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

Scott Kenny said:
But it hasn't been, at least not in any public discussions.

Testing of MUMT with Apache Es and MQ1Cs has shown that the current generation of drones require far too much pilot/operator input for someone to fly an aircraft and fly the drone at the same time.

So unless the current CCA designs are at a point where they require as much operator interaction as a JDAM, you're going to need a back seater to quarterback the drones while a pilot keeps the quarterback safe.
Click to expand...

Grey Eagle isn't a CCA, it's a remotely piloted aircraft. It is at least two generations behind the state of the art, and requires near constant management in the loop control to do anything. The mission of the type also did it no favors, requiring constant positive control for counterinsurgency ISR and strike missions. This is akin to saying we couldn't possible make CEC work because Link 11 didn't have the throughput or data quality to allow it—the comparison is decades outdated.

The CCAs the Air Force and Navy are working on developing are intended to be vastly more autonomous, so the aircrew (which will probably be one individual) doesn't have to direct the aircraft to perform much of its mission. Instead they will act as extensions of the aircraft, able to employ sensors and weapons tens of kilometers from the piloted aircraft. The majority of direct control pilots will have over CCAs will likely be effectively modal—i.e. formations or EMCON modes. But for weapons employment they should be able to simply make the decision to shoot and their aircraft in concert with the CCAs will make the decision which one actually takes the shot.
 
red admiral said:
It's a good job that our crewed aircraft aren't also critically dependent on those same communication links. Oh wait...
Click to expand...
But a manned aircraft has a brain - or two brains in a two-seater - to complete the mission under its own initiative if needs be. A UAV without a datalink is just a flying airprox hazard until the fuel runs out. Maybe one day AI will enable a UAV to carry out its mission autonomously without any datalink, but in the here and now that's not possible.
Of course GPS-equipped weapons are just as vulnerable too - perhaps too many eggs in one basket.
 
Scott Kenny said:
But it hasn't been, at least not in any public discussions.

Testing of MUMT with Apache Es and MQ1Cs has shown that the current generation of drones require far too much pilot/operator input for someone to fly an aircraft and fly the drone at the same time.

So unless the current CCA designs are at a point where they require as much operator interaction as a JDAM, you're going to need a back seater to quarterback the drones while a pilot keeps the quarterback safe.
Click to expand...

I think the goal of the Skyborg program is to get CCAs to the point where the pilot only assigns general behaviors and weapons release authority. Individual aircraft might be designated as offensive or defensive, active emitters or passive, cautious or aggressive/expendable, weapons free/tight/pilot authorized only, etc. Then the CCAs assume a formation around the manned aircraft and reorient with it as it changes speed and direction or as behavior settings are altered. That is how I envision it working. If more attention is needed, then it does seem a dedicated operator is needed, but I think the goal is a higher level of pre programmed behaviors more akin to a living wing man and/or second flight element.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That's harder to do over the Pacific. Only so many places to launch from, so it's quite possible that the CCAs are going to fly with the manned plane from launch to recovery.
Click to expand...

Other options might be runway independent CCAs or a manned NGAD platform that operates from further out meet up with CCAs of a shorter range launched from closer airbases. It seems likely the manned fighter is going to be more constrained by runway length/size/weight limit than the CCAs.
 
totallyaverage said:
Grey Eagle isn't a CCA, it's a remotely piloted aircraft. It is at least two generations behind the state of the art, and requires near constant management in the loop control to do anything. The mission of the type also did it no favors, requiring constant positive control for counterinsurgency ISR and strike missions. This is akin to saying we couldn't possible make CEC work because Link 11 didn't have the throughput or data quality to allow it—the comparison is decades outdated.

The CCAs the Air Force and Navy are working on developing are intended to be vastly more autonomous, so the aircrew (which will probably be one individual) doesn't have to direct the aircraft to perform much of its mission. Instead they will act as extensions of the aircraft, able to employ sensors and weapons tens of kilometers from the piloted aircraft. The majority of direct control pilots will have over CCAs will likely be effectively modal—i.e. formations or EMCON modes. But for weapons employment they should be able to simply make the decision to shoot and their aircraft in concert with the CCAs will make the decision which one actually takes the shot.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the end goal they're working towards.

Parts of the AI is there, 15 years ago there was a demonstration where a target was assigned to a flight of 4 drones and the drones sorted the attack out on their own, assigning planes to decoy, SEAD, and actual target autonomously.

Not all of the AI is there yet.


Josh_TN said:
I think the goal of the Skyborg program is to get CCAs to the point where the pilot only assigns general behaviors and weapons release authority. Individual aircraft might be designated as offensive or defensive, active emitters or passive, cautious or aggressive/expendable, weapons free/tight/pilot authorized only, etc. Then the CCAs assume a formation around the manned aircraft and reorient with it as it changes speed and direction or as behavior settings are altered. That is how I envision it working. If more attention is needed, then it does seem a dedicated operator is needed, but I think the goal is a higher level of pre programmed behaviors more akin to a living wing man and/or second flight element.
Click to expand...
That's certainly where I think it needs to be, so you can have one manned plane as the quarterback for the entire strike package of EW and recon and strike and fighter escort and SEAD/DEAD.

But parts of that level of autonomy just aren't there yet. I believe the programming term is "it has turned out to be a wicked problem."


Josh_TN said:
Other options might be runway independent CCAs or a manned NGAD platform that operates from further out meet up with CCAs of a shorter range launched from closer airbases. It seems likely the manned fighter is going to be more constrained by runway length/size/weight limit than the CCAs.
Click to expand...
You need to look at what runways are available in the Pacific, and how many islands big enough for a runway are within the A2AD zone.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You need to look at what runways are available in the Pacific, and how many islands big enough for a runway are within the A2AD zone.
Click to expand...

Every WesPac airbase is inside ballistic missile range. But the lower the runway requirements of CCA, the larger number of targets that have to be hit and the more hits to runways surfaces are necessary to make them inoperable. It strikes me that CCA will have less stringent runway requirements, where as I suspect NGAD manned is going to be large enough it can only stage from major airbases, possibly out of theater.
 
Hood said:
Of course GPS-equipped weapons are just as vulnerable too - perhaps too many eggs in one basket.
Click to expand...

How so? GPS equipped weapons use GPS to update an inertial navigation system. If GPS is jammed, spoofed, etc the effect on the weapon is negligible.
 
quellish said:
How so? GPS equipped weapons use GPS to update an inertial navigation system. If GPS is jammed, spoofed, etc the effect on the weapon is negligible.
Click to expand...

Negligible is perhaps a little strongly worded. Degraded accuracy in an INS/PGS only guided weapon would be really limiting against harden targets. On the other hand there are numerous weapons that use terminal seekers on top of GPS which likely would be marginally affected-something like JASSM or SDB II is likely getting close enough to its target to be within its seekers FoV.
 
DrRansom said:
That's a great question - everybody seems to be jumping onto datalinks that are only getting more fragile.
Click to expand...

The future transportation layer satellites likely will provide a more resilient option over the current constellations. I think over a hundred are scheduled to be launched in the next five years.

I would presume that CCAs will have some kind of MADL like link to their local controllers.
 
Black Dog said:
This is just missile gap all over again. Compare to "WS15" to F135, F119... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

In this case, the PRC doesn’t have the same requirements the US does. The USAF needs to cover more distance than the PLAAF. So the PLAAFs engine requirements are far less stringent for an anti air platform, since they have no shortage of local bases.

As for UAV teaming with manned aircraft, that is probably where engines will be a problem. The US has a multitude of off the shelf engines in the 2000-8000lb range for moderately sized fast subsonic UAVs. I’m sure China has some, but I suspect the options are fewer and less efficient. That probably will be problematic even if they are at the same AI level as the USAF, which I think is questionable.

What really probably is killing them engine wise is H-20. Even the H-6K/N/J still uses Russian engines to the best of my knowledge. Trying to build a stealth bomber with a combat radius beyond the second island range must be incredibly difficult.
 
Whatever it is worth..
 

Attachments

  • US20160273452A1.pdf
    897.3 KB · Views: 168
  • US8371104B2.pdf
    164.1 KB · Views: 99
  • US9862482B2.pdf
    716.3 KB · Views: 85
  • US20160376987A1.pdf
    940.7 KB · Views: 71
  • US8690097.pdf
    964.4 KB · Views: 76
  • US9908633.pdf
    932.5 KB · Views: 75
  • US9874144.pdf
    977.6 KB · Views: 71
  • AU2020203920A1.pdf
    1.8 MB · Views: 76
  • US11118510.pdf
    1.2 MB · Views: 70
  • US10718264.pdf
    2.1 MB · Views: 92
flateric said:
Whatever it is worth..
Click to expand...
The variable caret inlet (US20160273452A1) looks similar to Boeing NGAD illustration. The top (starboard) inlet looks as though it has a seam between the top of the inlet and the wing, possibly allowing it to cant upwards allowing supersonic airflow. The thrust vectoring apparatus in the second pdf (US837110482) looks similar to the Boeing exhaust system in the NGAD picture below.
 

Attachments

  • Boeing NGAD Inlet Design.jpg
    Boeing NGAD Inlet Design.jpg
    51.6 KB · Views: 279
  • boeing-ngad-boeing_34159.jpg
    boeing-ngad-boeing_34159.jpg
    65.9 KB · Views: 276
Interesting air intake design on the top picture on the second Boeing NGAD photo. All I can say is it looks rather strange, and that it must have been a very early design Dynoman.
 
Naval News article, the bipartisan/compromise NDAA appears to have restored nearly all the F/A-XX funding which had been cut in the earlier, partisan version of the bill passed in the House.
www.navalnews.com

Congress Restores $1 Billion For US Navy's F/A-XX - Naval News

Lawmakers restored funding for the US Navy's F/A-XX and added language requiring cost and capability updates on both NGAD Programs
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
News may begin to get interesting not long after the NDAA is signed into law.
 

Attachments

  • 52609.jpg
    52609.jpg
    57.7 KB · Views: 159
I do not know why the US Congress are bothered about the USAF 2050 design plan bobbymike, as 2050 is a long way off and many of the those in Congress will have been retired by then. Also who knows what type of technologies will come out by then.
 
FighterJock said:
I do not know why the US Congress are bothered about the USAF 2050 design plan bobbymike, as 2050 is a long way off and many of the those in Congress will have been retired by then. Also who knows what type of technologies will come out by then.
Click to expand...
"those in Congress will have been DEAD by then"

Fixed it for you. :)
 
FighterJock said:
I do not know why the US Congress are bothered about the USAF 2050 design plan bobbymike, as 2050 is a long way off and many of the those in Congress will have been retired by then. Also who knows what type of technologies will come out by then.
Click to expand...

Possibly because China is looking that far ahead.
 
In_A_Dream said:
Possibly because China is looking that far ahead.
Click to expand...
Well there’s was an article questioning our ability to build an ICBM maybe congress wants to see if we can still build fighters 26 years from now.
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
I do not know why the US Congress are bothered about the USAF 2050 design plan bobbymike, as 2050 is a long way off and many of the those in Congress will have been retired by then. Also who knows what type of technologies will come out by then.
Click to expand...
R&D and entry into service of the 7th gen aircraft will probably take that long and the 6th gen will be 25+ years old by then. Doesn't sound unreasonable.
 
Forgot about the 7th generation fighters piginapoke. It will be interesting to see what they will look like if the current crop of 6th generation fighter designs are anything to go by. No doubt the technologies will be beyond anything that we have right now.
 
In_A_Dream said:
Has the DOD or FBI announced any plans to give more scrutiny towards Chinese/Taiwanese engineers working within the 6th gen fighter programs?

Given that it's a known and credible security concern, you'd think it would be a necessary step to safeguard US IP.
Click to expand...

The most notorious American spies are invariably European-American. Perhaps the USA should ban anyone with the name "Ames", "Nicholson", or "Walker", yet they keep hiring European-Americans for their secret projects. Wonder why that is, truly.

piginapoke said:
R&D and entry into service of the 7th gen aircraft will probably take that long and the 6th gen will be 25+ years old by then. Doesn't sound unreasonable.
Click to expand...

7th generation is a bit optimistic when NGAD still has hurdles, like actually entering service and being produced in quantity, to overcome tbf.

If F-35 and F-22 are any indication, it will take about 20 years for it to reach IOC, and involve a lot of troublesome production changes that will delay the FRP. That's if Lockheed gets it, of course. If Boing gets it, the USAF likely won't get anything, and Boing will lose a second vowel.

In either case, the USAF thinking NGAD will be "entering production by 2030" is a bit optimistic. Sometime in the early 2030's, probably, and then another decade or so, just to work out all the low rate production issues that will crop up. Or it simply goes the way of F-22 and never gets fixed.
 
Last edited:
I think USAF NGAD 6th gen has been around much longer than most of us realize, probably when USAF/USG knew there was only going to be 189 F-22s. You know the GE YF-120 engine evolved into the new GE adaptive cycle engine. When I was on YF-23 as an example, the PAV 2/YF-120 combination, the performance was something else, only a handful know the true supercruise potential. We sustained high-g, supercruise turn rates with no performance degradation, just kept going. Had to aerial refuel with one engine at idle, YF-120 had tons of power.

I actually think NGAD may be fairly mature. I also think there is 6th gen tech cross-pollination across other classified programs including B-21.
 
Let's wait and see what happens Josh_TN whether the CCA enters service before the end of the decade, if that is true then the manned NGAD will quite possibly enter service before the unmanned CCA. It will be very interesting to see what happens during the later parts of the decade in regards to the development of both systems.
 
Is there any indication of what type of performance leap they are trying to achieve? Full aspect stealth; maybe no tail fins, while maintaining high aoa maneuverability, drone control capability, electronic attack capability, super cruise, better climb performance than any current fighter; better range than f-22; top speed? I think the transition from f-4 to f-15 was about twice the performance capabilities; and the f-22 made the leap even further. Are they going to try to hit mach3?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom