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

[VTOLicious]

Bing bong

THIS is most likely representative of what USAF cannot afford in large numbers...

 

[F119Doctor]

I would disagree on the J58 being called a very low bypass engine. When at M3+ it is acting with a higher bypass ratio than most fighter jet engines. All that bleed bypass air is being dumped into the afterburner.

If you believe Wikipedia, the J58 bypass ratio with the bleeds open at cruise conditions was approximately 0.25, with a significant portion of the bypass bleed air being used for cooling the AB liner and not available for combustion. As I said, a low bypass single shaft turbofan with the bypass bleeds open

 

[Ozair]

If the CCA is being treated as an attritable item, I suppose that it makes sense that their missions would be practiced in simulators rather than being expended in exercises, but I have to wonder what the fidelity of that would be, especially in LFE where I've sometimes seen "magic fairy dust" taken too far.

There is already a lot of virtual training happening and if you consider that most pilots never fire an AAM or cruise missile until combat this won't be too different.

There are two opportunities here though. Andruil's CCA was originally meant to be an adversary and I see that continuing, both platforms would be able to simulate red air. In that context then the CCAs would get rolled out for Red and Green Flags and other exercises and CCAs would operate on both sides with the same restrictions current manned red air use. Then the opportunity to use CCAs for the blue side of that training is also huge. As a cost saving the same CCAs can be rolled out for each exercise with everyone getting the opportunity to command.

Will be interesting to see the first time a CCA intercepts a Russian Bear flying off Alaska and how that interaction plays out.

Also there the opportunity to reduce training costs further. The USAF has talked about T-7s or T-50s sitting at front line units and some training happening with the platforms and reduced hour costs to 5th gen per this article https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-wants-up-to-400-advanced-fighter-trainers-like-t-7s/

Pairing CCAs with this aircraft may also allow training to happen but at lower costs than with the front line 5th and 6th Gen assets.

 

[red admiral]

I think I found a candidate for my ignore list.

Everyone knows that aeroplanes get faster as they get older...

 

[RJMAZ]

This graphic is probably the best example I have seen. Very big internal fuel capacity. I wouldn't be surprised if the fuel capacity is over 20 ton.

 

[DWG]

It probably won't be the greatest dogfighter at very low speed. But it is very easy to sustain 9G at high cruising speeds.

I think we need to come back to this because it's relevant to how NGAD might function in combat. The traditional advantage of high speed in air superiority (other than getting the hell out of Dodge), is the ability to function as a booster stage to your own AAMs, which requires a run directly at your target. Once that's done, you need to avoid the merge, because the whole point of lobbing out an LRAAM at max speed is to avoid entering the other guy's engagement range. Then repeat against same or different targets until Winchester. This is where speed starts to work against you, both by giving you the cornering radius of a medium sized country, and by enhancing your signature.

But (and I don't know, I'm not being rhetorical*), how valuable is that high speed boost with modern LRAAMs dependent on boosting to ultra-high/ultra-thin air as quickly as possible. Does the speed boost work with the kinematics, or against it? It's going to increase skin heating if nothing else as the missile will pass through a larger volume of air on its way up.

As for any idea of sustained 9G turns, why? Avoiding the merge needs at most a 90-180 degree turn, more than that, and you're turning back into your pursuer. While for any kind of ACM, the tactical radius of a Mach 3 target pulling 9G is just going to leave it vulnerable to someone moving at their optimal speed for sustained turn rate and in a flight environment where they're able to utilised their high alpha nose pointing abilities. Popping high alpha at Mach 3 sounds like a good way to invoke the legendary 'wings fall off' button.

(And bringing back our putative Mach 3 F-15EX, it's of little use for air combat until someone carries out all the required weapon separation tests at that speed, because I can guarantee you it's outside currently tested release criteria and funny things happen when you drop things off aircraft into unknown aerodynamics).

* It occurred to me this morning and I realised immediately I don't know enough about missile kinematics to make any assumptions.

 

[jsport]

THIS is most likely representative of what USAF cannot afford in large numbers...
View attachment 748654

at the risk piling on yet again ...SecAF has an unenviable position as the time to mature emerging technologies may be lengthening and the risk to committing to something which will be obsolete on arrival is an issue.
some examples of hinderances to commitment:
-advent of lower cost trans atmospherics
-longer range missiles/UASs justifying non stealth/stealth standoff large platforms
-continually upgrading 5th gen fighters to fulfill most requirements
-expectations on DEW and what it can do even from a simple pod ie craft that are extremely difficult to shoot down and thus guaranteeing air superiority
-other budgetary demands (big one)
-

 

[RJMAZ]

As for any idea of sustained 9G turns, why? Avoiding the merge needs at most a 90-180 degree turn, more than that, and you're turning back into your pursuer.

It will definitely be 9G rated. The problem is to maintain the same turning radius as the speed increases you need to pull more G. The SR-71 took a full country to turn around when at top speed.

One scenario
NGAD is travelling at mach 2 towards enemy territory. It detects an enemy Combat Air Patrol (CAP) directly 100 miles ahead at the 12 oclock position. NGAD fires it's missiles. NGAD now wants to perform a 90 degree turn to avoid the merge. If NGAD pulls only 4G the turn radius is so large it will still fly into the detection radius of the CAP. The enemy aircraft might launch missiles at NGAD before they are shot down by the missiles fired from NGAD. To avoid the merge NGAD needs to pull 9G and bleed airspeed to get that 90 degree turn in a short distance. This will put tremendous strain on the pilot. No doubt these turn will have to be semi-automated as it will be pulling 9G for many many seconds.

With the NGAD design I posted above the wing is blended into a thick wedge. This would be incredibly strong while providing good internal fuel volume. It would not surprise me if NGAD could pull semi-automated 10+G 90 degree high speed turns for these evasive maneuvers.

NGAD with the best radar might struggle to detect a J-20 from more than 50 miles away. It will need to turn sharply to avoid the merge.

Second Scenario
NGAD is flying into enemy territory. Ground based IR early warning sensors detects NGAD and passes the information to the radar based SAM network. The ground based radar lights up 50 miles directly infront of NGAD. NGAD needs to turn quickly to stay out of the radar detection of the SAM system.

Third Scenario
A medium range SAM system locks on and fires at NGAD. The SAM site is at the 10 oclock to the left approx 20 miles away. If NGAD is cruising at mach 2 at 60,000 feet
it can then quickly turn to the right and put the missile into a tail chase situation. NGAD will move out of the no escape zone of the missile. Pulling 9G doing this turn will significantly improve the survivability as the missile is still climbing and there is limited time.

Having a silver bullet fleet of only 20-50 of these high speed NGAD fighters makes it very complex for the enemy IADS. This alone can justify the purchase. NGAD can zip around with bursts above mach 3 baiting the enemy at high speed and getting the enemy air and ground based radars to light up. The B-21 can use the location of the enemy to penetrate and hit its deep targets. The F-22 fleet can come in and take out the rest of of CAPs. The F-35 can pound the enemy around the fringe.

I am fairly confident NGAD is already in low rate production at the Skunk Works for a small silver bullet fleet. The rumours that the USAF wants a cheaper/smaller NGAD I actually think the USAF are eyeing off the US Navy F/A-XX design. The F/A-XX design will be the closest to an F-22 replacement in terms of size and kinematics. Many assume the carriers max takeoff limit is between 35-40 ton. The F-22 is 38 ton. The slow carrier landing speed will point towards F/A-XX having a supercruise below mach 2. The US Navy needs hundreds of F/A-XX so the production volume will be higher and the US Navy will have a reasonable price limit per aircraft. The US Navy F/A-XX will be like an F-22 with a bit more range and with the latest F-35 style avionics. The USAF version would remove the wing fold mechanism, maybe a lighter landing gear. It might be 5% lighter and have 5% more fuel than the US Navy version.

 

[joshjosh]

-expectations on DEW and what it can do even from a simple pod ie craft that are extremely difficult to shoot down and thus guaranteeing air superiority

I'm not sure why fighter-mounted DEW keeps being discussed. The SHiELD program concluded with no plans for further test and evalution. Could the Airforce start a new program and eventually field a self-defense high energy laser? Sure, of course they could. Just as they could eventually produce a hypersonic spy plane. For now, there are no public plans for either.

Another Dead End for Airborne Lasers: Air Force Scraps Effort to Mount Directed-Energy Weapon on Fighter Jet

The Self-Protect High-Energy Laser Demonstrator, or SHiELD, was envisioned as a laser weapon mounted on fighter jets such as the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II that would neutralize incoming missiles.

www.military.com

 

[jsport]

Multi-Spectral Targeting System (MTS)

Raytheon's Multi-Spectral Targeting System (MTS) provides electro-optical/ infrared (EO/IR), laser designation, and laser illumination capabilities integrated in a single sensor package.

www.rtx.com

Laser Apache helicopter tested for the first time

A laser-armed attack helicopter has been tested in the US, heralding a new frontier for high-tech weapons systems.

www.themanufacturer.com

This week the US military released footage of an Apache AH-64 attack helicopter armed with a weaponised version of the Multi-Spectral Targeting System laser conducting fire tests.

Unlike current generation laser range-finders, this modified system is powerful enough to cause substantial damage to vehicles and other objects.

 

[jsport]

afrl de weapon - Google Search

 

[_Del_]

It will definitely be 9G rated.

Why would I want to pull 9g's when I could simply ask my unmanned wingman or another flocking or swarming platform to do that? Platforms even smaller than me, and there for easier, cheaper, and lighter to engineer such a capability into.

Physics are still your enemy at Mach 3. I don't think you appreciate what you are asking for.

For my off-the-wall prediction, future USAF manned tactical aircraft will become less capable, not more. Everything is going netcentric. F-35 may ironically be the pinnacle of manned fighter aircraft for the Air Force. Less will be more.

 

[RJMAZ]

Why would I want to pull 9g's when I could simply ask my unmanned wingman or another flocking or swarming platform to do that?

That would require a mach 2 supercruise capable loyal wingman drone that could also penetrate 1,000nm. That would probably cost as much as the F-35.

A flock of subsonic platforms wouldn't arrive in time.

NGAD would have to survive all on its own as the tip of the spear. Potentially the F-22 could inflight refuel just before the NGAD starts its high speed penetration run. The F-22 can supercruise in directly behind NGAD. The F-22 will receive all the targeting information from NGAD and do a quick mop up before it hits bingo. The F-35 can be coming in subsonic carrying supersonic Stand-in attack weapons. And NGAD provides the location of any ground targets to the F-35.

 

[Scott Kenny]

He also said that studies and experiments so far indicate that pilots of crewed fighters will likely be able to control many more CCAs than originally thought.

Oh, hey, looks like we're closer to my "one manned plane per entire strike package" intended destination than anyone thought!

As for demonstrator record breaking, while the discussion has taught me a lot about trade offs in engine design, I think the assumption that speed records were broken seems misguided: there are any number of very minor performance records the quote might have referred to. And in any case the demonstrator might no longer be especially representative of the program’s end product.

I'm starting to suspect that the records broken by the demonstrators were engineering type, like quickest delivery of flight rated hardware or something like that.

It will definitely be 9G rated. The problem is to maintain the same turning radius as the speed increases you need to pull more G. The SR-71 took a full country to turn around when at top speed.

The SR-71 is also limited to 3.5 gees while subsonic and 1.25 gees while at mach 3... So I'm not expecting a plane to be pulling 9 gees while supersonic.

 

[Josh_TN]

The fact that the Incr1 CCAs are all completely subsonic I think clearly indicates that high speed is not where this is going. And I can think of two good reasons: cost and IR detection. If the U.S. can orbit a constellation of LEO and MEO satellites capable of detecting hypersonic gliders, then so can the PRC in a relatively close time frame. A highly supersonic F-111 platform is going to be a cooler but also much larger target, and any steady use of afterburners to achieve speed is also going to be quite noticeable. Even F-22 levels of supercruise may be problematic, but in any case I think the F-22 represents the practical ceiling of performance one can achieve without easy IR detection.

Flip the script: how long would a Mach 2-3 NGAD last if it ran headlong into a crowd of a dozen CCAs with a networked IRST capability? And the dozen UCAVs would be a lot less expensive. Again, the USAF can expect the PLA to be right behind it in aircraft development cycles.

 

[dark sidius]

NGAD Combined Test Force patch, new.

I think this patch answer some questions

 

[dark sidius]

The fact that the Incr1 CCAs are all completely subsonic I think clearly indicates that high speed is not where this is going. And I can think of two good reasons: cost and IR detection. If the U.S. can orbit a constellation of LEO and MEO satellites capable of detecting hypersonic gliders, then so can the PRC in a relatively close time frame. A highly supersonic F-111 platform is going to be a cooler but also much larger target, and any steady use of afterburners to achieve speed is also going to be quite noticeable. Even F-22 levels of supercruise may be problematic, but in any case I think the F-22 represents the practical ceiling of performance one can achieve without easy IR detection.

Flip the script: how long would a Mach 2-3 NGAD last if it ran headlong into a crowd of a dozen CCAs with a networked IRST capability? And the dozen UCAVs would be a lot less expensive. Again, the USAF can expect the PLA to be right behind it in aircraft development cycles.

It is impossible to do air dominance mission with out supersonic capability, how can you? , intercept, dogfight ,escape, identify , pursuit plane with out supersonic dash ? How can you catch and make visual identification like they do with the bear Bomber or similar on air policy mission with poor subsonic CCA ? Surley sooner the stealth advantage will be compromise by new detector and sensor, and for the IR detection each motor , engine , turbine make heat so you must fly high , fast and staying on the combat zone the less time possible to survive. CCA make IR source too, a little or a big IR picture make no difference when you are detected, enemy see you.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The fact that the Incr1 CCAs are all completely subsonic I think clearly indicates that high speed is not where this is going. And I can think of two good reasons: cost and IR detection. If the U.S. can orbit a constellation of LEO and MEO satellites capable of detecting hypersonic gliders, then so can the PRC in a relatively close time frame. A highly supersonic F-111 platform is going to be a cooler but also much larger target, and any steady use of afterburners to achieve speed is also going to be quite noticeable. Even F-22 levels of supercruise may be problematic, but in any case I think the F-22 represents the practical ceiling of performance one can achieve without easy IR detection.

It's difficult to dogfight without enough excess power that the airframe can go supersonic. Or to dodge missiles.

I think that the Increment 1 CCAs are subsonic for no other reason than because that's cheap, and the following increments of CCAs will have performance much closer to that of the NGAD. (Similar range/speed)

Flip the script: how long would a Mach 2-3 NGAD last if it ran headlong into a crowd of a dozen CCAs with a networked IRST capability? And the dozen UCAVs would be a lot less expensive. Again, the USAF can expect the PLA to be right behind it in aircraft development cycles.

Well, the Blackbird shows that it's very difficult to intercept a high-flying, high Mach-2+ airframe. So do the recon MiG-25/31s.

So even if they detect the plane (which is very likely, yes), it's still unlikely to be shot down.

 

[Ozair]

It's difficult to dogfight without enough excess power that the airframe can go supersonic. Or to dodge missiles.

I think there are enough examples of subsonic dogfighters that that statement doesn't really hold up.

I think that the Increment 1 CCAs are subsonic for no other reason than because that's cheap, and the following increments of CCAs will have performance much closer to that of the NGAD. (Similar range/speed)

All indications are that Incement Two will follow the path of increment One. As already posted LM seems pretty convinced they shouldn't gold plate their Increment Two proposal and the USAF has been clear that cost will be the ultimate governor. Supersonic means cost, deeper magazines means cost, more capable sensors means cost.

Well, the Blackbird shows that it's very difficult to intercept a high-flying, high Mach-2+ airframe. So do the recon MiG-25/31s.

So even if they detect the plane (which is very likely, yes), it's still unlikely to be shot down.

None of those airframes fly in an environment where modern AAMs are now being used. Even in Ukraine the MiG-31s are launching killjoys from a long way off. They certainly wouldn't be operating within range of modern SAMs nor within the potential envelopes of Meteor or advanced Chinese AAMs. I'd also put my money on the SM-6 defeating any attempt by those three looking to evade.

 

[joshjosh]

I think that the Increment 1 CCAs are subsonic for no other reason than because that's cheap, and the following increments of CCAs will have performance much closer to that of the NGAD. (Similar range/speed)

I mentioned this in another thread, but it's entirely possible that PCA could be supercruising while CCAs could be subsonic. In recent wargames, BLUEFOR players overwhelmingly preferred cheap and expendable CCAs in a Taiwan scenario, distributed without runways in an ACE format within the 1IC, working in conjuction with exquisite 5th-gen assets like F-22 and F-35.

Imagine an exquisite VLO PCA with Mach 2+ supercruise and 1,000+ NM range screaming in from Okinawa or from Guam with mid-air refueling, meeting up with cheap CCAs in the area.

In the wargames, participants didn't opt for a single exquisite CCA even once, but they did employ F-22 to its fullest extent.

On the other hand, this CONOPS might not be relevant in every theater, so an exquisite PCA might require an exquisite CCA... and we know the airforce has been making noises about wanting a much cheaper PCA... but until major production contracts are signed, we can keep our minds open. Hi-PCA Lo-CCA is possible.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/us-uav-and-ucav-technology.1885/post-718507

 

[Ozair]

I mentioned this in another thread, but it's entirely possible that PCA could be supercruising while CCAs could be subsonic. In recent wargames, BLUEFOR players overwhelmingly preferred cheap and expendable CCAs in a Taiwan scenario, distributed without runways in an ACE format within the 1IC, working in conjuction with exquisite 5th-gen assets like F-22 and F-35.

Imagine an exquisite VLO PCA with Mach 2+ supercruise and 1,000+ NM range screaming in from Okinawa or from Guam with mid-air refueling, meeting up with cheap CCAs in the area.

In the wargames, participants didn't opt for a single exquisite CCA even once, but they did employ F-22 to its fullest extent.

That is the model I also think will play out. Future exercises will flesh these out but I expect CCA orbits aligned with unmanned tankers pushed forward and the CCAs are picked up along the way or directed to locations via the BMS and held there until required.

 

[Josh_TN]

It is impossible to do air dominance mission with out supersonic capability, how can you? , intercept, dogfight ,escape, identify , pursuit plane with out supersonic dash ? How can you catch and make visual identification like they do with the bear Bomber or similar on air policy mission with poor subsonic CCA ? Surley sooner the stealth advantage will be compromise by new detector and sensor, and for the IR detection each motor , engine , turbine make heat so you must fly high , fast and staying on the combat zone the less time possible to survive. CCA make IR source too, a little or a big IR picture make no difference when you are detected, enemy see you.

I did not state completely subsonic; I said that the current supercruise of F-22 was likely the ceiling of any NGAD aircraft. I think the people here predicting Mach 3 performance are quite incorrect, though supersonic is almost certain - if subsonic were workable one could simply adopt B-21. But I think it is clear that would not be a good A2A fire platform, even if its sensors and other systems could help with such missions.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think there are enough examples of subsonic dogfighters that that statement doesn't really hold up.

Almost all those subsonic dogfighters have good specific excess power for their time. Not sure if you're including the A-10, which wins a dogfight in the first circle (or gets blown out of the sky), because of how fast it can pull a 180 at relatively low gees (small turning radius), despite the abysmal power-to-weight ratio.

I mentioned this in another thread, but it's entirely possible that PCA could be supercruising while CCAs could be subsonic. In recent wargames, BLUEFOR players overwhelmingly preferred cheap and expendable CCAs in a Taiwan scenario, distributed without runways in an ACE format within the 1IC, working in conjuction with exquisite 5th-gen assets like F-22 and F-35.

Imagine an exquisite VLO PCA with Mach 2+ supercruise and 1,000+ NM range screaming in from Okinawa or from Guam with mid-air refueling, meeting up with cheap CCAs in the area.

In the wargames, participants didn't opt for a single exquisite CCA even once, but they did employ F-22 to its fullest extent.

I saw that report too, but I still think that only works with runway-independent CCAs.

Otherwise you need long range just to have a base outside of Chinese A2AD. Which then suggests needing a cruise speed comparable to the NGAD which is using the same bases.

On the other hand, this CONOPS might not be relevant in every theater, so an exquisite PCA might require an exquisite CCA... and we know the airforce has been making noises about wanting a much cheaper PCA... but until major production contracts are signed, we can keep our minds open. Hi-PCA Lo-CCA is possible.

I'm generally expecting Hi-PCA Lo-CCA, but the Navy CCAs will definitely be spicier than the USAF CCAs due to them using the same "airfields" as the FAXX.

I'm also suspecting that the USAF CCAs will end up about as expensive as F-16Cs when compared to F-15Cs. Same rough proportion, anyway.

I did not state completely subsonic; my indicated that current supercruise of F-22 was likely the ceiling of any NGAD aircraft. I think the people here predicting Mach 3 performance are quite incorrect, though supersonic is almost certain - if subsonic were workable one could simply adopt B-21. But I think it is clear that would not be a good A2A fire platform, even if its sensors and other systems could help with such missions.

I'm kinda thinking that the supercruise speed may be higher than the F-22, but the whole airframe would be optimized to cruise that fast. Max range at Mach 2 or whatever the magic speed is. Not as fast as a Blackbird, but greater range supersonic than subsonic.

 

[quellish]

I'm generally expecting Hi-PCA Lo-CCA, but the Navy CCAs will definitely be spicier than the USAF CCAs due to them using the same "airfields" as the FAXX.

The Navy is not yet all in on CCAs. Instead they are going with putting all their capabilities in the manned aircraft. The Navy’s relationship with carrier borne UAVs is still very immature.

 

[dark sidius]

The Navy is not yet all in on CCAs. Instead they are going with putting all their capabilities in the manned aircraft. The Navy’s relationship with carrier borne UAVs is still very immature.

I think that the Navy is on the better way than USAF in air dominance , Kendall become the big lover of CCA I hope it will change with the new admininstration, CCA is a waste of money , they are reusable cruise missile , they are no realy stealth or fast , it would be better and cheaper to build low cost expendable missile in a big quantity.

 

[dark sidius]

I think there are enough examples of subsonic dogfighters that that statement doesn't really hold up.


All indications are that Incement Two will follow the path of increment One. As already posted LM seems pretty convinced they shouldn't gold plate their Increment Two proposal and the USAF has been clear that cost will be the ultimate governor. Supersonic means cost, deeper magazines means cost, more capable sensors means cost.

None of those airframes fly in an environment where modern AAMs are now being used. Even in Ukraine the MiG-31s are launching killjoys from a long way off. They certainly wouldn't be operating within range of modern SAMs nor within the potential envelopes of Meteor or advanced Chinese AAMs. I'd also put my money on the SM-6 defeating any attempt by those three looking to evade.

Subsonic dogfight , and how you do to intercept a plane flying mach 1 at 15000 m at 150 kms of distance with a subsonic speed ? Because before shooting a missile you must make a visual identification ? How you do with your speed of mach 0.9 ?

 

[Ozair]

Subsonic dogfight , and how you do to intercept a plane flying mach 1 at 15000 m at 150 kms of distance with a subsonic speed ?

Are you referring to a tail chase?

Because before shooting a missile you must make a visual identification ?

Why do you need a visual identification? In a platform such as the F-35 the parameters being collected by the sensors are more than capable of threat identification before visual range. 6th will only improve on that.

 

[dark sidius]

Are you referring to a tail chase?


Why do you need a visual identification? In a platform such as the F-35 the parameters being collected by the sensors are more than capable of threat identification before visual range. 6th will only improve on that.

You need to intercept and escort , you can't do that with subsonic CCA, the time to go on combat zone, if you take 3 hours to arrive on the zone a lot of threat will have move to another place, and how you fight if your ennemy have a big fleet of 5/6 th gen supersonic fleet like the J-20 or J-35 you realy think you will win the battle with your no stealth subsonic CCA ?

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Navy is not yet all in on CCAs. Instead they are going with putting all their capabilities in the manned aircraft. The Navy’s relationship with carrier borne UAVs is still very immature.

True, but I expect that they will come around, just because it means you can fly a riskier profile without risking the pilot(s).

 

[Josh_TN]

You need to intercept and escort , you can't do that with subsonic CCA, the time to go on combat zone, if you take 3 hours to arrive on the zone a lot of threat will have move to another place, and how you fight if your ennemy have a big fleet of 5/6 th gen supersonic fleet like the J-20 or J-35 you realy think you will win the battle with your no stealth subsonic CCA ?

Subsonic is perfectly workable for offense, when the opponent is forced to come to it. Even defensely, a favorable starting position would solve the problem. Moreover i doubt CCAs remain subsonic: USAF just wants something in the air to experiment with as soon as possible.

I also question whether 5th gen can super cruise for extended times; I would think it cuts down on range.

The CCA does not need to be really stealthy; it just needs to be able to get within BVR envelope of a target. More over CCA will probably be used in large numbers with other unmanned systems to thin out opponent AAMs. Image a group of four CCAs carrying a pair each of AAMs and MALD-N type decoys under direct control. That’s a swarm of a dozen targets, four of which can shoot back, and any kill of an opponent front line fighter pays for cost of the whole formation. A minimum that’s 1-2 dozen AAMs the enemy does not have, which is going to mission kill a fair number of fighters.

 

[jsport]

We in the unclassified world have no idea of the standoff capabilities (powered JSOW, various versions of MALD other long range munitions and the future of such systems) can do. The fear is that congressional oversight doesn't have a clue either..IMHO the whole concept of CCA is so uninspiring given (C-130s were launching these things during the Vietnam war) it needs a close look. (no confidence that will happen ie industrial welfare)

 

[TomcatViP]

Well Vietnam tells us that they did good, were valuable but cost a lot. This is IMOHO why the USAF is putting the emphasis on cost instead of gimmicks.
CCA have to be cheap. Not just cheap by cutting sustainment cost but dirt cheap and autonomous (on broad assessment of it). That´s why I am always annoyed to see P. Luckey displaying his pricy toys on prime time TV. If Anduril have to set their prices for him to pay a 100ft speed boat, expensive cars and whatever out of a 200 units contract, I know that their would be tempted having their design made in Pakistan, the airframe built in China and the software tuned from a Dyson 360...

I am joking but as real money will come from the governing system software, what the CCA is made from, relatively to another competing design, is not really of prime importance. Unless there is a breakthrough in Tech like Stealth at an equivalent cost, Supersonic Cruise, Runway independent operations etc.. (and guess what the services are running after...).
The CCA is only a wedge in the door frame, a mean to step a foot in the opening.

 

[dark sidius]

Subsonic is perfectly workable for offense, when the opponent is forced to come to it. Even defensely, a favorable starting position would solve the problem. Moreover i doubt CCAs remain subsonic: USAF just wants something in the air to experiment with as soon as possible.

I also question whether 5th gen can super cruise for extended times; I would think it cuts down on range.

The CCA does not need to be really stealthy; it just needs to be able to get within BVR envelope of a target. More over CCA will probably be used in large numbers with other unmanned systems to thin out opponent AAMs. Image a group of four CCAs carrying a pair each of AAMs and MALD-N type decoys under direct control. That’s a swarm of a dozen targets, four of which can shoot back, and any kill of an opponent front line fighter pays for cost of the whole formation. A minimum that’s 1-2 dozen AAMs the enemy does not have, which is going to mission kill a fair number of fighters.

CCA is a non sense I hope new administration kill it, invest in F-35 block 4 , NGAD fighter , B-21, Kendall fall in love of the CCA like a child in front of a new toy, " woaw a R2D2 plane " but it is realy not the solution in the time of space weapon, 5/6 th gen Chinese fighter and hypersonic vehicle and missile.

 

[_Del_]

Well Vietnam tells us that they did good, were valuable but cost a lot

They were cheap. The technology just wasn't quite mature enough to overcome the inertia. Especially the navigation. It's demoralizing to lose your unmanned spy or EW aircraft over China because the nav failed and it ran out of fuel off-course and deployed the chutes.
They also didn't try arming them until the late 70's, so it's not an apples to apple comparison of the RPV -to- CCA.

 

[TomcatViP]

They were cheap. The technology just wasn't quite mature enough to overcome the inertia. Especially the navigation. It's demoralizing to lose your unmanned spy or EW aircraft over China because the nav failed and it ran out of fuel off-course and deployed the chutes.
They also didn't try arming them until the late 70's, so it's not an apples to apple comparison of the RPV -to- CCA.

Not sure you are right here. They cost a lot because they did request a lot of manpower and supporting assets for a narrow set of missions. For example, it was often less expensive and more reliable to send a recce Voodoo than a 147 for a post strike as Tankers and CSAR were already up.

Also, Ryan arming the 147 series was early 1960´s if my mem stands right

 

[_Del_]

For example, it was often less expensive and more reliable to send a recce Voodoo than a 147 for a post strike as Tankers and CSAR were already up.

The use-case has always been for areas you did not want to send additional manned aircraft. Like the over flights of China and Laos or heavily defended areas of the North. Or as EW support for a strike package. Or ELINT as Ferrets.
Easy to spend money on in wartime, fell down the priority list with the budget cuts post-Vietnam.

Also, Ryan arming the 147 series was early 1960´s if my mem stands right

No, it was early 70's, but the US steadfastly refused to consider arming them in service, despite numerous proposals from Ryan. Eventually the Israelis were the first to arm them. In the late 70's, almost a decade after Ryan trailed the ability for TAC.

 

[NMaude]

The use-case has always been for areas you did not want to send additional manned aircraft.

Firebees were used as live bait against SA-2 and SA-3 batteries to get ELINT on their radars.

 

[TomcatViP]

No, it was early 70's, but the US steadfastly refused to consider arming them in service, despite numerous proposals from Ryan. Eventually the Israelis were the first to arm them. In the late 70's, almost a decade after Ryan trailed the ability for TAC.

That is true. I Stand corrected.

For those that need also, at least, a memory refresh, see here.

 

[_Del_]

Firebees were used as live bait against SA-2 and SA-3 batteries to get ELINT on their radars.

Right. They didn't want to use manned aircraft as a ferret up North or "downtown".

 

[Josh_TN]

CCA is a non sense I hope new administration kill it, invest in F-35 block 4 , NGAD fighter , B-21, Kendall fall in love of the CCA like a child in front of a new toy, " woaw a R2D2 plane " but it is realy not the solution in the time of space weapon, 5/6 th gen Chinese fighter and hypersonic vehicle and missile.

Fighter aircraft still spend the major of their time subsonic and CCAs are not permanently wedded to subsonic.