveness when it comes to CCAs though. A couple of suggestions;
- Airship motherships such as this, https://atlas-lta.com/atlant_cargo_airship/ The mid and large variants would potentially have enough payload to handle multiple XQ-58s and generate multiple strike missions. An automated docking and rearming system is conceivable and if the airship is also unmanned then the platform can stay on station for as long or as little time required, being refuelled by other airships.
Click to expand...
Airships are hideously vulnerable to storms, and the tropics is where the biggest storms of all start up.


Ozair said:
- Submarine launched CCAs. Would love to see how a new UUV that could be a mothership for CCAs. Surface launched and can parachute back to the ocean surface, stay buoyant with its airbags and recover and rearm.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that a "submarine" is the right launcher. Launching some CCAs would reveal the sub's position. Drop some AShBMs here.

A Foamship (a bulk cargo carrier packed full of foam) is probably better.




Ozair said:
It becomes a targeting issue more than a range/payload issue, would need sufficient platforms, ie NGAD, down range for this to be a worthwhile investment?

I suggest you don't even need the doors, operating in a modern IADS likely has sufficient low frequency radars to detect a JASSM sized target, so just design a shell The intent with CCAs isn't current platform levels of stealth and in this context you're probably not even suggesting a CCA by the definition, just a long loitering missile with a unique warhead. If you want to give the missile its own radar and other sensors then you might as well go bigger into reusable territory.
Click to expand...
I was actually thinking a Legion IRST seeker up front. None of the other CCAs seem to be packing the full set of F35 sensors, and most only seem to be packing DAS+EOTS.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Airships are hideously vulnerable to storms, and the tropics is where the biggest storms of all start up.
Click to expand...
I doubt it would be a major issue.

Scott Kenny said:
I'm not sure that a "submarine" is the right launcher. Launching some CCAs would reveal the sub's position. Drop some AShBMs here.

A Foamship (a bulk cargo carrier packed full of foam) is probably better.
Click to expand...
??? Surely a submarine is more survivable than a bulk cargo carrier. I expect launching a CCA from a submarine/UUV would likely be little different than a SSN launching Tomahawks. Sure there is more surface time involved but a lot less than a ship that is permanently there.

Out of the box thinking, something to change the paradigm of runways and providing even more flexibility than ground based rocket launches in an area of the world where firm earth is less common.
Scott Kenny said:
I was actually thinking a Legion IRST seeker up front. None of the other CCAs seem to be packing the full set of F35 sensors, and most only seem to be packing DAS+EOTS.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced that would be sufficient for AMRAAM targeting, ranging would remain a concern. Multiple systems might be able to provide some angular bearing via datalink but at what point do you then build a re-useable aircraft that can accommodate more advanced sensors.
 
I just watched a video of Waymo. If that is the level of automation that cars have then a decade of work can easily lead to completely autonomous fighters. I think the problems of jamming affect manned and unmanned fighters equally.
 
indicisivedivide said:
I just watched a video of Waymo. If that is the level of automation that cars have then a decade of work can easily lead to completely autonomous fighters. I think the problems of jamming affect manned and unmanned fighters equally.
Click to expand...
I expect most western CCAs will be using MADL to communicate with F-35, NGAD and other platforms now a MADL pod is in the works. MADL is LPI through both frequency and directionality. To jam the link you would have to cover an insane amount of spectrum while being line of sight with the receiver and even then with DSSS modulation jamming the signal is likely close to impossible. MADL also appears to have very decent range.

If you consider autonomy of the loyal wingman it can be tasked with going off and executing it's own targeting cycle before returning close enough to the host platform to report via MADL. Hence one NGAD could control multiple CCAs over a wide area, each assigned a killbox to work in. General Atomics already considers their CCA capable of full autonomy, it just requires the US Military to adapt tactics and decide to accept the risk associated with autonomous operation.
 
indicisivedivide said:
Only issue will be talent to execute and the money to go down this path.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand what your suggesting. Talent wise the US has established a CCA working group, the by product of which is GA and Andruil being awarded contracts for phase 1 of CCA and phase 2 is about to start. Listen to this by The Merge podcast,
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nDX0GPIucFo&feature=youtu.be
it is an incredible insight to how far along the US actually is with this and how far GA and Andruil are.

Aside from the autonomous tech pretty much everything else is mature, MADL already exists and is present on 1000 F-35s, the airframes being built are using existing processes and the autonomous software is mature. The delay now is the comfort of the respective services to let the autonomy do its thing. For western Militaries often Policy is harder than technology.
 
Notice that, as all the picture displayed during his presentation, this is pretty much a symbolic expression of the concept proponed lightheartedly during his speech.
He was not advocating for a single engine or a light weight fighter. He was opposing the emphasis to design something to last as an air dominance aircraft with something on the opposite line but still less extreme than a disposable a/c: an adaptable one. Something that can be modified or even pushed aside to design something entirely new when needed. In essence those were a complementary expression of the similar century fighters family offered earlier.

In other words, addressing to the ppl of the GCAP, he told them to not bank on a single fighter philosophy that would prevail for the next 20 years but to be ready to have their design challenged on its core credibly at an increased pace. Hence:
1. keep some budget line available
2. keep the design cycle open
3. don´t cut major functionalities for performances.
 
Last edited:
Ozair said:
Agree on field options becoming limited in the first island chain although at 3000nm range I think the XQ-58 is well placed.

There needs to see some serious inventiveness when it comes to CCAs though. A couple of suggestions;
- Airship motherships such as this, https://atlas-lta.com/atlant_cargo_airship/ The mid and large variants would potentially have enough payload to handle multiple XQ-58s and generate multiple strike missions. An automated docking and rearming system is conceivable and if the airship is also unmanned then the platform can stay on station for as long or as little time required, being refuelled by other airships.
- Submarine launched CCAs. Would love to see how a new UUV that could be a mothership for CCAs. Surface launched and can parachute back to the ocean surface, stay buoyant with its airbags and recover and rearm.


It becomes a targeting issue more than a range/payload issue, would need sufficient platforms, ie NGAD, down range for this to be a worthwhile investment?

I suggest you don't even need the doors, operating in a modern IADS likely has sufficient low frequency radars to detect a JASSM sized target, so just design a shell The intent with CCAs isn't current platform levels of stealth and in this context you're probably not even suggesting a CCA by the definition, just a long loitering missile with a unique warhead. If you want to give the missile its own radar and other sensors then you might as well go bigger into reusable territory.
Click to expand...

The range is pretty good with Valkryie. I think the payload is a little light. You need at least two AMRAAM sized weapons to be effective as a munitions truck in A2A. I am not sure you can grow Valkyrie and still be runway independent.
 
B2Blain said:
The range is pretty good with Valkryie. I think the payload is a little light. You need at least two AMRAAM sized weapons to be effective as a munitions truck in A2A. I am not sure you can grow Valkyrie and still be runway independent.
Click to expand...
How we can speak of air dominance with xq-58 ? this is a reusable cruise missile nothing else.
 
TomcatViP said:
Notice that, as all the picture displayed during his presentation, this is pretty much a symbolic expression of the concept proponed lightheartedly during his speech.
He was not advocating for a single engine or a light weight fighter. He was opposing the emphasis to design something to last as an air dominance aircraft with something on the opposite line but still less extreme than a disposable a/c: an adaptable one. Something that can be modified or even pushed aside to design something entirely new when needed. In essence those were a complementary expression of the similar century fighters family offered earlier.

In other words, addressing to the ppl of the GCAP, he told them to not bank on a single fighter philosophy that would prevail for the next 20 years but to be ready to have their design challenged on its core credibly at an increased pace. Hence:
1. keep some budget line available
2. keep the design cycle open
3. don´t cut major functionalities for performances.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the color and detail.
 
so after having thought about this I’m not sure what this Light Combat Aircraft could be that is really different than a Block 4 F-35? A new powerplant is risky. A new planform perhaps, one that does away with horizontal stabilizers, but does that really change performance in a way that matters? Will Roper and his new company is making a lot of noise about digital twinning, but I’m really failing to see how one can readily trump a Block IV F-35 unless we are sitting on a new powerplant that won’t fit into a F-35 but will fit into a F-35 sized fighter that is designed to accommodate it… am I tripping?
 
Training_Dummy said:
so after having thought about this I’m not sure what this Light Combat Aircraft could be that is really different than a Block 4 F-35? A new powerplant is risky. A new planform perhaps, one that does away with horizontal stabilizers, but does that really change performance in a way that matters? Will Roper and his new company is making a lot of noise about digital twinning, but I’m really failing to see how one can readily trump a Block IV F-35 unless we are sitting on a new powerplant that won’t fit into a F-35 but will fit into a F-35 sized fighter that is designed to accommodate it… am I tripping?
Click to expand...
Unless the DOD is so fed up with LMs walled garden they want to basically recreate a better F-35 with a software centric design???
 
Training_Dummy said:
so after having thought about this I’m not sure what this Light Combat Aircraft could be that is really different than a Block 4 F-35? A new powerplant is risky. A new planform perhaps, one that does away with horizontal stabilizers, but does that really change performance in a way that matters? Will Roper and his new company is making a lot of noise about digital twinning, but I’m really failing to see how one can readily trump a Block IV F-35 unless we are sitting on a new powerplant that won’t fit into a F-35 but will fit into a F-35 sized fighter that is designed to accommodate it… am I tripping?
Click to expand...
Training_Dummy said:
Unless the DOD is so fed up with LMs walled garden they want to basically recreate a better F-35 with a software centric design???
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. I don't see the value in an NGAD that is similar in size to the F-35. The whole point was supposed to be persistence in a high threat IADS and a small F-35 sized airframe is unlikely to provide that. A new powerplant maybe gets that sized aircraft 30% more efficiency but for the cost of building a whole new aircraft and associated maintenance/training/development you could give USAF F-35s a probe and send in unmanned tankers. Yes you still have to design and deploy the tanker but that seems a cheaper prospect to me with wider application.

Perhaps this size change is more a reflection on the evolving threat and surviving in that dense future IADS and that a manned system just won't cut it. If that is the case then B-21 should be on the chopping block as well unless it does deliver the optionally manned component. Even then B-21 is an expensive asset when instead of one you could flood the airspace with 10 $50 mill CCAs or 50 $10 mill CCAs and do the same thing day after day after day.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom