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

If the requirements of NGAD were to move toward FA-XX (my personal suspicion), then it makes sense for NG to chase it. If the USAF is going for something simpler, lighter and shorter ranged, then that dramatically changes the playing field. Even more so if they are interested in short runway capability - a CV oriented airframe would already have a much shorter run out just by nature of USN stall speed and control surface requirements. F-35C has something like half the runway requirement of the A version. If rough, short airstrip capability is being substituted for brute range, FA-XX with a little lightening of the internal structure might drop in well with the revised requirements. Hell even the tailhook might be useful using mobile land based arrestors; I think the USMC trains for that with its hornets.
 
I still suspect NGAD was morphing into a 6th gen super-plane that cost too much for a conventional war against China. USAF needs a reasonable cost 6th gen fighter that can be purchased in F-15C/E numbers, 500-1000 total airframes. That pushes towards the smaller, STOL focused design that gives up some stealth.

Space Based aircraft tracking, I think, makes supersonic dash more valuable. If nearly anything of a useful size can be seen and tracked, speed alone offers protection. Yes, supersonic aircraft can be seen, but if nobody can get to them in time, they'll be able to complete their mission.
 
Josh_TN said:
I don’t see any reason a UAV optimized for A2A needs two engines.
Click to expand...
The issue is at this point no CCA we have seen matches the performance, sensor capability and magazine depth of manned aircraft other than in range and that range comes from subsonic optimised airframes. It seems likely that to match that mix would require a platform that costs similar to a manned platform, until such point that volume production may bring that comparatively down.
 
Imho I think there is still a role for a large capacity aircraft that cruises efficiently at high altitude with as LO a profile as possible, the ability to rapidly accelerate through the transonic regime to launch its missiles with the friendliest energy state possible and continue its supersonic profile to rapidly egress from the threat environment. By large capacity I mean a high fuel fraction as well as the ability to internally carry ideally eight AMRAAM class weapons like -120D3 or -260 with the ability to accommodate two larger weapons internally should the USAF ever field such a thing. I would overspec power and cooling and only uses avionics, radar/EM/sensor systems and comms that will be fielded in TR3 or beyond F-35s and in B-21, with of course SWAPC headroom for future upgrades. Im not sure what cool variants of existing powerplants PW and GE have on the shelf, but there has to be something that can be used without investing in a new powerplant per se but allows the achievement of the mission parameters described crudely earlier.

If simplified enough, the is an airframe that even a non traditional prime might credibly compete for a contract. Given the reveal of the manned Model 437, the airframe described above might actually be readily adaptable for manned/unmanned options. Less emphasis on dogfighting and maneuvering, no lasers or DEW, no gun. Only thing you really splurge on is on EOTS and passive targeting and awareness.
 
Josh_TN said:
The prospect of a downward looking radar on a wide flying wing shape presents a potential huge vulnerability. Add to that in the case of NGAD that a super cruising platform might also
Click to expand...
Thw whole point of low observability is to avoid getting locked on; to make it harder for the enemy to get a missile lock; and avoid getting detected (if possible) in the first place but the former always has the priority.
 
Ozair said:
The issue is at this point no CCA we have seen matches the performance, sensor capability and magazine depth of manned aircraft other than in range and that range comes from subsonic optimised airframes. It seems likely that to match that mix would require a platform that costs similar to a manned platform, until such point that volume production may bring that comparatively down.
Click to expand...

I am sure it would cost about the same, but why should it have all those capabilities? The two CCAs we know about are 10,000 lb MTOW subsonic AAM carriers which likely have far less sensor capacity (at least in terms of radar). If you gave one an augmented turbofan, you would lose range but gain speed. No need for any other expensive changes. Perhaps something like Hermes’ design could even make a pseudo ramjet workable.
 
Last edited:
snne said:
Thw whole point of low observability is to avoid getting locked on; to make it harder for the enemy to get a missile lock; and avoid getting detected (if possible) in the first place but the former always has the priority.
Click to expand...

Changing the angle from which you observe the target might have huge ramifications. Looking straight up at or down onto a B-2 has to be about the largest radar return possible (in certain wavelengths), even when compared to looking straight down the leading wing edge.
 
The problem is still the Pacific Ocean, and where the islands are relative to China. You need double the range of current aircraft in order to keep your tankers out of the A2AD zones. Full stop.

So yes, NGAD will end up a large airframe just because it needs to carry a huge amount of fuel. I'm guessing at least 40,000lbs of fuel onboard, and probably closer to 55klbs of fuel (based on F111B fuel consumption/capacity and 1800nmi range).

Ideally the weapons bays would be deep enough to hold 2000lb class weapons, so that the NGAD could be given a strike role later on, but I doubt that would happen.
 
Josh_TN said:
I am sure it would cost about the same, but why should it have all those capabilities? The two CCAs we know about are 10,000 lb MTOW subsonic AAM carriers which likely have far less sensor capacity (at least in terms of radar). If you gave one an augmented turbofan, you would lose range but gain speed. No need for any other expensive changes. Perhaps something like Hermes’ design could even make a pseudo ramjet workable.
Click to expand...
If you reduce manned NGAD capabilities then you have to compensate with improved CCA capabilities. No good having a manned NGAD that is massively outranged by the CCA and the CCA sensors are not capable enough to complete the FFTT portion of the targeting cycle on its own.

I think supersonic speed involves more than just slapping on an afterburner but CCAs matching manned fighter capabilities remains a lot more than just speed.
 
Sorry for the ignorant question, but has there been an NGAD flyoff? Do we know which company got the contract? Or if there hasn't been one, is there an expected date?
 
Elysium said:
Sorry for the ignorant question, but has there been an NGAD flyoff? Do we know which company got the contract? Or if there hasn't been one, is there an expected date?
Click to expand...

We have no clear idea where the project stands. Probably there are not actual flying prototypes, as opposed to technology demonstrators. Certainly there has not been a contract award, or a projected date for an award, considering the discussion up-thread about changing requirements for NGAD.
 
Ozair said:
If you reduce manned NGAD capabilities then you have to compensate with improved CCA capabilities. No good having a manned NGAD that is massively outranged by the CCA and the CCA sensors are not capable enough to complete the FFTT portion of the targeting cycle on its own.

I think supersonic speed involves more than just slapping on an afterburner but CCAs matching manned fighter capabilities remains a lot more than just speed.
Click to expand...
You criticized the CCAs as being subsonic and I merely pointed out that is only Incr 1. We do not know what performance future UAVs will have. As for capability: quantity has a certain capability all its own and not every single CCA needs to have identical sensor fits if everything is networked.
 
Josh_TN said:
You criticized the CCAs as being subsonic and I merely pointed out that is only Incr 1. We do not know what performance future UAVs will have. As for capability: quantity has a certain capability all its own and not every single CCA needs to have identical sensor fits if everything is networked.
Click to expand...
While true, the more sensors above the basic needed to fly you add to a CCA the higher the cost of that CCA.

Something with the full F-35 sensor fit will cost pretty close to 30mil in sensors alone... And the USAF doesn't want to spend that much per whole CCA airframe!
 
Distributed Space Radar creates the possibility of, not Ground Controlled Intercept, but Space Controlled Intercept - which puts every mission at risk of fighter interception. In such a case, subsonic penetrating bombers are borderline obsolete.

As for range, either build a very large airplane or go STOL (and maybe swing-wing!) and operate out of Japanese airbases.
 
DrRansom said:
Distributed Space Radar creates the possibility of, not Ground Controlled Intercept, but Space Controlled Intercept - which puts every mission at risk of fighter interception. In such a case, subsonic penetrating bombers are borderline obsolete.
Click to expand...
Depends on whether the B-21s are detectable from above.

Yes, straight overhead is likely their single largest RCS angle. The question is how quickly does the RCS drop off as you come away from the top down view.

If B-21s are only detectable by a satellite directly overhead, PERFECTLY overhead, that's trivial to deal with. Someone gets a single detection once per orbit.



DrRansom said:
As for range, either build a very large airplane or go STOL (and maybe swing-wing!) and operate out of Japanese airbases.
Click to expand...
IIRC the assumption is that those will be hit by hypersonics and ballistics, if not nukes.
 
Josh_TN said:
You criticized the CCAs as being subsonic and I merely pointed out that is only Incr 1. We do not know what performance future UAVs will have. As for capability: quantity has a certain capability all its own and not every single CCA needs to have identical sensor fits if everything is networked.
Click to expand...
I think criticize isn't an accurate portrayal. I agree that we don't know what future platform capabilities will be but we also know what it costs to get the capability required when you add sensors, magazine depth and speed to the mix. Networking everything is fine if you assume that the platforms will have the ability to communicate. I would suggest there is enough experience with communications issues/jamming etc over Ukraine that expecting consistent communications is not good planning.
 
www.ga-asi.com

GA-ASI Displays Future of Uncrewed Airpower at AFA ASC 2024

Are you ready to see the future of uncrewed air power? General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) announces major displays during the Air Force Association’s (AFA) Air, Space & Cyber Conference
www.ga-asi.com

GA CCA full-scale mockup:
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3462.jpeg
    IMG_3462.jpeg
    1.4 MB · Views: 81
red admiral said:
I'm still trying to work out where the AMRAAMs go on Fury. Really seems like external on the wings rather than there being an internal bay sandwiched into the lower fuselage.
Click to expand...

Yes.

img_2206_1-jpg.697996
 
It is not clear to me that the GA submission has a weapon bay either, at least not one big enough for a full sized AAM. Model 437 explicitly does, though it is not part of Incr1.
 
Ozair said:
I think criticize isn't an accurate portrayal. I agree that we don't know what future platform capabilities will be but we also know what it costs to get the capability required when you add sensors, magazine depth and speed to the mix. Networking everything is fine if you assume that the platforms will have the ability to communicate. I would suggest there is enough experience with communications issues/jamming etc over Ukraine that expecting consistent communications is not good planning.
Click to expand...

I do not see any reason to increase magazine depth. Increasing performance certainly is desirable, though currently there seems to be a lack of off the shelf propulsion plants in the proper weight class for supersonic performance. A statement by Anduril specifically mentioned the lack of augmented turbofans in smaller thrust classes as a reason Fury was going to have to remain high subsonic for the foreseeable future.

As for sensors and networks, I think any aircraft, manned or unmanned, that falls out of network is going to be at a hopeless disadvantage anyway. And also think modern directional frequency agile datalinks are extremely resistant to ECM. I personally would be comfortable largely relying on such, though I would want every CCA to at least have an IRST and ESM. Putting radars on them seems problematic because of cost and SWAP-C; the radar would likely have so little detection range against a 5th gen target such that it was largely useless. I idly wonder if some kind of laser range finder/lidar would not be a lighter, less power hungry way of establishing target position after passive initial detection. But a large capable radar simply will not fit in the ~10,000 lb MTOW CCAs we are seeing. Better to offload that capability to the manned platform (initially F-35) or dedicated UAV sensor platforms (perhaps even “RQ-180” has some capability in this regard).
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom