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

Scott Kenny said:
I suspect that there will be one generation of manned fighters past the F22/F35. Maybe two, though the second generation would definitely be a Human/AI combo working together (Yes, I've read Yukikaze, that's where I got the idea from). It's possible that the 6th generation would have an AI copilot, kinda depends on the software engineers at this point.

Past that, it's AI-controlled UCAVs basically told "anything flying in the following geographical area that doesn't pass IFF is to be shot down."
Click to expand...

I think that there will be manned aircraft roles for decades to come, even fighters (especially air policing). But I also think for the US, and likely the PRC soon after, the effectiveness of a simple two AAM UAV at getting to with lethal range of anything else and shooting it down (and if necessary just taking the hit rather than b evading) is going to ignite an attritional war of UCAV vs manned, followed shortly their after by UCAV vs UCAV, with the kind of loss rates normally associated with WWII. I’m not sure a “star destroyer” type manned platform has any place in that environment. And if you want to just geo fence a UAV into an airspace that is a free fire zone devoid of friendly aircraft, then that seems completely achievable now.
 
NMaude said:
I can't remember the name of the paper but I remember reading a paper touching on this subject about 11-12 years ago from the DTIC website about how the USMC after it got the F/A-18 hornet over time realised that it needed two-seaters for reasons other than training. I don't recall the exact details but I suspect that a two-seat version of the F-35 would have its uses.
Click to expand...
The difference between a classic Hornet and an F-35 though is night and day. The two seats Hornets were/are used as FACs. I expect an F-35 pilot would be able to accomplish that role today.

Explorer121 said:
The NGAD has always been planned as multicrew because they would scale the number of drone wingmen up as they upgraded it
This ends up needing a dedicated weapons officer
Click to expand...
I haven't seen anything that suggests manned NGAD would be multi-crew. Conversely I have seen this from the USAF

Jobe noted that in the experimentation underway for CCAs, concerns that pilots in fighters would be task-saturated managing two CCA escorts have proved unfounded. Former pilots in F-22 simulators could comfortably manage up to six CCAs, he said.
Click to expand...
www.airandspaceforces.com

First Increment of CCA Contracts Coming in ‘Next Few Months’; Second Round Next Year

The Air Force will award two or three Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) contracts by mid-2024, and a second phase by 2025, leaders said.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

NMaude said:
I just did a search over at the DTIC website for "Two-seat JSF" and this was the first entry:

JSF: The Need for a Two-Seat Variant EWS Contemporary Issue Paper

I do believe this was the paper I mentioned in my previous post (I must reread it).
Click to expand...
While primarily focused on EW that paper is from 2008. Today we have cognitive EW which significantly reduces the workload of the operator while also significantly improving the effectiveness of the EW programs.

NMaude said:
Why would it reduce transonic acceleration?
Click to expand...
Have you viewed the transonic acceleration numbers for the A versus the Cee? The Cee is a little heavier but the main difference is the wings and horizontal stabilizers.
 
Scott Kenny said:
And the US doesn't own the bases in the Pacific to fit them with HAS and SAMs etc.
Click to expand...

The U.S. does own the handful of bases in the second chain, and effectively owns several in Japan. For whatever reason the effort La towards hardening are extremely modest, though there is a lot of runway and apron expansion going on. On the flip side Mizowa is covered with fighter HAS.
 
quellish said:
Software is one of the biggest problems with the program right now. Software and the politics/commercial interests around it.

Does anyone really think that Lockheed is going to willingly integrate with non-Lockheed CCA platforms, or are they going to push to make the CCAs as well? And use integration with an existing platform as leverage?

It does not help that the primes and certain DoD components outright lied to SECAF about aspects of the program and how ready the technology was.

If the press was competent this would have been out in the open by now rather than “shrouded in secrecy”.
Click to expand...
I and the quote from Scott I was responding to wasn't talking about the F-35 which you are clearly referencing.

If you look at the CCA program it is not being run the same as traditional acquisitions. There is a hardware group and a software/autonomy group that have separate intents. The companies participating in these groups include both the big SIs but also the smaller newer entrants and surprise surprise the two who won Phase 1 were smaller leaner companies. I expect it will likely be a similar composition for phase two.

As for integrating the CCAs with F-35, yes I expect LM to tow the line. It would be in their business interest to because it actually secures the F-35s place in the future battlespace irrespective of where the CCAs themselves come from.
 
quellish said:
Software is one of the biggest problems with the program right now. Software and the politics/commercial interests around it.

Does anyone really think that Lockheed is going to willingly integrate with non-Lockheed CCA platforms, or are they going to push to make the CCAs as well? And use integration with an existing platform as leverage?

It does not help that the primes and certain DoD components outright lied to SECAF about aspects of the program and how ready the technology was.

If the press was competent this would have been out in the open by now rather than “shrouded in secrecy”.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the Skyborg project and other programs require the source code to be delivered to USAF and for it to operate across platforms. ThexSDA seems to be building it’s new satellite constellation with a similar forced open architecture requirement, and if you don’t want to play ball, you aren’t part of the program.
 
Josh_TN said:
if you don’t want to play ball, you aren’t part of the program.
Click to expand...

Boeing, Lockheed: “play ball? We’re the only game in town, baby!”

The Air Force wants to use the CCA program to grow new and innovative contractors. Do you really think Boeing and Lockheed are ok with that?
 
quellish said:
Boeing, Lockheed: “play ball? We’re the only game in town, baby!”

The Air Force wants to use the CCA program to grow new and innovative contractors. Do you really think Boeing and Lockheed are ok with that?
Click to expand...
Phase 1 has already proven the USAF is on the right path and Boeing and LM are no longer the only game in town. Perhaps if we are talking manned NGAD then I would agree but CCA has opened the flood gates now and the options are much broader. Doesn't mean LM and Boeing won't play in the CCA space but they have a lot more competition to keep them honest and hungry.
 
Ozair said:
Phase 1 has already proven the USAF is on the right path and Boeing and LM are no longer the only game in town. Perhaps if we are talking manned NGAD then I would agree but CCA has opened the flood gates now and the options are much broader. Doesn't mean LM and Boeing won't play in the CCA space but they have a lot more competition to keep them honest and hungry.
Click to expand...

It has not.

Phase I and Phase II CCA have to integrate with existing aircraft and other systems to be viable. At one point the technology was advertised by a certain organization as mature when the fighter pilot had to manually control companion aircraft through an iPad while also flying his own aircraft in a simulated engagement.

That… didn’t… work.

I planned to post a complete, concise account of what the Air Force is trying to achieve vs what has actually been delivered and advertised as mature, but I am concerned about where this information may end up.

However if I were an enterprising individual I would look at some of the recent abrupt, unexpected changes in USAF leadership and draw some conclusions based on that. Like is some mindless ticket punching automaton was replaced with someone more experienced in acquisitions…
 
quellish said:
It has not.

Phase I and Phase II CCA have to integrate with existing aircraft and other systems to be viable. At one point the technology was advertised by a certain organization as mature when the fighter pilot had to manually control companion aircraft through an iPad while also flying his own aircraft in a simulated engagement.

That… didn’t… work.

I planned to post a complete, concise account of what the Air Force is trying to achieve vs what has actually been delivered and advertised as mature, but I am concerned about where this information may end up.

However if I were an enterprising individual I would look at some of the recent abrupt, unexpected changes in USAF leadership and draw some conclusions based on that. Like is some mindless ticket punching automaton was replaced with someone more experienced in acquisitions…
Click to expand...
Are we talking about vendors and a wider pool or are we talking about the integration work being done?

For the integration work no production ready Phase One CCA has been handed over so I think you are a little early to discount what is happening. Will it all be sunshine and lollypops, undoubtedly not but the CCA portion of NGAD is clearly showing incredible promise and over the next five years will see progression that I expect will dwarf much of what has happened in aviation over the last 50 years previously.
 
quellish said:
Software is one of the biggest problems with the program right now. Software and the politics/commercial interests around it.

Does anyone really think that Lockheed is going to willingly integrate with non-Lockheed CCA platforms, or are they going to push to make the CCAs as well? And use integration with an existing platform as leverage?
Click to expand...
Oh, they're not going to get a choice in the matter.




quellish said:
Boeing, Lockheed: “play ball? We’re the only game in town, baby!”

The Air Force wants to use the CCA program to grow new and innovative contractors. Do you really think Boeing and Lockheed are ok with that?
Click to expand...
"Not for long with that attitude. Hang on while I call DoJ and see what to do about this effective monopoly you have created for yourself here. Oops, Boeing just got split into 3 separate companies (minimum). Lockheed is getting split into about 20."
 
quellish said:
Boeing, Lockheed: “play ball? We’re the only game in town, baby!”

The Air Force wants to use the CCA program to grow new and innovative contractors. Do you really think Boeing and Lockheed are ok with that?
Click to expand...

I do not think they get a vote. NG and Kratos are already better placed for Incr2. Look at what the SDA has done with Incr 0/1/2 so far: it has at least seven satellite contractors I can identify. Play ball or be replaced.

ETA: if the concern is the controller aircraft, which initially is planned to be the F-35, then I think that stumbling block falls over soon too. I think USAF is ultimately looking for full automation or control via high altitude platforms and/or SDAs new global satellite network. If LM won’t play ball, I suspect NG will.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
NGAD is a long term project beyond 2030, possibly way beyond 2030 now. The B-21 is one of the most successful USAF development programs in recent memory and it still had its contract signed a decade ago with a design freeze in 2018. So ~2035 seems like a realistic estimate to me. If you believe a war comes before that, or you believe air to air warfare as we know it becomes unrecognizable by then, what is the solution? Quite possibly, not any manned platform at all, or at least not the one you envisioned a decade ago.
Click to expand...
That would be a reasonable course of action. There is only one problem. They are not acting like they are preparing for the short term. Kendall and the rest of the AF's leadership has given every excuse in the book, except that one.

If that were the case then they would slash NGAD funding for the platform, fully commit to F-22 modernization - including upgrading the Block 20 up to the current standard, preprogram NGAP funding to the AETP engine for the F-35A to extend its range, and designating the F-22 and F-35 as the short term controllers for the CCAs. F-22/F-35 CCA teaming would be used to validate manned/unmanned teaming in penetrating counter air missions in the short term - something that really hasn't been done before.

But they have never said that or hinted at it.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The UK was also willing to foot the bill for installing HASs.

Philippines can't afford it, Japan doesn't want to look military, do I need to keep going?
Click to expand...

Japan certainly has hardened shelters on its own bases, as well as modest hardening efforts at Kadena and numerous HAS at Misowa. However the USAF is generally of the opinion hardening is of limited value due to penetrating PGMs. They are more interested in decoys and dispersion. I personally think that shelters that can obscure the presence of aircraft and stop fragments would still be immensely useful.
 
What no one is doing yet is massive roof surfaces all around the airbase. Those can be made of light and cheap materials.
The idea being to have literally 100 by 1000 m roof here, a 100 by 500 m roof there, bunch of 50 by 300 m roofs, all connected together.
So optical and radar sensors can't know where, under all that roofage, a plane is. Or how many there are. There could even be secondary hangars on wheels moved around underneath, hangars being able to withstand cluster munitions. Again, positions of such hangars would be unknown to the enemy, as they would change positions under all the roofage.
Roofs would also be modular in construction, say 5 by 5m, so whole patches could be replaced after an attack.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The UK was also willing to foot the bill for installing HASs.

Philippines can't afford it, Japan doesn't want to look military, do I need to keep going?
Click to expand...

Japan has changed their defense posture quite a bit over the last decade.

They have up'd their defense spending quite a bit, relaxed their prohibition on exporting military technology and have moved away from their completely defensive military posture.

In short, they are taking their own defense much more seriously and are not so shy about it.
 
Archibald said:
Don't know for Typhoon but Rafale F4 and F5 seems good enough until 2040. What truly bothers me are the low numbers procured. Very low numbers.
Click to expand...
Just slapping an AESA Radar and an up-to-date datalink onto them seems like a largely good enough way to turn European owned aircraft into 4.5th gen and keep them modern (since they usually have long lives left in them); you don't necessarily need to buy expensive aircraft in this economy.
 
snne said:
Just slapping an AESA Radar and an up-to-date datalink onto them seems like a largely good enough way to turn European owned aircraft into 4.5th gen and keep them modern (since they usually have long lives left in them); you don't necessarily need to buy expensive aircraft in this economy.
Click to expand...
They do need the ability to control the CCAs, though.

And at least right now, that looks like 2 seats because the dude driving the plane can't be distracted while giving the CCAs as much attention as they currently require.

So, how many 2-seat Rafales and Typhoons are there?

(Crud, this might actually give Gripen some more sales, just because you can buy 2-seaters)
 
Scott Kenny said:
(Crud, this might actually give Gripen some more sales, just because you can buy 2-seaters)
Click to expand...

Ehem...their two seaters are still in production...?

Here's a recently delivered (don't know how recent but it can't be older than two years) Kuwaiti Typhoon:

86086_1638815141.jpg


Here are Greek Rafales (these could be ex-French aircraft though):

5726235-1568x882.jpg

IMG_2178.jpg



They do need the ability to control the CCAs, though.
Click to expand...
I think by that point this role would fall on the GCAP and (if it ever materializes) FCAS which would get inducted just in time for when large scale trials of this new "collaborative air combat" begins.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
They do need the ability to control the CCAs, though.

And at least right now, that looks like 2 seats because the dude driving the plane can't be distracted while giving the CCAs as much attention as they currently require.

So, how many 2-seat Rafales and Typhoons are there?

(Crud, this might actually give Gripen some more sales, just because you can buy 2-seaters)
Click to expand...
You don't need two seats for CCA control.

Jobe noted that in the experimentation underway for CCAs, concerns that pilots in fighters would be task-saturated managing two CCA escorts have proved unfounded. Former pilots in F-22 simulators could comfortably manage up to six CCAs, he said.
Click to expand...
www.airandspaceforces.com

First Increment of CCA Contracts Coming in ‘Next Few Months’; Second Round Next Year

The Air Force will award two or three Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) contracts by mid-2024, and a second phase by 2025, leaders said.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
 
Ainen said:
Well, you don't, but at least China decided that it's still better to have more people in the air.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. If you're referring to the twin seat J-20B, so far we don't know if it will enter service (the more recent consensus is it's a series of tech demos that assists in the development of the new J-20A variant).
Even if J-20B does enter service, we don't know how its CCA/UCAV control is in an absolute sense, only that it would likely be superior to a single seater.

For example (just throwing a number out there), a generic single seater of the near future may be able to control six CCAs while carrying out its regular missions, while a generic twin seater of the near future may be able to control twenty CCAs while carrying out its regular missions, and having both single seater and twin seaters in service could prove useful (regular CCA control versus augmented uber CCA control).
 
Ainen said:
Well, you don't, but at least China decided that it's still better to have more people in the air.
And, of all things, I am not sure China will be now too far behind US in understanding drones or autonomy.
Click to expand...
The whole point of CCA is autonomous operations. Task the asset to go and do something and it will do it and report back, if it survives.
Scott Kenny said:
Depends on what he wants the tests to say.
Click to expand...
Not a fan of people that take those philosophical positions. If you are of the bent that every General is there to feather their own nest I expect you either haven't met too many of them or worked with people who go on to become Generals/Senior leadership. Almost all I have worked with are driven individuals who want to achieve big things but their people and the mission always comes first.

Any General ranked individual would surely have an appreciation of how much bigger the scandal would be were he/she to reach down into their organisation attempting to adjust test outcomes compared to failing tests.

A perfect example would be Brig. Gen. Jason E. Bartolomei who oversaw the ARRW program. Despite ARRW's failure and being dropped he has gone on to lead AFRL. https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/3260359/ Moral of the story is you don't have to have a successful program for you to be promoted and integrity is still a highly valued quality in senior leadership.
 
Ozair said:
Any General ranked individual would surely have an appreciation of how much bigger the scandal would be were he/she to reach down into their organisation attempting to adjust test outcomes compared to failing tests.
Click to expand...
Oh, my sweet summer child.

  • LtCol Rene Studler, during the NATO rifle trials, changed the terms of the testing so that the .280 British would not win. There's documented protests over this in the diplomatic archives.
  • Every test given in relation to the A-10, including the A-10 versus A-7 comparison. And the A-10 v A-7 comparison was the most balanced evaluation, showing that the A-10 does things that the A-7 could not do, and that the A-7 did things that the A-10 did very poorly, so the best answer for the USAF was to keep both in service.
Do I really need to keep going?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Oh, my sweet summer child.

  • LtCol Rene Studler, during the NATO rifle trials, changed the terms of the testing so that the .280 British would not win. There's documented protests over this in the diplomatic archives.
  • Every test given in relation to the A-10, including the A-10 versus A-7 comparison. And the A-10 v A-7 comparison was the most balanced evaluation, showing that the A-10 does things that the A-7 could not do, and that the A-7 did things that the A-10 did very poorly, so the best answer for the USAF was to keep both in service.
Do I really need to keep going?
Click to expand...
You have mentioned two instances, both of which are more than 40 years ago. There will always be a bad egg or two amongst the bunch but as of today there are 245 individuals across the various General ranks of the USAF and Joint positions. I expect you would struggle to find even 10 examples across the last 30 years of what you are suggesting and that would be from a potential group numbering in the thousands.
 
Ozair said:
You have mentioned two instances, both of which are more than 40 years ago. There will always be a bad egg or two amongst the bunch but as of today there are 245 individuals across the various General ranks of the USAF and Joint positions. I expect you would struggle to find even 10 examples across the last 30 years of what you are suggesting and that would be from a potential group numbering in the thousands.
Click to expand...
While not a general, there's always Principal Deputy Undersecretary of the Air Force for Acquisition Darleen Druyun WRT Boeing KC-46 and the SDB 1 (and I have my suspicions about CSAR-X as well).
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom