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

By the time the plug was pulled in fiscal 2010, problems with the plane and a lack of a mission led the DoD to purchase 187 F-22s, or 563 fewer than the originally intended 750.

The F-35 has been under continuous development since the contract was awarded in 2001.


These examples are more reasons a increasingly costly and mission complex family of ngad should be less a priority than a family of PGMs (Direct Atk>50km, Stand In 50-40km, Stand Off, 501km-1500km Long Range Strike 1500km+ )
Lower cost, high volume production capable PGMs for Stand Off and Long Range Strike would appear to be goal while Direct Atk+ Stand In missions could be tackled w/ high volume production, lower cost, ever higher energetics warhead outfitted UAV/msle/rounds. A 105mm cannon mounting CCA would be a suggestion in order to engage enough SEAD/CAS/BAI/Deep Strike/counter HVT moving and static targets in a timely fashion.
 
This is quite possibly the worst approach. Retaining the Block 20 F-22s while not providing any additional upgrade funding, in addition to cutting NGAD budget, is frankly the worst of both worlds.

What’s interesting is that Lockheed Martin themselves first proposed upgrading the Block 20 jets to Block 30/35 standards in 2017, but this wasn’t pursued by the USAF. In hindsight that was likely an expensive mistake whose effects are manifesting themselves now.
 
Okay, because I don't want to try to read through 136 pages of thread:

Are we seriously going to an F-15 style contracting process for the USAF NGAD? Bunch of companies all pitch their ideas, but only one gets a contract to build and fly anything? No fly-offs between competing prototypes?
 
I cannot wait to see the artwork rooster.
Though the declassified is what I refer to and will only refer to, i don't think it's wise and leaves an electronic trail. Its nothing you haven't seen but more details and much bigger or closer up. What you're seeing isnt far from the mark but with changes to make them real air vehicles. Much like the Lockheed ATF artwork from the 80s. Much like the Lockheed ATF artwork from the 80s. Big like a sukhoi and maybe a little bigger. Optimized for broadband stealth but still with the ability to be deadly close up but surrounded by relatively cheap drones. what can I say? Its full steam ahead 110% with boatloads of money being spent and I expect 2 drones to be revealed first before the manned vehicle but that's rumor. Unfortunately 200 seems to be accurate for now. I suspect if the drones don't perform them they will have to revise those numbers if congress doesn't cut. I will say don't expect super cruising drones.... So I don't know how that plays out operationally with a super cruising manned vehicle. Drones in first? Who knows I'm a grunt engineer.
Gotta admit, that is about the size I was expecting from the "wish list" abilities, particularly Pacific scale range and a desire to escort bombers again under the Penetrating Counter-Air concepts. On the order of 10ft longer than an F-15 or F-22, 5ft longer than the YF-23.
 
… I will say don't expect super cruising drones.... So I don't know how that plays out operationally with a super cruising manned vehicle. Drones in first? Who knows I'm a grunt engineer.

Regarding supercruise and drones…I’d assume the limiting factor is using an augmented turbofan for weight and cost reasons ? My understanding is that getting up to speed for supercruise still requires afterburner or at least is far more efficient that way. There after the engine can throttle down to max dry. Could a RATO booster be substituted for a one time kick up to supersonic to allow for a limited supersonic cruise for an engagement/interception?

Although it also occurs to me now supercruise probably involves a more limited bypass of the engine core and that this too might be harder to achieve in UAV sized applications, at least with anything off the shelf.
 
Last edited:
… I will say don't expect super cruising drones.... So I don't know how that plays out operationally with a super cruising manned vehicle. Drones in first? Who knows I'm a grunt engineer.

Regarding supercruise and drones…I’d assume the limiting factor is using an augmented turbofan for weight and cost reasons ? My understanding is that getting up to speed for supercruise still requires afterburner or at least is far more efficient that way. There after the engine can throttle down to max dry. Could a RATO booster be substituted for a one time kick up to supersonic to allow for a limited supersonic cruise for an engagement/interception?

Although it also occurs to me now supercruise probably involves a more limited bypass of the engine core and that this too might be harder to achieve in UAV sized applications, at least with anything off the shelf.
I'm honestly expecting Loyal Wingman drones to be about the size of an F-16 maybe even the Mitsubishi F-2. They're big due to internal weapons carriage and internal fuel requirements from range. And just like with the F-15/F-16, they will probably run off of one engine as used in the NGAD. Gives you a larger engine buy which reduces costs.

I mean, you're expecting these drones to come back most of the time, so they're not really attritable in that sense. You are expecting them to take a missile for their manned plane, but only as a last resort.
 
I don’t see the CCAs being that large or expensive. Not disposable either, but also not something full fighter sized using the manned component’s engine. As for range, XQ-58 already has a 3000 mi/5000km range and 600lbs of internal ordnance. I would not think something dramatically larger was needed to match the manned fighters range and still carry a useful AAM load.
 
I don’t see the CCAs being that large or expensive. Not disposable either, but also not something full fighter sized using the manned component’s engine. As for range, XQ-58 already has a 3000 mi/5000km range and 600lbs of internal ordnance. I would not think something dramatically larger was needed to match the manned fighters range and still carry a useful AAM load.
600lbs is 3x AIM-9X, that's it. I am expecting 4x AMRAAM and 2x Sidewinder.
 
I don’t see the CCAs being that large or expensive. Not disposable either, but also not something full fighter sized using the manned component’s engine. As for range, XQ-58 already has a 3000 mi/5000km range and 600lbs of internal ordnance. I would not think something dramatically larger was needed to match the manned fighters range and still carry a useful AAM load.
600lbs is 3x AIM-9X, that's it. I am expecting 4x AMRAAM and 2x Sidewinder.

I agree at least four AAMs, but you wouldn’t need something 4th gen fighter sized to get there. A big question would be supersonic or not? Supercruise is going to expensive in weight, size, and cost. But even then, I’d expect it to use a cheaper legacy engine and be sized more like a T7.

They aren’t building a thousand of them if it’s wearing an adaptive engine. In fact I suspect they can only get there with multiple models produced by disparate manufacturers.
 
I don’t see the CCAs being that large or expensive. Not disposable either, but also not something full fighter sized using the manned component’s engine. As for range, XQ-58 already has a 3000 mi/5000km range and 600lbs of internal ordnance. I would not think something dramatically larger was needed to match the manned fighters range and still carry a useful AAM load.
600lbs is 3x AIM-9X, that's it. I am expecting 4x AMRAAM and 2x Sidewinder.

I agree at least four AAMs, but you wouldn’t need something 4th gen fighter sized to get there. A big question would be supersonic or not? Supercruise is going to expensive in weight, size, and cost. But even then, I’d expect it to use a cheaper legacy engine and be sized more like a T7.
If we're expecting the Loyal Wingman to keep up with a plane that regularly supercruises like the F22 or NGAD, the Loyal Wingman has to be supercruising at the same speeds.

So I guess that's the real question: How much do the F22s actually supercruise? And do they have more range while supercruising than subsonic? I was under the impression that the F22 was more efficient at supercruise than subsonic, as the speed roughly doubles while the engine is only at Mil power.

They aren’t building a thousand of them if it’s wearing an adaptive engine. In fact I suspect they can only get there with multiple models produced by disparate manufacturers.
There are almost 1000 F-16C/Ds in service, I don't think it's completely unrealistic.

But it probably will be that there are multiple manufacturers. I'm guesstimating some Wingmen with better stealth and sensors, some with greater capacity for air to ground work, some more maneuverable, etc.
 
If we're expecting the Loyal Wingman to keep up with a plane that regularly supercruises like the F22 or NGAD, the Loyal Wingman has to be supercruising at the same speeds.

So I guess that's the real question: How much do the F22s actually supercruise? And do they have more range while supercruising than subsonic? I was under the impression that the F22 was more efficient at supercruise than subsonic, as the speed roughly doubles while the engine is only at Mil power.

There would be a good case to be made for supercruise - being able to keep up with the manned platform across most speed regimes and imparting more energy to ordnance. That would have to be weighed against the costs of having that capability on what is supposed to be an "affordable mass" airframe. I've read the initial role envisioned for CCA is as an alternative shooter - which I took to mean it would not be a major sensor node or necessarily much of an ECM platform (outside acting as a local decoy). To me this speaks to the fact that what the USAF really wants to do is offboard the AAM firing event. Launching a missile is a road flare on any IR detection system (potentially even from orbit), and any two systems datalinked that witness the launch can triangulate the exact position of it and concentrate sensor coverage there. In that context, maybe transonic cruise is "good enough" for a reusable but still much more expendable firing platform?

A fair question about fuel efficiency vs range that I don't have an answer to. There's no doubt that a fast cruise is desirable just for crossing the vast distances of the Pacific, if it can be done in a suitably fuel efficient way. I just don't think using an adaptive engine on the CCA as being cost effective to achieve that. At that point I think we'd be looking at a large UAV with an up front cost on the level of a 4th/5th gen fighter. Ideally I'd want to be able to somehow get to supercruise without an afterburner, or at least with as inexpensive of an engine as I could manage. I think the F-104 could be supersonic in dry thrust, so perhaps a suitably aerodynamic shell with minimal internal carriage* could manage it?


*(the 4 BVR AAMs we've mentioned - I think carrying extra WVR AAMs is superfluous in this role)
 
Don't forget that CCA has range and loiter time. If it needs to supercruise for whatever tactical advantages the mission planning requests, climbing to alt prior to a dive in order to get supersonic would rather looks more efficient than hauling a complex and heavy afterburner all the time.

It brings us to the other parameter: magazine length. Why would you need 4 Amraam when you don't have an afterburner to outran enemy fighters once you have been detected (launching a couple of Amraam would make sure you have been detected).

That's how optimization works.
 
If we're expecting the Loyal Wingman to keep up with a plane that regularly supercruises like the F22 or NGAD, the Loyal Wingman has to be supercruising at the same speeds.

So I guess that's the real question: How much do the F22s actually supercruise? And do they have more range while supercruising than subsonic? I was under the impression that the F22 was more efficient at supercruise than subsonic, as the speed roughly doubles while the engine is only at Mil power.

There would be a good case to be made for supercruise - being able to keep up with the manned platform across most speed regimes and imparting more energy to ordnance. That would have to be weighed against the costs of having that capability on what is supposed to be an "affordable mass" airframe. I've read the initial role envisioned for CCA is as an alternative shooter - which I took to mean it would not be a major sensor node or necessarily much of an ECM platform (outside acting as a local decoy). To me this speaks to the fact that what the USAF really wants to do is offboard the AAM firing event. Launching a missile is a road flare on any IR detection system (potentially even from orbit), and any two systems datalinked that witness the launch can triangulate the exact position of it and concentrate sensor coverage there. In that context, maybe transonic cruise is "good enough" for a reusable but still much more expendable firing platform?
Assuming that the NGAD usually supercruises on patrol or whatever because the whole engine and airframe were optimized for that, like the SR-71 was, then I think the CCA is going to have to be able to supercruise. If not, the CCA will have to be based or staged well in front of the NGAD, close to wherever the fight is happening.

A fair question about fuel efficiency vs range that I don't have an answer to. There's no doubt that a fast cruise is desirable just for crossing the vast distances of the Pacific, if it can be done in a suitably fuel efficient way. I just don't think using an adaptive engine on the CCA as being cost effective to achieve that. At that point I think we'd be looking at a large UAV with an up front cost on the level of a 4th/5th gen fighter. Ideally I'd want to be able to somehow get to supercruise without an afterburner, or at least with as inexpensive of an engine as I could manage. I think the F-104 could be supersonic in dry thrust, so perhaps a suitably aerodynamic shell with minimal internal carriage* could manage it?
The AGM-28 Hound Dog missile was absolutely capable of supercruise, and it had a 7500lb thrust non-afterburning engine(!). 10klbs, 1750lb payload. Oh, and modifiable for reduced RCS, even. The big SR-71 inlet spike and sharp delta wing helped reduce RCS in general.

So it might not have to be as big as I thought, as the Hound Dog had a 750 mile range at Mach 2.1 and 56k ft. Down to 400mi at low altitude, though.

=====

Now I'm thinking an aircraft somewhere between HiMAT and F-16XL size at the largest, optimized for supercruise at whatever speed the NGAD can make. Does NOT require the same engine as NGAD. Might run on an F100 or F110, but the US has a couple thousand of those to refit and reuse. Plus the engines are still currently in production. The F-16XL itself was capable of supercruise, so stealth the hell out of that and give it internal weapons bays. 2200mile range unrefueled, so combat radius of about 750miles? For extra simplicity, maybe use the weapons bays of the F-35A/C, which IIRC can hold 1x AIM-9 and 2x AMRAAM each. I am assuming that the plane would have the full set of chaff, flares, jammers, decoys, RWR, and MAWS.


*(the 4 BVR AAMs we've mentioned - I think carrying extra WVR AAMs is superfluous in this role)
I'm actually having the Sidewinders more for IR homing on hot, low RCS targets than trying to dogfight with them.

However, I have read an article that says at least one AI had really learned how to dogfight and was at least as good as the human teaching it. So the CCA getting into a dogfight isn't completely out of bounds. And ideally it would have the full spherical sensors to keep track of a dogfight.

Absolutely no gun on the escort CCA, just 2-4x AMRAAMs and 2x AIM-9X. Call it 2000ish lbs of payload.

The Jammer/electronic attack CCA (Growler adjunct/replacement) needs 3-4klbs of payload for jammers, plus another 1600lbs or so for 2x ARMs. Maybe another 1klbs for a pair of JSOWs or a quartet of SDB for time-critical targets. That's 7000lbs, including a pair of AIM-9X for self defense anti air.

The attacker CCA I'm guessing will need at least 10klbs of boom, and 15-20k would be better, and it's going to be all internal carriage. The F16XL did carry 15klbs of weapons, 12x 1000lb bombs plus 4x AMRAAM and 2x Sidewinders, so that's potentially doable in the upper limit in the size aircraft I'm thinking about. Attacker will want 2x ARMs and 2x AMRAAMs for self protection, and that takes about 2500lbs of payload. 12x 1000lb bombs or similar weight guided weapons for attack. Main weapons bays big enough for 1000lb bombs in tandem triplets, each.

It will be a stretch to make all of those the same airframe.

Edited for typos.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget that CCA has range and loiter time. If it needs to supercruise for whatever tactical advantages the mission planning requests, climbing to alt prior to a dive in order to get supersonic would rather looks more efficient than hauling a complex and heavy afterburner all the time.

It brings us to the other parameter: magazine length. Why would you need 4 Amraam when you don't have an afterburner to outran enemy fighters once you have been detected (launching a couple of Amraam would make sure you have been detected).

That's how optimization works.

It seems likely there’s still lots of AIM-120 in inventory as a cheap high volume round. AIM-120Bs are apparently still being donated as NASAM ammo to Ukraine. AIM-260 will have roughly the same fit and USAF has stated CCAs will carry it (at least as an option). So designing a weapon bay around that size still seems optimal, even if some smaller CUDA/Peregrine type weapon is adopted as the primary armament for volume of fire.

Whatever is used, the weapon needs to be able to out range the expected detection radius of opponent fighters, be it in radar or IR. If they see you first, then all you’ve made is a target drone/decoy.
 
Interesting stats concerning the hound dog. I’ll have read up on it specs; I don’t think I ever appreciated how fast and long ranged it was.

I’m still envisioning a smaller CCA than you, and in particular I’m picturing it as something still largely directed by a manned platform as primarily an offboard forward positioned shooter with a secondary wingman/defensive role. Something perhaps in the MQ-28 size range or a little larger. I think independent operations and air to ground strikes are outside the initial goals of the program. We’ve already seen an IRST and missile warning set up on a UTAP-22. LRASM can detect and geolocation radars. MALDJ has a number of jamming packages on a <300lb airframe. It seems likely if you just want something with an ability to passively detect targets and know when it’s being fired upon, along with some countermeasures dispensers, you don’t need a lot of aircraft volume. I’d want to focus on having 2-4 BVR AAMs and just have more of them rather than make them larger and more complex. I think I’d want a pair up front and one in close as wingman in kind of a reverse finger 4: manned lead and UAV wingman in back, secondary flight element up front.

But we agree that there will almost certainly be multiple types of CCA up to types that eventually include full sized fighter radars, so I think something like what you describe will happen-I just don’t think it’s first stop. I think initially USAF will go for low hanging fruit and have a basic shooting and stand in ECM/decoy UAV.
 
If the CCA is air to air focused, AIM-120/260 sized missile bay, and NGAD is air-to-air focused, then the entire ground strike ability will lean entirely on F-35s and B-21s?

That doesn't seem like a future-robust force. At least a decade out from F-35 replacement too with a very different operational theater.

To get some flexibility, a CCA version should have at least one F-35-sized internal bay, to get some commonality there.
 
Interesting stats concerning the hound dog. I’ll have read up on it specs; I don’t think I ever appreciated how fast and long ranged it was.

I’m still envisioning a smaller CCA than you, and in particular I’m picturing it as something still largely directed by a manned platform as primarily an offboard forward positioned shooter with a secondary wingman/defensive role. Something perhaps in the MQ-28 size range or a little larger. I think independent operations and air to ground strikes are outside the initial goals of the program. We’ve already seen an IRST and missile warning set up on a UTAP-22. LRASM can detect and geolocation radars. MALDJ has a number of jamming packages on a <300lb airframe. It seems likely if you just want something with an ability to passively detect targets and know when it’s being fired upon, along with some countermeasures dispensers, you don’t need a lot of aircraft volume. I’d want to focus on having 2-4 BVR AAMs and just have more of them rather than make them larger and more complex.
The MQ-28, assuming that it carries a pair of AMRAAMs and a pair of Sidewinders (again, for the IR homing against low RCS targets, not for dogfighting), is probably the smallest possible Loyal Wingman escort type. It does have a 2000mi range, though I don't know if it can supercruise. Assuming of course that the USAF wants to have the CCA do supercruising patrols with the NGAD.

Since there apparently are talks about the USAF buying some MQ-28s, I definitely think that the first CCA drone will be the MQ-28. It's got the range, I think it's got the payload needed.

I think I’d want a pair up front and one in close as wingman in kind of a reverse finger 4: manned lead and UAV wingman in back, secondary flight element up front.
Agreed on the likely formation. Most of the drones up front or in the direction of the expected enemy, manned plane in relatively the rear of the formation.

But we agree that there will almost certainly be multiple types of CCA up to types that eventually include full sized fighter radars, so I think something like what you describe will happen-I just don’t think it’s first stop. I think initially USAF will go for low hanging fruit and have a basic shooting and stand in ECM/decoy UAV.
Agreed, I think it will start with a bunch of "fighter" type escorts, likely the MQ-28.

2000mi range, couple of missiles.

That said, I think people are going to have some sticker shock, because I am expecting a very well equipped CCA, not just a supercruising Reaper or MQ-20 Avenger. They may be carrying MALD or whatever decoys in addition to their AAMs, they will have a pretty solid suite of ECM including DIRCM. Plus the DAS and a decent radar. Not as fancy as the one in the NGAD, maybe the APG-80 AESA from the high end F-16 Block 60+. So yes, something like $40mil each.

The Kratos XQ-58 is far too small.

The Baykar Bayraktar KizilElma doesn't have the range at present, but does appear to have most of the rest of the requirements. The KizilElma-B will probably have the speed, as its AL322F has almost 50% more dry thrust than the -A's AL25TLT that pushes the -A to 0.9 Mach. It would be highly ironic if the USAF bought a Turkish UCAV, it just needs the range...
 
If the CCA is air to air focused, AIM-120/260 sized missile bay, and NGAD is air-to-air focused, then the entire ground strike ability will lean entirely on F-35s and B-21s?

That doesn't seem like a future-robust force. At least a decade out from F-35 replacement too with a very different operational theater.

To get some flexibility, a CCA version should have at least one F-35-sized internal bay, to get some commonality there.
I think there will be multiple CCA aircraft.
  • One about the size of the MQ-28 as the core fighter escort, which will probably have F-35B sized bays, 3500-5000lbs capacity max.
  • A second, larger CCA as the electronic attacker, carrying all the load of the EA-18G including self-defense and ARMs, 7000lbs or so.
  • And then the attacker, carrying a pair of AAMs, a pair of ARMs, and 12x1000lb bomb equivalents, for a total of about 14,500lbs.
The attacker could be about the size of an F-16XL. The electronic attacker doesn't have to be quite so big, but could be on the same airframe just to make a larger production run and lower costs.
 
NG
 

Attachments

  • sophisticated-multifunction-sensors-infographic.png
    sophisticated-multifunction-sensors-infographic.png
    594.1 KB · Views: 120
AirForceMag article from February:
Northrop is moving into test and integration with a new software-controlled, multimode, “ultra-wideband” sensor that it said can simultaneously conduct radar operations, communications, and electronic warfare.
An image of the hardware under test in an anechoic chamber indicates a flat, trapezoidal aperture, suggesting the sensor could be flush-mounted on a flat surface or inside an aircraft’s nosecone.
The new technology consolidates “multiple functions into a single sensor, decreasing both the number of apertures needed and the size, weight and power requirements for the advanced capabilities,”[..]Those advantages also would lend themselves to reduced cost and complexity in an aircraft and improved stealth.

Woo! So that means is more likely than not that we'll effectively see 6th Gen fighters with sensors distributed across the whole body.10 years from now, around the time most insiders estimate NGAD to hit IOC, should be enough time for the tech to reach an acceptable maturity level. Time to say goodbye to those old cumbersome AESA radars.
 

Attachments

  • Northrop-EMRIS.jpg
    Northrop-EMRIS.jpg
    67.3 KB · Views: 116
I feel like nobody would call an AESA radar cumbersome, relatively speaking...

It seems like EMRIS is just a set sized block of TR modules with more flexible hardware specs to cover wider bandwidth, not disimilar to what the SPY-6 variants are composed of. Though how they get that kind of frequency variation I can't imagine - surely individual blocks would have to be tuned to smaller bandwidths than S - X, even if they use the same underlying hardware?

I does seem like you could create rather massive apertures with that arrangement, if you could use large patches of an airframe's surface as antenna.
 
Lockheed literally demonstrated a dual aperture radar (C and S band) to the Army's LTAMDS program. It was their ARES sensor. Northrop Grumman built a dual aperture sensor demonstrator for the Air Force's JSTARS recap as well.
 
I feel like nobody would call an AESA radar cumbersome, relatively speaking...

It seems like EMRIS is just a set sized block of TR modules with more flexible hardware specs to cover wider bandwidth, not disimilar to what the SPY-6 variants are composed of. Though how they get that kind of frequency variation I can't imagine - surely individual blocks would have to be tuned to smaller bandwidths than S - X, even if they use the same underlying hardware?

I does seem like you could create rather massive apertures with that arrangement, if you could use large patches of an airframe's surface as antenna.
If you are picky about which frequencies your radar works with, you can get multiple bands out of them pretty easily.

X band has a 3cm wavelength. So a full wave X band antenna is also a half wave 6cm and quarter wave 12cm antenna, which is S band. If you can get good performance out of a two wave antenna (antenna design is not my thing), that same 3cm X-band antenna is capable of emitting K band at 1.5cm.

Or, you aim for a 6cm antenna, which is a two-wave X band antenna and a 4-wave K band antenna, which also puts the half wave at 12cm (S band still) and the quarter wave at 24cm. 24cm is deep into L band.
 


"The competition to provide the U.S. Air Force with its Next Generation Air Dominance, or NGAD, stealth sixth-generation creweded tactical jet is reportedly down to two prime contractors or teams of contractors. A final decision on what is now assumed to be a winner-takes-all competition is expected sometime next year and, perhaps most intriguingly, there are said to be no fewer than three NGAD demonstrators now in existence. These latest revelations come from a recent podcast from the Defense & Aerospace Report, which you can find here."
 
So any idea as to who got the boot from NGAD?

The only one who digitally 'unveiled' some kind of demonstrator parked next to real aircraft/prototypes in a corporate/promotional video, was NG. Maybe that means something, maybe not.
 
Looking at the farce that is the KC-46 tanker program you may well be correct BDF, Boeing would only have themselves to blame if it is indeed Boeing that has got the boot.
 
So, the CCA part of NGAD isn't going to be attritable? say what?


I'm not sure how much cheaper something with potentially F-35 range and payload is going to be than an F-35 proper... IMO they'll be lucky to get one for less than half the cost of an F-35.
 
Perhaps longer range missiles fired well aft of the fighter might have control handed off to F-35?

This would render any attack on something like Starlink moot.

This protects LEO assets in that missile trucks outside the theater help fighters within.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom