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

[Bounce]

The future of the Air Force’s next-generation combat jet will be decided by the end of the year, the service’s top officer said Oct. 25.

“We intend to have that by December,” Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin said at the Military Reporters and Editors Conference in Washington, D.C. “We also want to be able to influence the Department’s Presidential Budget Submission in February.”

NGAD Review to Finish Before End of Year, Allvin Says

The panel determining the fate of the Air Force’s future manned fighter (NGAD) will provide its recommendations by the end of 2024.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[Moose]

They're still contradicting each other. Allvin is saying this was triggered because the threat has grown more capable and they're no longer certain the manned platform can "deliver." Kendall is saying CCA made it possible reconsider their approach using more drones (and B-21) to do the job. That's two different origin stories. We've also seen that the Increment1 CCAs are dramatically less stealthy than the PCA aircraft was expected to be, so even if Raider is more stealthy than that aircraft would have been the overall kill chain would be a lot easier to detect and thus more vulnerable to A2AD.

 

[Josh_TN]

They're still contradicting each other. Allvin is saying this was triggered because the threat has grown more capable and they're no longer certain the manned platform can "deliver." Kendall is saying CCA made it possible reconsider their approach using more drones (and B-21) to do the job. That's two different origin stories. We've also seen that the Increment1 CCAs are dramatically less stealthy than the PCA aircraft was expected to be, so even if Raider is more stealthy than that aircraft would have been the overall kill chain would be a lot easier to detect and thus more vulnerable to A2AD.

It is possible that the reasoning is a little of column A and a little of column B. Also possible that there is a difference of opinion or someone is being deliberately misleading; we are in the dark.

As for CCA stealth, the goal seems to be the least amount of effort that produce a frontal RCS low enough to get into a good firing position, and not a penny more spent on the effort. I actually think that’s a healthy mindset. There are all sorts of financial and performance costs associated with VLO designs; something that is just “LO” is likely more cost effective. Once you fire your weapons, chances are the opponent is alerted to your position anyway and in any case, they probably have other things to worry about.

 

[Ozair]

As for CCA stealth, the goal seems to be the least amount of effort that produce a frontal RCS low enough to get into a good firing position, and not a penny more spent on the effort. I actually think that’s a healthy mindset. There are all sorts of financial and performance costs associated with VLO designs; something that is just “LO” is likely more cost effective. Once you fire your weapons, chances are the opponent is alerted to your position anyway and in any case, they probably have other things to worry about.

Out of the US we have only seen Phase One which is clearly early designs focused more on the autonomy than on LO design. Increment two is expected in a couple of years and we may see more of a focus on LO, or VLO, or alternatively deeper magazines or higher speed/longer range etc.

It is interesting that the FCAS CCA equivalent design appear to have a higher focus on LO but also they don't have the building block approach that the USAF is taking.

 

[Josh_TN]

Out of the US we have only seen Phase One which is clearly early designs focused more on the autonomy than on LO design. Increment two is expected in a couple of years and we may see more of a focus on LO, or VLO, or alternatively deeper magazines or higher speed/longer range etc.

It is interesting that the FCAS CCA equivalent design appear to have a higher focus on LO but also they don't have the building block approach that the USAF is taking.

The designs we have seen so far in this rough range class of LO and ~10,000 lb MTOW include the Anduril Fury, the GA XQ-67 (both down selected), the XQ-58 (and any classified derivative), and scales composites 438. The general theme I detect is a UCAV with standard runway capability (Kratos is developing this and I think why they missed the first round) that can travel a thousand miles round trip with a pair of AAMs for a douple tap on an opponent aircraft. None of these are super low RCS, but all of them clearly work towards a low frontal signature. And I suspect any one of them is not drastically larger in radar footprint than an F-35 from head on. They are inherently smaller than a manned aircraft even if less resources are invested in radar reduction. It also might be the case that UAVs can adopt much less durable radar reduction technologies that are less expensive since they do not have regular sortie or training requirements.

I expect the trend to go more towards cheaper and more prolific rather than larger and more capable. And IMO, the bar set by Incr 1 is passive detection or off board sensor target data and a pair of full sized AAMs. And nothing more.

ETA: probably some significant ECM as well.

 

[Ozair]

The designs we have seen so far in this rough range class of LO and ~10,000 lb MTOW include the Anduril Fury, the GA XQ-67 (both down selected), the XQ-58 (and any classified derivative), and scales composites 438. The general theme I detect is a UCAV with standard runway capability (Kratos is developing this and I think why they missed the first round) that can travel a thousand miles round trip with a pair of AAMs for a douple tap on an opponent aircraft. None of these are super low RCS, but all of them clearly work towards a low frontal signature. And I suspect any one of them is not drastically larger in radar footprint than an F-35 from head on. They are inherently smaller than a manned aircraft even if less resources are invested in radar reduction. It also might be the case that UAVs can adopt much less durable radar reduction technologies that are less expensive since they do not have regular sortie or training requirements.

We know from GA and Andruil that their aircraft don't have any significant quantity of composites, they are very much traditional bended metal aircraft which would lead to likely higher RCS values than a traditional manned fighter which has both composites and additional RAM treatments. Whether we want to class something as LO or VLO or non LO becomes an academic debate on values and ranges and suspected treatments.

I expect the trend to go more towards cheaper and more prolific rather than larger and more capable. And IMO, the bar set by Incr 1 is passive detection or off board sensor target data and a pair of full sized AAMs. And nothing more.

ETA: probably some significant ECM as well.

Potentially. LM certainly think that.

“What we see from a macro-level environment is … something that has more expendable characteristics and is at a much, much lower cost point seems to be a good place to go explore. And so that’s where we’re exploring and putting time and energy in,” said John Clark, a Lockheed vice president and general manager of the experimental engineering outfit. He spoke at a briefing at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference organized by the defense contractor.

He added that the Air Force was still developing requirements for Increment 2 of the CCA program, which aims to produce uncrewed, autonomously piloted aircraft that will partner with manned fighters like the F-35 and provide additional firepower.

“Right now we’re actively looking at how the Air Force is going to go with their requirements,” he said, adding that he did not want to get out ahead of service leaders.

But he also cited the famous advice from ice hockey legend Wayne Gretzky: “’Skate where the puck is going to.’ That’s where we think it’s going to,” he said.

Lockheed was one of three unsuccessful bidders for Increment 1 of the CCA, and Clark said the company offered stealth capabilities in that bid that were above and beyond what the Air Force requested. He attributed that decision to the company’s conviction, based on its operational analysis, that stealth was required to make the aircraft survivable and capable of providing “something that actually had value to the Air Force over long haul.”

“With 20/20 hindsight, you could certainly armchair quarterback [that decision] and say, well, the Air Force isn’t valuing survivability right now, so we gold-plated something that they didn’t need gold-plated,” he explained.

Lockheed Eyes Low-Cost Attritable Drone for CCA Increment 2

Lockheed Martin will focus on lower cost, more attritable aircraft in its proposal for Increment 2 of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA).

www.airandspaceforces.com

It therefore seems unlikely that we will see much in the form of LO and VLO optimised for Increment two even though the requirements are not fully defined yet.

But that still contrasts with what we have seen from Airbus https://www.twz.com/air/the-airbus-wingman-stealth-drone-what-we-learned-in-berlin and what would be expected to accompany a VLO platform like the B-21 or a manned NGAD.