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

Sure but that is wishful thinking at this point. As I've said, there is currently no direct replacement planned. Au contraire, USAF wants to retire Strike Eagles with -220 engines. There are only 3 squadrons equipped with -229 engines.
USAF is being even more short-sighted than usual to not make it a requirement that NGAD weapons bays be deep enough to hold 2000lb bombs, even if they only spec the payload out to ~4000lbs of AAMs.
 
USAF is being even more short-sighted than usual to not make it a requirement that NGAD weapons bays be deep enough to hold 2000lb bombs, even if they only spec the payload out to ~4000lbs of AAMs.

Source for weapons requirements?
 
It would be interesting to create a 3D model of your proposal to explore if the volume required for weapons, fuel, engines, intake ducting, systems, etc. would actually result in a feasible aircraft (concept)... Tempting.

Btw, can you elaborate what mission profile is assumed for the 1700 nmi combat radius?
E.g.:
View attachment 726846
I would absolutely love to explore something like this with you guys, but i’m going to be away from my computer for at least the next year come June… Perhaps you all can talk Paralay into it!

Once the company for the contract is selected, how long might we be waiting to see art? Perhaps we could look at other similar programs (F22/YF23) (F35) ?
 
...
Speaking at the Ash Carter Exchange, a conference in Washington, D.C., Kendall said the flight demonstrated “within-visual-range engagements” against a manned F-16, piloted by an Airman with “2,000 or 3,000 hours of experience.” Three different versions were tested in about 10-12 situations, with Kendall controlling when the AI took over. The AI then was able to maneuver the aicraft and could simulatan an "engagement" with the adversary using short-range missiles or the F-16’s gun.
“It was roughly an even fight,” Kendall said. “But against a less experienced pilot, the AI, the automation would have performed better.”
Pilots with 2,000-3,000 flight hours are considered “senior pilots,” one step below the top rating of “command pilot.”
Kendall emphasized the AI is not yet ready to be deployed—but suggested it is well on its way to being so...
 
Where does the 4000 lb number come from?
as a step up from what the F22 carries in missile terms.

6x AMRAAM and 2x AIM9s is ~2500lbs. 6x 500lb missiles (like Sparrow) is 3000lbs. Meteor is 420lbs, in case the AIM260s are something like that. The "2x 1000lb, 2x AMRAAM, and 2x AIM9" load seems to be the physical max in terms of bay volume, and that's ~3200lbs.

Given the distances NGAD will have fly, it makes sense to carry more missiles than F15 or F22 natively do. Super Hornets and Eagle IIs have been showing ~10x AMRAAMs in heavy AA mode. So I went with 10x AMRAAM weights (~3500lbs) plus 2x AIM9 weights (~400lbs) for ~3900lbs, then rounded to nearest 1000lbs to get 4000. If the AIM260 ends up heavier, I would increase the expected weight carried to ~6000lbs (10x500, + 2x200)
 
as a step up from what the F22 carries in missile terms.

6x AMRAAM and 2x AIM9s is ~2500lbs. 6x 500lb missiles (like Sparrow) is 3000lbs. Meteor is 420lbs, in case the AIM260s are something like that. The "2x 1000lb, 2x AMRAAM, and 2x AIM9" load seems to be the physical max in terms of bay volume, and that's ~3200lbs.

Given the distances NGAD will have fly, it makes sense to carry more missiles than F15 or F22 natively do. Super Hornets and Eagle IIs have been showing ~10x AMRAAMs in heavy AA mode. So I went with 10x AMRAAM weights (~3500lbs) plus 2x AIM9 weights (~400lbs) for ~3900lbs, then rounded to nearest 1000lbs to get 4000. If the AIM260 ends up heavier, I would increase the expected weight carried to ~6000lbs (10x500, + 2x200)

So you made the numbers up? I am not seeing a source in that post.
 
Yes those numbers are MINE.

I have laid out the reasoning for why I think they're close to what the USAF is planning.
I generally enjoy your posts, but I think no one here has anything like a good idea of where NGADS requirements are at.

EDIT: or certainly not those that are a lot say so.
 
I’m interested in manned vehicles. I’m a fan of man. Thinking machine only fighters? Nah, pass
I m the same , and if ennemy could jam or hack UAV all finish on the ground, to dangerous to much with unmanned in my opinion.
The reality is that the human in the cockpit is rapidly becoming the weak point. The X-62A is showing the way to the future. We are also talking about AI here, not something continuously controlled from the ground/remotely with an ability to be hacked.
 
We are also talking about AI here, not something continuously controlled from the ground/remotely with an ability to be hacked
Oh I know. The autonomy is the way around the hacking or jamming. Although probably the latter more than the former.
It’s all part of what disinterests and scares me.
 
The reality is that the human in the cockpit is rapidly becoming the weak point. The X-62A is showing the way to the future. We are also talking about AI here, not something continuously controlled from the ground/remotely with an ability to be hacked.
Why is the human the weak point?

These trials are very tightly controlled and scripted, as yet no computer has come close to sustaining even “sense and avoid” GA flying due to the complexity and unpreditctability of the air environment. The “is it an enemy, what course of action to do?” is something so difficult we cant even specify a trial - all AI stuff starts with (human decided) assumptions that drastically simplify the situation for the computer to then process.

Endurance for these aircraft is engine oil limited, not the pilot. The offload of “routine flying” to computers with the human as a mission controller makes that even more pronounced as the human can take “time out” in a way they cant at the moment.
 
Why is the human the weak point?

These trials are very tightly controlled and scripted, as yet no computer has come close to sustaining even “sense and avoid” GA flying due to the complexity and unpreditctability of the air environment. The “is it an enemy, what course of action to do?” is something so difficult we cant even specify a trial - all AI stuff starts with (human decided) assumptions that drastically simplify the situation for the computer to then process.

Endurance for these aircraft is engine oil limited, not the pilot. The offload of “routine flying” to computers with the human as a mission controller makes that even more pronounced as the human can take “time out” in a way they cant at the moment.

Indeed, these are experimental trials in a controlled environment... However, even if an AI based combat system advances to a point were is becomes superior to human pilots. Usually AEH and SW are considered items of certification. I'm keen to see how a fully-autonomous, entirely AI based combat system, is going to be certified (by humans). Ultimately, someone needs to be responsible/accountable.
 
Once the company for the contract is selected, how long might we be waiting to see art? Perhaps we could look at other similar programs (F22/YF23) (F35) ?
There have been so many artist concepts that I really wonder whether hidden in them the real design? There are likely subtle differences. Look at the YF-22 and F-22. But if you look at the artist concepts certain common themes appear.

Basic planform.
Intakes on the underside.
No vertical or horizontal stabs.
 
Why is the human the weak point?

These trials are very tightly controlled and scripted, as yet no computer has come close to sustaining even “sense and avoid” GA flying due to the complexity and unpreditctability of the air environment. The “is it an enemy, what course of action to do?” is something so difficult we cant even specify a trial - all AI stuff starts with (human decided) assumptions that drastically simplify the situation for the computer to then process.

Endurance for these aircraft is engine oil limited, not the pilot. The offload of “routine flying” to computers with the human as a mission controller makes that even more pronounced as the human can take “time out” in a way they cant at the moment.

Human pilots are more expensive in terms of time and money to produce as well as weight in the aircraft. Increasing they likely also have longer reaction times compared to an AI. But being able to create lots of cheap planes that can fight a conflict as an attritional versus survival battle is going to enable a lot of tactics that would probably not be effective with human pilots.

In the short term the USAF seems to intend to use primarily as off board sensor and weapon platforms under human control. But I think in the 2030s we will see them sent on mid alone, perhaps with a satellite link to ground controllers on a specialized gateway aircraft.
 
Indeed, these are experimental trials in a controlled environment... However, even if an AI based combat system advances to a point were is becomes superior to human pilots. Usually AEH and SW are considered items of certification. I'm keen to see how a fully-autonomous, entirely AI based combat system, is going to be certified (by humans). Ultimately, someone needs to be responsible/accountable.
Quite, the issue is “define combat”. Combat, or rather, the role a human pilot performs, is such a wide span of tasks and yet these trials have to telescope their focus on very, very narrowly defined tasks to even be comparable.

Being neck deep in sw certification it is very apparant that the sheer scale of sw required is beyond any level of resources. Now if AI writes its own sw that fixes that, but as you say, how is that certificated? Nobody is going to back off certification requirements short of existential war, and indeed that burden gets higher every year.

Human pilots are more expensive in terms of time and money to produce
Compared to developing AI that cannot yet fly a GA aircraft iaw the ‘see and avoid’ of the average ‘puddle jumping’ pilot?

Compared to the hordes of other people that make up the pyramid of the air force?

Could we save far more money investing AI in automating some of their functions? A sqn has what, 30 people on it for every pilot, and thats just the sqn, let alone the rest of the pyramid.

I think aircrew account for 2% of the RAF. (Yet 98% of its leaders…!)

as well as weight in the aircraft. Increasing they likely also have longer reaction times compared to an AI.
Likely, evidence being? Piloting is not predicated on “reaction times” but decision making. Balancing a vast array of factors with very changeable priorities and doing the right thing. Not a strong point of software - I’m deep in the engineering aspects of teams writing sw to deliver functionality of complex defence avionics and it is taking millions and years to not very well deliver limited functionality that is actually quite repeatable process based, let alone deal with the variables of flying / combat air decision making. In a previous existence I was in the back of the jets making decisions on the fly, there I wrote sw to aid the process part of it, but that took a lot of effort and again was very limited vs the scope of I/pilot as decision maker.

There is a huge post in “why are we trying to replace pilots” that Ive not got time to write now, although given they’re the most annoying twats on the planet I’m definitely up for it - I just dont see it as realistic or sadly, desirable.
But being able to create lots of cheap planes that can fight a conflict as an attritional versus survival battle is going to enable a lot of tactics that would probably not be effective with human pilots.
These cheap planes have kinematics, LO and avionics akin to piloted ones right? How does that make them cheap? If they dont, they just die to something that is better.

On a large high end fighter, the pilot isnt really imposing that much of a constraint. The constraints are sensors/antenna, integration (software) and engine oil.

In the short term the USAF seems to intend to use primarily as off board sensor and weapon platforms under human control. But I think in the 2030s we will see them sent on mid alone, perhaps with a satellite link to ground controllers on a specialized gateway aircraft.
That is extraordianrily optimistic. I think we’ll see the same platforms as today in the 2030s and likely the 2040s. To get FCAS/NGAD into service is going to make F35 look cheap and quick.

The end of manned aircraft was pronounced in 1957, viewed through a very narrow optic that seemed sensible then (to some!), this penchant for AI/unmanned is the same mistake.
 
Compared to developing AI that cannot yet fly a GA aircraft iaw the ‘see and avoid’ of the average ‘puddle jumping’ pilot?

Compared to the hordes of other people that make up the pyramid of the air force?

Could we save far more money investing AI in automating some of their functions? A sqn has what, 30 people on it for every pilot, and thats just the sqn, let alone the rest of the pyramid.

I think aircrew account for 2% of the RAF. (Yet 98% of its leaders…!)

The big difference developing a software agent to fly a plane and training a pilot to fly a plane is eventually when the software agent is perfected, it can be copied to a thousand aircraft. So while there is a high up front cost, there also is a huge potential payout.

As for AI needing awareness for its current testing - has it occurred to you that a big part of this is connected to the aircraft it is testing with? VISTA has no wrap around visual sensors like say for instance the F-35 DAS. It is not the case that the AI cannot maneuver with a target it is aware of; the issue seems to be that the AI surrogate platforms lack sensors that can accurately plot position of the opponent aircraft. In any case, testing the software agent with a "cheat" seems like a reasonable bridge while it ultimately is integrated with some kind of wrap around visual sensor in another platform. It seem extremely unlikely that AI development will lag due to it not being able to interpret 360 degree visual data; image recognition of large datasets was one of the first employments.

I suspect the USAF already automates as much of the ground crew as is possible, but that the physical nature of the work makes this difficult. In any case, in terms of number of available candidates, cost in time, and cost in money, the aircrew is far more expensive person per person than the ground crew. Additionally there may be maintenance savings associated with automated aircraft - they presumably only have to be flown to train human counterparts/controllers in training missions requiring highly realistic conditions. There is no need for an AI software agent to clock additional hours of experience, or if it does need them, it can download them from other copies of the software agent. Those aircraft can sit in a sealed container in the munition dump or aircraft shelter waiting for assembly in a conflict.


Likely, evidence being? Piloting is not predicated on “reaction times” but decision making. Balancing a vast array of factors with very changeable priorities and doing the right thing. Not a strong point of software - I’m deep in the engineering aspects of teams writing sw to deliver functionality of complex defence avionics and it is taking millions and years to not very well deliver limited functionality that is actually quite repeatable process based, let alone deal with the variables of flying / combat air decision making. In a previous existence I was in the back of the jets making decisions on the fly, there I wrote sw to aid the process part of it, but that took a lot of effort and again was very limited vs the scope of I/pilot as decision maker.

There is a huge post in “why are we trying to replace pilots” that Ive not got time to write now, although given they’re the most annoying twats on the planet I’m definitely up for it - I just dont see it as realistic or sadly, desirable.

I do not think it is unrealistic to say that an AI can think faster than a human in most any measurable way. Really the only question is whether it was given the right information and whether it comes up with the right answer, not whether it comes up with its answer first.

Also I think it is important to note neither I nor the USAF are advocating for the replacement of all pilots. I merely suggested that we might see UCAVs operating independently in about a decade. I still stand by that. But I do not think that means pilots are replaced - I think that such usage will be in high threat peer conflict scenarios were large numbers of casualties are expected on day 1. It might be perfectly reasonable to launch several dozen UCAVs with a geo fenced kill zone over the Taiwan straight and just let them go to town on whatever they find there, knowing the majority of them will not make it back, while manned operations take place in window of opportunity created by that sacrificial force.


These cheap planes have kinematics, LO and avionics akin to piloted ones right? How does that make them cheap? If they dont, they just die to something that is better.

On a large high end fighter, the pilot isnt really imposing that much of a constraint. The constraints are sensors/antenna, integration (software) and engine oil.

We already have a good idea of what the CCAs will looks like: XQ-67 and the Furry unmanned aggressor aircraft. These are less expensive, far lower performance aircraft with low observability and light weapons loads. The USAF is pretty much on the record that the final Incr 1 product will be 1/4 - 1/3 the cost of F-35, so I personally expect a fairly rigorous IR/EO avionics fit, communications suite, and counter measure arrangement that lacks a large active radar or the broadband ESM capability of the F-35. The advantage of such a platform is that the small size and lower thrust rating of the engine is going to keep it competitive in terms of radar and IR signature. At the same time, carrying a payload of even a pair of AAMs (all I expect) means that it is dangerous enough it has to be dealt with like it was a full up fighter (indeed I expect it to carry at least a MALD like capability such that it could mimic other US platforms radar signatures as well).

The constraint of the pilot is not only the entire cockpit weight and volume but also the fact that you cannot just allow a pilot to die in a low performance aircraft. The deletion of the pilot not only saves the weight, it also changes the survivability needs of the whole airframe (see the small < 10,000 MTOW entries for the CCA Incr 1) and the entire set of tactics the aircraft might use. The AI agent is not concerned about its own survival and can adopt tactics that ensure the survival of friendly manned aircraft and attrition of opponent aircraft at its own expense. Example: manned aircraft might have to break off a BVR engagement to avoid an incoming missile shot; a UAV might decide that guiding its missiles all the way to its target and not evading is perfectly acceptable action if it ensures destruction of an opponent of higher value.


That is extraordianrily optimistic. I think we’ll see the same platforms as today in the 2030s and likely the 2040s. To get FCAS/NGAD into service is going to make F35 look cheap and quick.

The end of manned aircraft was pronounced in 1957, viewed through a very narrow optic that seemed sensible then (to some!), this penchant for AI/unmanned is the same mistake.

I think F-35s clearly will be flying for decades and probably still produced in the mid 2030s. That does not mean there will not be a role for pilotless aircraft to fly with them, or in some cases to fly independent of them.
 
How long the F-35 remains in the active air force squadrons will depend on what threats will be around come the late 2020 early 2030s, I think that after the main NGAD twin engined fighter has entered service there will be another single engined fighter program to replace the F-35 come the early 2020s. At least that is my general thoughts about the future of air combat.
 
Horrific.

Nah, it's only like ~80th percentile probably. Above average and not bad for a PCMCIA card though. Human pilots will stick around, they'll just become even more elite, because they'll be the guys training the AIs instead of other humans. That's also for the very far future if only because no one wants to stop buying JSF quite yet.

AI air superiority fighters are probably going to be the nuclear fusion of TACAIR for the next 40 years I'd guess. AI bombers will probably see combat in the next decade if America and the PRC decide to blue ball the world and skip their 2027 "Taiwan and chill" date the navies setup.

Something like MQ-28 or -58 that drops a couple SDBs on a HAS or oil tank is not really that advanced, though, so "bomber" is relative.

The big difference developing a software agent to fly a plane and training a pilot to fly a plane is eventually when the software agent is perfected, it can be copied to a thousand aircraft. So while there is a high up front cost, there also is a huge potential payout.

Machine learning is finicky enough that you'd probably need to spend at least the same amount of time on every airframe type though.
 
Last edited:
Machine learning is finicky enough that you'd probably need to spend at least the same amount of time on every airframe type though.

I think there are already software agents that have flown on multiple different aircraft, including the Shield AI "Hivemind" and the USAF's version as part of the Skyborg program. Of all the capabilities that the AI has to acquire, learning to control different aircraft types does not seem like the heavy lift.
 
AI air superiority fighters are probably going to be the nuclear fusion of TACAIR for the next 40 years I'd guess. AI bombers will probably see combat in the next decade if America and the PRC decide to blue ball the world and skip their 2027 "Taiwan and chill" date the navies setup.

Something like MQ-28 or -58 that drops a couple SDBs on a HAS or oil tank is not really that advanced, though, so "bomber" is relative.
For non-nuclear, I'd agree with that.

I'm not seeing people being okay with AI in charge of nukes anytime soon.



Machine learning is finicky enough that you'd probably need to spend at least the same amount of time on every airframe type though.
Depends on where the AI pilot sits. If the CCAs have their flight control laws worked out and tested with human pilots remotely operating them, then the AI plugs in where the human pilots were giving instructions, there's much less demand for AI learning time in the planes.
 
For non-nuclear, I'd agree with that.

I'm not seeing people being okay with AI in charge of nukes anytime soon.




Depends on where the AI pilot sits. If the CCAs have their flight control laws worked out and tested with human pilots remotely operating them, then the AI plugs in where the human pilots were giving instructions, there's much less demand for AI learning time in the planes.
Is a guidance system an AI? A kalman filter is pretty damn smart...
 
Is a guidance system an AI? A kalman filter is pretty damn smart...
It is, but the question is AI releasing (or not releasing) nukes. By the time the guidance system(s) are in control, the go/no-go decision has already been made by people.

AI operated nuclear bombers would need multiple AIs each running on physically separate hardware, and would need a way to receive updated orders in flight in order to recall the bombers.
 
No one ever stated AI should be in charge of nukes. Like, literally no where on this thread or in any USAF release ever. As far as i know, only the movies War Games or Terminator have ever prosed that as a USAF idea.
 
Those aircraft can sit in a sealed container in the munition dump or aircraft shelter waiting for assembly in a conflict.
Sounds like a missile to me.

AI operated nuclear bombers
Sounds like an ICBM or SLBM to me.

Perhaps we need to take a step back. Talk of AI fighters is fine and dandy but do we actually need a dogfighting AI-drone? What can an AI-drone do that a missile or AI-missile couldn't do? A long-range supersonic or hypersonic GLCM could do the strike mission just as easily. SAMs can do air defence - even more so if you had an AI-controlled AD setup with masses of cheap SAMs or swarms of kamikaze-drones.

The paradigm of 1915 and the manned scout is over once you get the the cybernetic age. Just as we didn't have Lancers on motorbikes or Hussars in Ford Model Ts why would be have computer chips in a cockpit? As technology moves, strategies change. A non-human controlled independent flying machine is a missile - why make a missile that looks like an aircraft and has all the aerodynamic and propulsive drawbacks of an aircraft?
 
No one ever stated AI should be in charge of nukes. Like, literally no where on this thread or in any USAF release ever. As far as i know, only the movies War Games or Terminator have ever prosed that as a USAF idea.
@Kat Tsun said AI bomber:

AI air superiority fighters are probably going to be the nuclear fusion of TACAIR for the next 40 years I'd guess. AI bombers will probably see combat in the next decade if America and the PRC decide to blue ball the world and skip their 2027 "Taiwan and chill" date the navies setup.
 
Last edited:
So what next for the USAF tanker force if the current plans are up in smoke? Looks like the stealthy tanker is just too expensive, it is a shame because I liked some of the designs.
 
I was thinking about that myself dark sidius, certainly be fast enough to keep up with the main fighter force.
 
So what next for the USAF tanker force if the current plans are up in smoke? Looks like the stealthy tanker is just too expensive, it is a shame because I liked some of the designs.
So is getting all the converted airliners blown out of the sky because they are the farthest thing from stealthy...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom