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

Sundog said:
There aren't any NGAD variants flying. There was a DARPA program to flight test advanced fighter configurations, of which, reportedly, two or three flew (One from each of the contractors, which I would assume would be LM, NG, and Boeing.) Those were demonstrators for new fighter designs, but they weren't the NGAD as I doubt the NGAD mission profile was defined yet. The NGAD will definitely reference what was demonstrated.
Click to expand...
Better put, thank you for clarifying better than I could!
 
I would predict the following LM for NGAD, and NG for F/A-XX then Boeing for the CCA especially to keep Boeing in the military market. In other words it could end up being a three way split between the different companies.
 
Sundog said:
There aren't any NGAD variants flying. There was a DARPA program to flight test advanced fighter configurations, of which, reportedly, two or three flew (One from each of the contractors, which I would assume would be LM, NG, and Boeing.) Those were demonstrators for new fighter designs, but they weren't the NGAD as I doubt the NGAD mission profile was defined yet. The NGAD will definitely reference what was demonstrated.
Click to expand...

Any idea whether these are subscale demonstrators or not?
 
Interesting find raptor82, would having the CCA make the NGAD program cheaper than the ATF/JSF since the CCA is an unmanned aircraft? After all the F-22 and F-35 both cost a lot more money than was first thought of before their respective contract awards.
 
Their CCA payloads seem rather larger than I would have expected. Also interesting that the wargame envisioned air launched CCAs from B-52s.
 
Josh_TN said:
Their CCA payloads seem rather larger than I would have expected. Also interesting that the wargame envisioned air launched CCAs from B-52s.
Click to expand...
Maybe that good old episode of "Dogfights" called "Dogfights of the Future" had some relevance to it on bomber style air to air trucks.
 
FighterJock said:
I would predict the following LM for NGAD, and NG for F/A-XX then Boeing for the CCA especially to keep Boeing in the military market. In other words it could end up being a three way split between the different companies.
Click to expand...
I'm honestly expecting something like a "Century Series" of CCAs, relatively rapidly getting more and more capable like the F100-F111 series did.

And yes, probably some adjustments on the "disposable-attritable-non-attritable" axis. (Disposable is 1 mission, essentially a missile. Attritable is more than 1 mission, maybe 10-15 for expected life. Non-attritable is planning on a longer life yet, but I'm not sure how long an aircraft would really last over Taiwan or Crimea.)


raptor82 said:

Click to expand...
Holy crap, 3000nmi ranges for the non-attritable CCAs?!?


Josh_TN said:
Their CCA payloads seem rather larger than I would have expected. Also interesting that the wargame envisioned air launched CCAs from B-52s.
Click to expand...
Crud, I was more impressed by the ranges.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm honestly expecting something like a "Century Series" of CCAs, relatively rapidly getting more and more capable like the F100-F111 series did.

And yes, probably some adjustments on the "disposable-attritable-non-attritable" axis. (Disposable is 1 mission, essentially a missile. Attritable is more than 1 mission, maybe 10-15 for expected life. Non-attritable is planning on a longer life yet, but I'm not sure how long an aircraft would really last over Taiwan or Crimea.)



Holy crap, 3000nmi ranges for the non-attritable CCAs?!?



Crud, I was more impressed by the ranges.
Click to expand...

IMO, at the high end they were considering UAVs of much larger size than most of what we’ve seen. A half dozen AAMs and ranges in the thousands is a large aircraft, even if purely subsonic. I don’t see how you are not heavily runway dependent.

I think there will be several manufacturers of CCAs, if not all five companies already involved. Using different models not only allows for quick iterations, it also allows avrapid build up of capacity.

ETA: I will say that the CCA 5 is my idea of a core capability. A pair of missiles for a single target and short range passive sensors for such, with runway independence. Only every third or forth aircraft needs to successfully kill an opponent fighter to break even.

The CCA 1/2 seem like pipe dreams - runway independent, supersonic, very long range, and with heavy war loads?
 
Last edited:
Five companies Josh_TN? So that means that everyone will be involved in designing the CCAs.
 
FighterJock said:
Five companies Josh_TN? So that means that everyone will be involved in designing the CCAs.
Click to expand...

I think that likely, given the DoD desire to increase competition during all phases, increase production capacity by utilizing multiple lines, and diversify platforms such that some can be bought in much larger numbers for simple/dangerous tasks and those that require more specialization in terms of sensors are on larger, less prolific airframes. The exercise above has over a half dozen possible platforms as options. I think it possible we might even see CCAs with the same mission and price point being build by different contractors.
 
FighterJock said:
Any idea as to what Andurill specialises in TomcatViP? I have not heard of them before. :confused:
Click to expand...

They are brand new and smaller. They specialize in AI/ software solutions and are aggressively trying to move into the UAV and UUV markets (they recently purchased a UUV company). They must have a LOT of capital behind them for what they are doing.
 
