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

[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.

 

[dark sidius]

NGAD, Tanker Plans Unaffordable Without Major Changes, USAF Chief Says | Aviation Week Network

U.S. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall pointed to other budget priorities.

aviationweek.com

Are they realy serious ? they are completly mind lost or what ?

 

[Josh_TN]

NGAD, Tanker Plans Unaffordable Without Major Changes, USAF Chief Says | Aviation Week Network

U.S. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall pointed to other budget priorities.

aviationweek.com

Are they realy serious ? they are completly mind lost or what ?

Unless Congress gives the USAF more money, it has to operate with what it has. That’s that.

 

[dark sidius]

Unless Congress gives the USAF more money, it has to operate with what it has. That’s that.

I disagree , Billions and billions are spending on the NGAD program since a decade to say us that it is unaffordable so where is the money ? I think there is too much people at the head of USAF living so well with poor results may be it is time to fire some to restart the program. I say you Europe will have 6th gen fighters with tight budget before USAF.

 

[Shoes31]

I wonder if the USAF paused the NGAD selection and reviewed the requirements specifically because of budgetary issues. Wrapping up the review soon and being able to influence next years budget might be their way of saying "hey we have the system that we need, it just costs a ton and we can't afford that under current budget limitations. Here is a report of why the system needs to be this pricey, and the alternatives and how going with an alternative will make us more vulnerable. Please give us more money to pursue NGAD as intended."

 

[dark sidius]

I wonder if the USAF paused the NGAD selection and reviewed the requirements specifically because of budgetary issues. Wrapping up the review soon and being able to influence next years budget might be their way of saying "hey we have the system that we need, it just costs a ton and we can't afford that under current budget limitations. Here is a report of why the system needs to be this pricey, and the alternatives and how going with an alternative will make us more vulnerable. Please give us more money to pursue NGAD as intended.

I hope so instead there is a big problem for the futur of the program and air dominance in USAF. I don't understand Kendall it say NGAD is so expensive , and after that it want a more little NGAD but with a stealth tanker WHAT? you know well that it is more unaffordable a NGAD less expensive but a expensive stealth tanker I don't see what you are winning in term of budget ?

 

[quellish]

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

Why would metal mean a higher RCS?

 

[zevets]

Why would metal mean a higher RCS?

carbon fiber can absorb a non-trivial fraction of the radiated energy (10+dB according to google's ai) where as metal reflects just about everything

 

[quellish]

where as metal reflects just about everything

Exactly. That is where the “stealth” come from - reflection.

A really good absorber can prevent 20dBsm from returning to the receiver. A mildly good reflector (aluminum) can prevent 70-90dBsm from returning to the receiver.

 

[Ainen]

I disagree , Billions and billions are spending on the NGAD program since a decade to say us that it is unaffordable so where is the money ? I think there is too much people at the head of USAF living so well with poor results may be it is time to fire some to restart the program. I say you Europe will have 6th gen fighters with tight budget before USAF.

European projects are both less ambitious and are aimed to deliver later.

 

[Ozair]

Why would metal mean a higher RCS?

Not cool Quellish. Not sure what your intent is by only quoting a partial sentence that leaves out the context...

I said

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

But you decided to only quote

Ozair said:
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



The bold text makes a difference especially within the context of the wider discussion and post I was replying to...

 

[quellish]

The bold text makes a difference especially within the context of the wider discussion and post I was replying to...

If your argument is that a metal aircraft would have a higher RCS than one made of composites with additional RAM, then no it does not make a difference.

Metals are reflective and non-permissive. Composites, not so much. Composites can certainly be constructed so that they have more desirable properties (like being less permissive) but doing so sacrifices most of the reasons to use composites in the first place (weight, etc)

 

[Scott Kenny]

carbon fiber can absorb a non-trivial fraction of the radiated energy (10+dB according to google's ai) where as metal reflects just about everything

Shape beats materials.

So yes, I expect the CCAs to be LO shaped but with minimal RAM/RAS usage. Edges all aligned and whatnot, but only using RAM/RAS in the inlet(s), basically.

 

[joshjosh]

Shape beats materials.

So yes, I expect the CCAs to be LO shaped but with minimal RAM/RAS usage. Edges all aligned and whatnot, but only using RAM/RAS in the inlet(s), basically.

What do the latest RAM coatings cost, would this actually be a meaningful cost savings? The coatings for the F-35 are extremely durable and don't require very much maintenance. CCAs wouldn't be flying as much as manned jets, so they would have even less of a maintenance requirement. It's not inconceivable that RAM is now easy and cheap enough that Lockheed will include it in their "cheap" increment 2 offering.

 

[zevets]

Exactly. That is where the “stealth” come from - reflection.

A really good absorber can prevent 20dBsm from returning to the receiver. A mildly good reflector (aluminum) can prevent 70-90dBsm from returning to the receiver.

Shape beats materials.

So yes, I expect the CCAs to be LO shaped but with minimal RAM/RAS usage. Edges all aligned and whatnot, but only using RAM/RAS in the inlet(s), basically.

Total agreement. The speculation here is on the cost/role of the aircraft - which still seems like the Air Force doesn't even know what they're buying them for.

 

[Ozair]

What do the latest RAM coatings cost, would this actually be a meaningful cost savings? The coatings for the F-35 are extremely durable and don't require very much maintenance. CCAs wouldn't be flying as much as manned jets, so they would have even less of a maintenance requirement. It's not inconceivable that RAM is now easy and cheap enough that Lockheed will include it in their "cheap" increment 2 offering.

It is about production time and cost. CCAs need to be cheap and the low cost primarily comes from using simpler more accessible materials and manufacturing processes. That is one of the reasons GA referenced bending metal over composite use.

 

[TomcatViP]

A big fraction of the cost reduction will come from ownership. I suspect that leaves then entrepreneurs more sensible to reach their objectives on profitability on the cost per unit. Or drastically shorter life cycle time. Hence less bang for the buck.

Sooner or later the USAF would have realized they have to step in a new paradigm with their suppliers.,, Or choose to not.
That something left to solve for the next administration.

The recent Iran and Yemen strikes are a big casus belli for future force planification. On one side you have the plethora of drones and heroic Ukrainian forces stuck in muddy trenches; on the other, the lube effect of stealth and technological dominance put to the service of the diplomatic Thor hammer...

 

[Scott Kenny]

What do the latest RAM coatings cost, would this actually be a meaningful cost savings? The coatings for the F-35 are extremely durable and don't require very much maintenance. CCAs wouldn't be flying as much as manned jets, so they would have even less of a maintenance requirement.

takes more time to produce and as I understand it requires specific additives etc that are not cheap. Also requires those additives to be added in different amounts depending on where on the panel you are.

All that can be done automatically, but automation doesn't make it cheaper than not using any additives at all.

It's not inconceivable that RAM is now easy and cheap enough that Lockheed will include it in their "cheap" increment 2 offering.

Agreed that LockMart will likely include RAM in their Increment 2 offering. Disagree that it will be cheap.

A big fraction of the cost reduction will come from ownership. I suspect that leaves then entrepreneurs more sensible to reach their objectives on profitability at the cost per unit. Or drastically shorter life cycle time. Hence less bang for the buck.

Sooner or latter the USAF would have realized they will have to step in a new paradigm with their suppliers.,, Or not.
That something left to solve for the next administration.

I don't expect the CCAs to last more than a decade per increment.

 

[DWG]

ETA: probably some significant ECM as well.

GA-ASI, BAE Systems demonstrate EW capabilities aboard MQ-20

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems (GA-ASI) and BAE Systems have teamed up to demonstrate new electronic warfare (EW) capabilities via a datalink using the MQ-20 Avenger unmanned air vehicle.

www.flightglobal.com

 

[Ozair]

For those interested here is an article from CSIS about the C2 implications of using CCAs especially in the context of specific link types as discussed recently.

There is a new theory of airpower on the horizon. Over the next five years, the U.S. Air Force (USAF) plans to invest billions in research and development for a force of over 1,000 collaborative combat aircraft (CCA). The vision includes working with allies and partners to pair fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft with versatile unmanned systems, creating aerial networks that can rapidly adapt to changes in the battlespace. Multiple reports and war games portend a new future in which unmanned systems will replace an aging, expensive manned aircraft and create entirely new mission profiles optimized for peer conflict. The fate of these unmanned systems is critical, given both the Air Force’s decision in July 2024 to reevaluate its sixth-generation aircraft and the emergence of new Air Task Forces.

Yet how will military organizations command and control distributed networks of CCAs in future air operations? Will such networks be proverbial “loyal wingmen,” subject only to the tactical commands of a pilot in a cockpit? Or will drones do the bidding of the command centers, like Combined Air Operations Centers (CAOCs)? The command and control (C2) architecture surrounding CCAs will almost certainly prove to be as consequential as the systems themselves in forging the future of air power. The U.S. military needs a clear concept of mission command for autonomous aircraft, executed across multidomain battle networks and tailored to different mission types.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/cockpit-or-command-center-c2-options-collaborative-combat-aircraft

 

[Ozair]

Haven't seen this posted in the NGAD thread so thought I would add it to the discussion.

Lockheed Working on Tech to Integrate F-35 with CCAs​

The Air Force wants to start fielding CCAs by the end of this decade. Lockheed officials say they’re already working on integration.

“We’ve developed a pod that will enable the F-35 to control even today the CCAs,” CEO Jim Taiclet told analysts during a third quarter earnings call. “And we have a flight control system and a communication system in development that will enable that as well. And that could be converted, I think, to F-22 as well.”

A Lockheed spokesperson told Air & Space Forces Magazine that Taiclet was referring to “internal investments we’ve been making that enable a single fifth-gen pilot to operate multiple uncrewed systems (or CCAs) from the cockpit of a fifth-gen aircraft. This work is focused on ensuring that our fifth-gen aircraft stay ahead of future capability integrations, like CCA control.”

Lockheed Working on Tech to Integrate F-35 with CCAs

Lockheed Martin is investing in new technology so its F-35 fighters can easily control and interact autonomous Collaborative Combat Aircraft.

www.airandspaceforces.com

A couple of things that this implies or suggests to me,
- If a pod or some sort of additional work is required does that imply current and projected CCAs will not use MADL? I think a lot of us were expecting that MADL would be the link of choice for CCAs given it is LPI and has very high bandwidth and potentially backed up by a second such as Link-16. We know the XQ-58 have been flown with the USMC using Link-16, https://www.marines.mil/News/News-D...tes-link-16-in-third-xq-58a-valkyrie-test-fl/

- What link will be used...? If not MADL then what is the next likely candidate. 5th/6th gen CCA use would appear to be significantly better if an LPI link was used as that would reduce the ability of the system to be detected or interfered with.

 

[TomcatViP]

I think we should understand that, as CCAs will be lost over enemy territory at a high rate, something as a key asset as MADL would potentially be at risk to be exposed too easily. Hence having a different standard for CCA makes sense on a security perspective. Having it podded, through an interface helps also making it on overall more robust.
Then a pod is easier to iterate as fast as CCA evolves without the burden of updating an entire complex airframe as a stealth fighter.

 

[bobbymike]

An In-Depth Look at the NGAD Review Expected to Conclude by the End of 2024

The U.S. Air Force's Next-Generation Air Dominance program is currently under a comprehensive review to reassess the requirements of the 6th generation

theaviationist.com

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think we should understand that, as CCAs will be lost over enemy territory at a high rate, something as a key asset as MADL would potentially be at risk to be exposed too easily. Hence having a different standard for CCA makes sense on a security perspective. Having it podded, through an interface helps also making it on overall more robust.
Then a pod is easier to iterate as fast as CCA evolves without the burden of updating an entire complex airframe as a stealth fighter.

Problem is that the pod compromises F35/F22 stealth.

Plus, the CCAs are going to need something similar to the MADL to avoid giving away their positions if the CCAs are relatively stealthy themselves.

 

[Ozair]

Problem is that the pod compromises F35/F22 stealth.

Probably a bit but not as mush as many would think. We have seen new external pods for the F-22 and the F-35 pod LM is talking about could be built on the Terma pod which likely has LO or even VLO shaping and materials to support the F-35 mission.

The carbonfibre pod is optimised for low observability, meaning it will not radically increase the stealthy F-35's radar cross section. The company adds that the pod's light, carbonfibre structure is also good for fuel efficiency.

https://www.flightglobal.com/farnborough-terma-displays-f-35-multimission-pod/106126.article

Plus, the CCAs are going to need something similar to the MADL to avoid giving away their positions if the CCAs are relatively stealthy themselves.

Issus being current and looking like the next iteration of CCAs aren't particularly stealthy... Perhaps the USAF has decided it won't matter as much for the CCA mission and aircraft when accompanied by CCAs will rely on jamming and other active protection measures compared to the current passive stealth approach.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Issus being current and looking like the next iteration of CCAs aren't particularly stealthy... Perhaps the USAF has decided it won't matter as much for the CCA mission and aircraft when accompanied by CCAs will rely on jamming and other active protection measures compared to the current passive stealth approach.

At least Increment 1 CCAs are just to develop CONOPS for how best to use CCAs in practice, rather than in theory. So LO isn't part of the concept right now.

 

[NMaude]

At least Increment 1 CCAs are just to develop CONOPS for how best to use CCAs in practice, rather than in theory. So LO isn't part of the concept right now.

So good enough to do the job and help the USAF refine its' CCA specifications and how to properly use them?

 

[Ozair]

At least Increment 1 CCAs are just to develop CONOPS for how best to use CCAs in practice, rather than in theory. So LO isn't part of the concept right now.

It is very hard to know what Increment Two will look like. We have the comments from LM previously posted talking about reducing capability and then we have these comments by Scott Jobe in February,

Jobe also described Increment 2 as still “a clean sheet of paper.” Although it has been notionally described as a more “exquisite” platform than Increment 1, possibly with a high degree of stealth or sensors, the Air Force is waiting to see what industry will put forward.

“There could be two versions,” he said; one that is a high-end platform, but with variants that are considerably less expensive, perhaps with a single-purpose mission.

Air Force acquisition executive Andrew Hunter added that Increment 2 could potentially have “very different set of requirements,” and the Air Force is still near the beginning of the process.

“We talk a lot to industry: what can you deliver?” Hunter said. The Air Force is looking at “the spectrum of industry feedback” to that question before narrowing its ideas about Increment 2, he said.

What would play for a greater focus on LO or even VLO CCA would be if manned NGAD was cancelled. That might increase the appetite for a CCA with greater capabilities, especially if the outer mold line is build for VLO with sensors and weapons upgraded over time.

 

[Ozair]

So good enough to do the job and help the USAF refine its' CCA specifications and how to properly use them?

The USAF has said CCAs of about 1000 in the current phased plans.

Planning for CCA Increment 2 development is also ongoing, with initial activities starting later this year. All current and potential future industry partners from the CCA vendor pool will compete for this follow-on effort.

The CCA program aims to deliver at least 1,000 CCAs, prioritizing cost-effective scalability. With air superiority pivotal to America's military dominance for more than 70 years, CCA offers expanded fighter capacity (affordable mass) at reduced costs and adaptable timelines.

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

with expected plans for Increment One to be around 100 aircraft but no numbers for increment two and three.

 

[Scott Kenny]

So good enough to do the job and help the USAF refine its' CCA specifications and how to properly use them?

Exactly. Good enough to do a job, and then see what capabilities need to be added or subtracted for Increment 2 and beyond.

Maybe they need to be LO or even VLO. Maybe they need to carry more missiles. Maybe they should have space for a 100kg explosive charge to use as a kamikaze once their AAMs are exhausted. Or maybe they need a 500kw laser installed instead of missiles!

 

[Scott Kenny]

What would play for a greater focus on LO or even VLO CCA would be if manned NGAD was cancelled. That might increase the appetite for a CCA with greater capabilities, especially if the outer mold line is build for VLO with sensors and weapons upgraded over time.

I honestly expect that the outer mold line will be shaped for VLO but will probably not have all the RAM/RAS that say the F35 or B21 does.

At least as long as we are not expecting the CCAs to dogfight.

If we are expecting them to dogfight, well, they won't be VLO.

 

[Ozair]

I honestly expect that the outer mold line will be shaped for VLO but will probably not have all the RAM/RAS that say the F35 or B21 does.

Certainly possible but also depends on the trade offs that need to be made.

At least as long as we are not expecting the CCAs to dogfight.

If we are expecting them to dogfight, well, they won't be VLO.

I think we can see that with the GA and Andruil bids, the two look very different in performance and focus. For Increment Two the USAF may also decide to go down a similar route with different platforms for the various mission sets.

Do we expect CCAs to dogfight each other? That would takes things to a whole new level.

 

[Forest Green]

Crisis Brewing Over Air Force's Future Air Dominance Plans Which It Cannot Afford

There is worrisome uncertainty about the Air Force's ability to pay for next-gen fighters, stealth tankers, and drones.

www.twz.com

 

[dark sidius]

NGAD’s demise ‘grossly exaggerated’ as US Air Force continues to re-evaluate programme | Shephard

NGAD demise 'exaggerated' as re-evaluation by USAF continues

www.shephardmedia.com

 

[siegecrossbow]

Lockheed Martin CEO Hints At Lower-Cost CCA Approach | Aviation Week Network

The company has dusted off a two-year-old concept as an intense competition builds for the second batch of Collaborative Combat Aircraft prototypes.

aviationweek.com

 

[TomcatViP]

Nice read:

But the service’s choice last April of less survivable systems for CCA Increment 1 clearly irked Clark. A month after losing the contract, he criticized the Air Force’s decision in another interview with Aviation Week (AW&ST June 17-30, p. 32). His program’s analysis showed that all such CCAs would be shot down on every mission. As attritable systems, that result might be acceptable in some cases. But the question was whether the Air Force could afford to lose Increment 1 CCAs on every mission; each would cost $25-30 million.

Taiclet’s remarks on the third-quarter earnings call suggest that Lockheed is giving the Project Carrera concept a second look. The Air Force plans to release draft performance requirements for the Increment 2 prototype competition by year-end, and Lockheed expects to respond. If the service wants a markedly cheaper approach to the CCA concept in Increment 2, Project Carrera’s plan—linking inexpensive, disposable Speed Racers to F-35-mounted control pods—might offer a clue about the company’s bid.

Also this (@Ozair )

By installing advanced processors in the F-35 pod, Lockheed could minimize the cost of the electronics in each CCA, which would simply receive software-based autonomy instructions.