Question for those more aeronautically inclined - would a J85 with an afterburner enable something in the size range of the XQ-58 to be supersonic? I was wondering if the low end, two missile CCA in the above exercise (type 5) could be made to have relatively high performance for its closing engagements with a readily available off the shelf engine (or ideally actual high hour T-38 engines repurposed for UCAVs). An augmented turbofan would also allow for better evasive maneuvers if the aircraft had sufficient IR/UV sensors to know when it was being fired upon.
 
FighterJock said:
Five companies Josh_TN? So that means that everyone will be involved in designing the CCAs.
Click to expand...
At least 5, IMO. Kratos has a pretty good CCA5 already in the Valkyrie, assuming that it can hold AMRAAM-length missiles.

And for a defense of Taiwan scenario, sneaking a pile of XQ-58s in ahead of time would be an excellent trick to pull off.


Josh_TN said:
Question for those more aeronautically inclined - would a J85 with an afterburner enable something in the size range of the XQ-58 to be supersonic? I was wondering if the low end, two missile CCA in the above exercise (type 5) could be made to have relatively high performance for its closing engagements with a readily available off the shelf engine (or ideally actual high hour T-38 engines repurposed for UCAVs). An augmented turbofan would also allow for better evasive maneuvers if the aircraft had sufficient IR/UV sensors to know when it was being fired upon.
Click to expand...
Probably. The trick would be making sure the FCS sensors didn't freak out when supersonic.

My vote for augmented turbofan is a Williams FJ44.
 
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

The Air Force is hoping to award at least two and possibly three contracts for the first increment of the Collaborative Combat Aircraft program by the middle of this year, followed by the second increment in 2025, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said Feb. 13

There are five contractors vying for Increment 1, which the Air Force plans to be its basic CCA: autonomous platforms intended to carry extra weapons for the fighters they escort, or perform electronic warfare, sensing or other missions. Those companies are Anduril, Boeing, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman.


“Within just the next few months, we’re going to go from the five contractors to a smaller number,” Kendall told reporters at the AFA Warfare Symposium.

“We’re going to at least two [competitors]; we’d like to have three. Three is going to be difficult, because of the level of funding we have in the budget.” But Kendall said carrying three into “development for production” could be done by sharing costs with industry.

“I think we could do three, and that would be our preference,” he said.
 
So the CCA is having it's own competition as well, that is news to me. I wonder what will happen when it gets down to two companies?
 
FighterJock said:
So the CCA is having it's own competition as well, that is news to me. I wonder what will happen when it gets down to two companies?
Click to expand...
I think that's going to depend on which CCA they're building first. Using all the different types from the Mitchell report, the CCA5 type would probably be the most likely first CCA because we already have 3 different drones in the rough capability level (Kratos Valkyrie, Boeing Ghost Bat, and GA Avenger). The Mitchell report teams wanted over 400 CCA5s for the first 2 days of the fight, and then wanted almost 200 more for the next two weeks (I'm assuming that no CCA5s survived the first two days, so a Taiwan crisis would require a good 600 CCA5s in inventory, just for the Taiwan crisis and not accounting for any other emergencies.)

None of the three teams wanted the top end CCA1 or CCA2, on the grounds that those are likely to not be particularly less expensive than an F35A and they're rather have more F35As in that case. I'm not sure I agree with that, but the scenario was a pretty short term problem and not a longer term plan. Long term, I want some supercruising CCAs that can launch from the same base as the NGAD and keep up on the strike, but those would probably be the second or even third generation CCAs.

They also didn't want any CCA7 or CCA8, which were cheap strike types barely a step up from Cruise Missiles. I think that rough class of CCA is more useful in places like the Red Sea dealing with Houthis shooting Silkworm missiles or those Iranian drones at people.



Grouping CCA airframe types for maybe sharing:
  • Of those types used in the wargame, CCA3, CCA4, and CCA10 are all VLO and all have the same range requirement, so are likely possible to share the same airframe. CCA10s are cheaper because they're only carring the EW pod and none of the high-end radars or EOTS of the CCA3 or CCA4.
  • CCA9 is an interesting one, LO and arguably STOL since they're talking about it being able to take off from a road, with a 1000nmi range. It's just packing a SAR and comms relay equipment, probably including the BACN node. I don't know that anyone has tried LO+STOL before, so that would be an interesting design challenge. This could arguably replace the Reaper/Gray Eagles in current service.
  • I'm not sure about the point of CCA6. Not LO at all and only carrying a pair of LRASMs? Can't a B-1 carry 24 of those, and a B52 carry 20? Plus only a 1000nmi range. A QF-16 could do that job...
  • CCA5 isn't really a shared item, but like I said we already have a trio of drones that are in the same rough class so could be in service the quickest.
 
FighterJock said:
So the CCA is having it's own competition as well, that is news to me. I wonder what will happen when it gets down to two companies?
Click to expand...

Note that this contract is for increment 1. Increment 2 will likely be rebid to all the usual suspects.
 
The USAF have made it dificult for themselves by having two contracts, I am surprised that they have went down this route. So whoever gets Increment 1 might not get Increment 2.
 
FighterJock said:
The USAF have made it dificult for themselves by having two contracts, I am surprised that they have went down this route. So whoever gets Increment 1 might not get Increment 2.
Click to expand...
It's one way to keep investing in the industrial base, keep contractor from complacency even after they had won and fostering more productive teaming between bidders. After increment 1, once teams have a better understanding of what others bid, they might say hey you over there has a technology that might really go well with what we uniquely have, lets team up for increment 2.

Most important of all, it allows both the buyer and the seller to evolve and mature their own understanding of what they want and what they offer respectively.
 
Last edited:
A bit like what happened with the ATF/F-22 with Lockheed teaming up with Boeing and General Dynamics, Northrop teaming with McDonnell Douglas. That could be a smart move for CCA where no one company gets the contract to themselves especially since increment 2 could be the most expensive part of the whole program.
 
Ditto, though Valkyrie would need a different bay arrangement to accommodate full sized AAMs. But if anything it actually has more range.

There seems to be a big disconnect between these exercises and what the USAF is actually buying. What they have hinted at so far seems to be a larger, more capable aircraft while the blue teams seem to get the most mileage out of low end, short range low payload machines. The GA off board sensing station is also a fairly substantial Gambit model. I was thinking rocket launch and parachute recovery was the obvious route to go, otherwise your CCAs are as dependent on airfields as your fighters.

I wonder if any of the competitors have considered a RATO short take off and the use of a drag chute to arrest the landing to at least minimize the length of runway.
 
Last edited:

Just Don’t Call It A Flying Killer Robot – Valkyrie Strategic Solutions LLC

valkstrat.com valkstrat.com

" Last summer I was asked by the Air Force Association’s Mitchell Institute to participate in a two-day CCA wargame and write up the body of the report, which was published on Tuesday together with a video presentation. It was a fascinating exercise. About 60 participants from AFA, the Air Force, industry and academia were involved, divided into five groups. Three Blue teams represented US forces, with different detail tasks but the same operational objective: to prevent People’s Liberation Army forces from securing and holding air superiority over the South China Sea. A Red Team cell deployed the PLA forces and reacted to the attackers’ first day move, and a White Team kept score. AFA staff provided Panera sarnies, manhole-cover-size cookies, coffee and sodas to keep us alert for surprise moves by the enemy. "

Some interesting points:

" They were used both independently and in joint operations with manned aircraft – but that did not mean in formation with them, just within line-of-sight, the distinction being that LOS directional point-to-point links are hard to jam. "

" Two capabilities in particular were expected to cause heavy losses for a conventional mixed-force air attack. One was the PLA-N’s surface action groups (SAGs), in this case not carrier-centric but acting as mobile, area-denying anti-air-warfare (AAW) assets. The other was the combination of KJ-500 airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft with PL-17 long-range air-to-air missiles launched from J-11-family fighters. "

" Because these systems-of-systems operate on or over the open ocean, they present a multi-axis threat to aircraft entering the area, unlike the linear array of the land-based Soviet-style integrated air defense system (IADS) that people spent the last five decades worrying about, and that low-observable designs with “bow-tie” signatures were intended to defeat. "

" By increasing autonomy further, the unmanned system could process and act on RoEs without human intervention and with as much reliability as a guided missile. We routinely launch missiles against things we can’t see, and don’t require them to check in before impact, one argument went – what is so different about a CCA? And when the balance of forces otherwise seemed unfavorable, or Red’s comms jamming was working too well, letting the robots off the leash was an effective option. "

" Sensors to deliver reliable target classification and identification are more costly, but the answer there may be modularity – not every vehicle need carry a full suite as long as LOS communication among the CCA formation is reliable. Also, a small and attritable vehicle can be sent close to the defenses to discriminate and identify priority targets. "
 
red admiral said:
Isn't CCA-5 air-launched though?

They haven't bought anything yet? Just done some tech demonstrations at different points
Click to expand...

The CCAs were notional in this exercise. No CCA exists, but the USAF has given a sense of price (1/4 F35 max) and quantity (two per manned fighter). The blue teams appear to have used much larger numbers of vehicles that were at a very low cost point.

It may be that the first increment is in fact more conventionally fighter like in comparison as the USAF dips its toe into automation. As another post notes, the use of over a hundred low cost CCAs at once almost certainly relies on automation with minimal direct control, and the technology likely is not there yet. So ironically the more simple CCAs that are used as an expendable platform might be the last ones to enter service.

There also is the possibility that this kind of usage is not part of the CCA program - CCA does not seem to cover all USAF UCAV usage, with programs like OBSS for instance being run concurrently.
 
That will be good to see GTX, it would have been better if the USAF had foreign involvement from the start after all the UK had previous experience with designing and testing UCAVs just like CCA.
 
red admiral said:
They haven't bought anything yet? Just done some tech demonstrations at different points
Click to expand...
There are certainly some Kratos Valkyries in the US government's possession. I think the USMC bought them, however. I think the USAF was more interested in the Boeing Ghost Bat. Not counting DARPA projects, because those almost never get from "hey, we can do X" to "We're fielding something that does X."


Oh, hell, I just realized what the air-launched CCA5 is. DARPA Longshot. Air-launched, carries a couple of AMRAAMs.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom