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

[Ainen]

Both the carrier and the fighter are built to beat up on failed states and weak countries like Iraq 1991.

Carriers are built to bring airpower to the fight. Not more, not less. Carriers can(and imho - should) be made cheaper, that's for sure, because last true carrier experience was of them being the single most expendable large asset, not some unsinkable fortress. That's fine.
Because if you want to fight a naval war without air - well. Good luck.

What about NGAD? How far back does a piloted plane stay from air defenses? We are going to see drones, etc. replace piloted planes simply because the piloted plane is not cost effective.

Drones aren't cheap, though. Also, drones are still aircraft, they have to take off and land somewhere.
Kind reminder that 2.5 reapers w/o armament is 1 f-35. And reaper is a a glorified pest fighter with long wings.
Autonomy doesn't come for free.

How far back do they keep the carriers against China?

It depends, carriers can move. Fast.
But carriers can be effective from longer distance than any other surface asset, and they're harder to pin down than any land asset.
Current carriers are short ranged(shortest reach since early 1950s, but that's not a norm, and that's something to be changed.

 

[Josh_TN]

I would argue that a CSG has a strike range of ~1000 miles quite easily against opponent vessels with minimal refueling using stand off weapons. That would put it outside the range of most PRC assets with notable exceptions of DF-26, H-6, and perhaps YJ-21. It also puts it outside unrefueled opponent fighter cover and a week+ cruise for SSKs. The primary ISR threat at this range is probably orbital.

That said, a CVN is a huge number of eggs in one basket.

 

[Josh_TN]

As for USN CCAs, it looks like the thinking is that eventually they will be the majority of the air wing and have lifespans measured in the hundreds of hours/dozens of traps.

 

[Ainen]

I would argue that a CSG has a strike range of ~1000 miles quite easily against opponent vessels with minimal refueling using stand off weapons. That would put it outside the range of most PRC assets with notable exceptions of DF-26, H-6, and perhaps YJ-21. It also puts it outside unrefueled opponent fighter cover and a week+ cruise for SSKs. The primary ISR threat at this range is probably orbital.

That said, a CVN is a huge number of eggs in one basket.

All carrier strategic bombers exceeded that by a big margin. A-6 did too.

Because range is both security and reach into "World island", and that matters against Asiatic land powers.

That's before taking into account rising importance of desperate bloody khornefest called carrier duels. Where reach and range, is among the most decisive.

Conclusion (surprise), in big power competition, strike range is paramount.

Enemy vulnerability matters too - as 1980s shown, extreme range strike capability, apart from primary purpose, was seen as a fine way to bait response (backfires) beyond escort range, right into hands of several barriers of tomcats, hornets and potentially whatever can take off with amraam.

And, vise versa, flankers with their stupid a2a range were breaking the game. They still are, courtesy of superbug decks.
Plus, during our time, any additional shots against hypersonics(which just won't give surface ships second engagement chances) are of vital importance - as early and as far from csg(or 3rd protected asset!) as possible.

Finally, while b-21 is close expectation, so is H-20. Searching the old way may be necessary.

Tldr: carrier(and naval in general) fighter range is just as decisive. Two main naval fighter aircraft roles(timely intercept and escort, aca local air superiority)hinge on range.

=
I am like 80% sure naval NGAD will go all in to getsomething like ~1500 nmi refueled strike range(and potentially 900-1000 unrefuelled/extended cap). +JASSM-XR and SM-6 on top.

 

[Airbus A340]

The key Ainen identified is expendable asset. The most capable expendable asset is what is most useful. Cruisers at Guadalcanal were more capable than DDs but still riskable. A CVN is not riskable, neither is a 300 million dollar aircraft.

 

[Ainen]

The key Ainen identified is expendable asset. The most capable expendable asset is what is most useful. Cruisers at Guadalcanal were more capable than DDs but still riskable. A CVN is not riskable, neither is a 300 million dollar aircraft.

True, but expendables have nasty side to them: you usually can't stock them.

They grow outdated faster than anything, because it's small products with superiority carved through margins, and not floating cities that can be just made bigger for the same effect.

Expendable assets are top-grade, mass-produced industrial goods with low life at the top of food chain, and quite often, low expected lifecycle in general(allowing even more performance).
As a result, they're products which you develop during peacetime, but produce only when you're expecting a war. They are not a way to build up your advantage.

The way for established power to accumulate power is investing into capital assets, i.e. those that can't be easily obtained during war (reminder that even US failed to build a single battleship began after their entry into war).
The very fact they're irreplaceable is their biggest plus - they establish relative position of forces in the first place, before the conflict.
And it's a weight of industrial, defense and institutional investment over many decades, one that emerging power may find very hard to match.

P.s. 300 mil fighters are certainly riskable. Just riskable in the same way as frigates, not as smaller aircraft.
And it's probably the single big reason why USAF has to change trail.

 

[Josh_TN]

All carrier strategic bombers exceeded that by a big margin. A-6 did too.

Because range is both security and reach into "World island", and that matters against Asiatic land powers.

That's before taking into account rising importance of desperate bloody khornefest called carrier duels. Where reach and range, is among the most decisive.

Conclusion (surprise), in big power competition, strike range is paramount.

Enemy vulnerability matters too - as 1980s shown, extreme range strike capability, apart from primary purpose, was seen as a fine way to bait response (backfires) beyond escort range, right into hands of several barriers of tomcats, hornets and potentially whatever can take off with amraam.

And, vise versa, flankers with their stupid a2a range were breaking the game. They still are, courtesy of superbug decks.
Plus, during our time, any additional shots against hypersonics(which just won't give surface ships second engagement chances) are of vital importance - as early and as far from csg(or 3rd protected asset!) as possible.

Finally, while b-21 is close expectation, so is H-20. Searching the old way may be necessary.

Tldr: carrier(and naval in general) fighter range is just as decisive. Two main naval fighter aircraft roles(timely intercept and escort, aca local air superiority)hinge on range.

=
I am like 80% sure naval NGAD will go all in to getsomething like ~1500 nmi refueled strike range(and potentially 900-1000 unrefuelled/extended cap). +JASSM-XR and SM-6 on top.

The shorter range of modern carrier aviation when compared to previous embarked bombers is lamentable, but the A-3 and A-6 were never heavily represented in the air wing. F-4/F-14 definitely had some endurance advantages as well, but again in comparatively smaller numbers compared to even a modern CVWs fighter wing (though it does remove any strike capacity to use the air wing that way).

I still think a thousand mile anti shipping strike range is rather relevant, and a CSG can achieve a high density subsonic strike rather easily with MALD-N, AGM-158C1/2/3, and Tomahawks.

 

[Ainen]

I still think a thousand mile anti shipping strike range is rather relevant, and a CSG can easily achieve a high density strike subsonic strike rather easily with MALD-N, AGM-158C1/2/3, and Tomahawks.

While feasible, it requires significant information and air superiority. Subsonic missiles will take over two hours to get to 1000 miles: they need ota targeting updates, or they can simply miss entirely. They also need escort/air sweep just like any other aircraft.

IMHO, it's better for 1st tier navies to either fight safely with intermediate platform (I. e. deckloads and submarine action), or just go decisive and close in for SM-6(HQ-9) action.
It ensures maximum dual-purpose magazine depth for all situations, i.e. best defensive (I e sea superiority/sea control) capability.

For 2nd tier navies - hypersonic salvo warfare with minimal dead time (and this lower information and coordination requirement) are the way.

 

[Forest Green]

Exocet that could only penetrate 70mm of armor when carriers have more. How far back do they keep the carriers against China?

A 165kg warhead only penetrates 70mm of armour?

 

[Airbus A340]

A 165kg warhead only penetrates 70mm of armour?

I've always seen 70mm for the SAP warhead in the Exocet. Remember that it was designed to kill WarPac ships, and only the Sevrdlovs had armor. That armor was only on the belt and deck. So I think it makes sense to have 70mm penetration. My point is not the minutiae. My point was that a puny capability pushed the carriers far from where the battle was.

 

[Josh_TN]

While feasible, it requires significant information and air superiority. Subsonic missiles will take over two hours to get to 1000 miles: they need ota targeting updates, or they can simply miss entirely. They also need escort/air sweep just like any other aircraft.

IMHO, it's better for 1st tier navies to either fight safely with intermediate platform (I. e. deckloads and submarine action), or just go decisive and close in for SM-6(HQ-9) action.
It ensures maximum dual-purpose magazine depth for all situations, i.e. best defensive (I e sea superiority/sea control) capability.

For 2nd tier navies - hypersonic salvo warfare with minimal dead time (and this lower information and coordination requirement) are the way.

I do not think targeting is super difficult for top tier competitors. If it is, then that cuts both ways.*

An air strike using decoys and/or weapons with several hundred mile ranges do not require air superiority, only sufficient density. If a F-18 can carry ten mk83, it can definitely carry ten MALD-N, which are either target aircraft decoys or just cruise missiles without a terminal homing system or warhead, even if they do not radiate. A CSG could reasonably stage several 100+ strikes using a third of its air wing and a fraction of its tomahawks. Or alternatively a single much larger strike if warranted. A CAP and tanker force could still be maintained.

*ETA: the PLAN gets the short end of the targeting problem if it has to maintain a blockade, defend a landing, or operate near opposing first island powers. It is far more exposed to observation with any of those conditions.

 

[Ainen]

I do not think targeting is super difficult for top tier competitors. If it is, then that cuts both ways.*

Against 2nd tier powers (at sea). Not against each other, and not deeper into "world island".

It's primary thing that will be fiercely contested, and frankly speaking China is approaching it way more diligently.

An air strike using decoys and/or weapons with several hundred mile ranges do not require air superiority, only sufficient density. If a F-18 can carry ten mk83, it can definitely carry ten MALD-N, which are either target aircraft decoys or just cruise missiles without a terminal homing system or warhead, even if they do not radiate.

Well, that's exactly air escort.
MALDs can't materialize out of thin air.
Same aircraft will probably protect them and survivable targeting assets from redfor intercept, and so on.

*ETA: the PLAN gets the short end of the targeting problem if it has to maintain a blockade, defend a landing, or operate near opposing first island powers. It is far more exposed to observation with any of those conditions.

In a conflict spanning over half of Indo-Pacific(and likely many years, if not more) both sides will get these problems.

But overall it seems to me that China takes it more seriously and started first, because they had to(as they're developing from near peer to peer, they solved both sets of problems before).

Bluefor, until Berger at least, were just assuming that it's a granted birthright.

 

[Josh_TN]

I've always seen 70mm for the SAP warhead in the Exocet. Remember that it was designed to kill WarPac ships, and only the Sevrdlovs had armor. That armor was only on the belt and deck. So I think it makes sense to have 70mm penetration. My point is not the minutiae. My point was that a puny capability pushed the carriers far from where the battle was.

I imagine anything moving at 500 knots/1000 km per hour is good for anything but a battleship main belt armor. My understanding is that U.S. CVs do not have armor belts per se, just a lot of various fuel/ballast/anti torpedo voids in the lower hull and a thick flight deck.

 

[Airbus A340]

I imagine anything moving at 500 knots/1000 km per hour is good for anything but a battleship main belt armor. My understanding is that U.S. CVs do not have armor belts per se, just a lot of various fuel/ballast/anti torpedo voids in the lower hull and a thick flight deck.

I have not read Friedman's CV book but AIUI the carriers have internal armor protection so they can take hits and keep fighting. An Exocet would only be a problem is if somehow got into a hangar with field and armed planes.

 

[Josh_TN]

Against 2nd tier powers (at sea). Not against each other, and not deeper into "world island".

It's primary thing that will be fiercely contested, and frankly speaking China is approaching it way more diligently.

Well, that's exactly air escort.
MALDs can't materialize out of thin air.
Same aircraft will probably protect them and survivable targeting assets from redfor intercept, and so on.

In a conflict spanning over half of Indo-Pacific(and likely many years, if not more) both sides will get these problems.

But overall it seems to me that China takes it more seriously and started first, because they had to(as they're developing from near peer to peer, they solved both sets of problems before).

Bluefor, until Berger at least, were just assuming that it's a granted birthright.

A war might take years to resolve politically, but most any public wargames have the surface actions decisively decided in weeks, with both sides taking heavy casualties.

The large expensive CVN model of business seems like a poor fit for peer operations, but it is what the U.S. has to fight with and I expect they will be used and risked. They may however predominantly be used more as defensive bubbles with ISR capability rather than strike assets. Their magazine depth for mass strikes is likely only a week or so deep anyway, assuming they survive that long.

China’s naval offensive power seems high centered on its ballistic missile capability. Were that to be depleted, it seems like things get dramatically more difficult for them projection wise as well. their surface force has a lot of launch tubes, but like the USN they have to balance offense with defense. In fact given the relative lack of numbers and capabilities of embarked aircraft for their CVs in the near to medium term and the smaller operating area/observable footprint for any conceivable conflict, I would argue PLAN ships will need to be at least as focused on defensive firepower as the USN.

I think we are entering one of those windows of technological change where surface ships in general are at a disadvantage. This might eventually be counter balanced by defensive technologies or alternatively ship types and classes will change to assume new roles, as with other major naval inflection points. But it does affect both sides. The CSIS wargame noted higher casualties for the PLAN if defensive missiles were assumed to be less effective than baseline assumptions. While this is within the very narrow confines of their invasion scenario, but I think it is still instructive: the PLAN transitioning from asymmetric competitor to peer competitor opens it to the same asymmetric vulnerabilities. Its ships are just as vulnerable to various types of attacks as the USN. Ditto any dependencies on large low density support aircraft or orbital assets: the PRC is arguably as much or more dependent on these in any offensive operation as the U.S.

 

[In_A_Dream]

Good point on the CVNs.

Is the USAF's NGAD+ expected to provide air cover for the USN in the Pacific if carriers & their airwings can be held at risk? If so, I'd imagine that would drive even more emphasis on the range requirement for the USAF.

 

[_Del_]

They need piloted aircraft to be close enough to have commo line of sight to the drones.

Not really. That's the entire point of something like JRE (not Joe Rogan). JREAP C, in particular let's you use internet protocol networks so that data from Link 16 is packeted and sent out via a network to another JREAP C terminal (or many).
Since Link-16 and it's successors are mesh networks, anyone in the Link-16 network line of site of the recieving JREAP C equiped station or aircraft (J STAR approved, tankers?, bombers?) or ship is going to get that data, and everyone is getting their data to anyone connected to the drone. That's why they made it a mesh network, and that's why they are leasing commercial networks (Starshield, for just one example) until they get their own to-purpose satellites.

The drones send the picture to the human and the human makes the decisions.

ABMS is going to be making the decisions. That's where all the talk about kill-chains is headed. We already shot down a Skeeter using an Army Paladin linked to the ABMS. Years in the making. It's all coming together. Pilots might not even need to push buttons to launch.
As someone who was initially extremely skeptical of distributed networks, it is all maturing incredibly rapidly. It's exciting, and it probably feels seismic to a lot of decision -makers and lookers on, but we're rapidly seeing maturation in the ABMS front. They have spent a lot of money on it, and it's impressive

 

[_Del_]

Good point on the CVNs.

Is the USAF's NGAD+ expected to provide air cover for the USN in the Pacific if carriers & their airwings can be held at risk? If so, I'd imagine that would drive even more emphasis on the range requirement for the USAF.

What if they are already buying a platform with range and endurance that can lug a very long range T3 missile? Do they need NGAD or NGAD+ to have that capability? That's the question they are facing, and it's an honest debate among professionals. I have my opinion, but it's not as informed as others, and I'm not sure there is a "right" opinion in the wild right now.

Just like the inter-war CV-BB debate didn't have a clear answer until technology levels matured. It was a mostly honest debate about capability now. As it proved out, naval aviation improved capability in leaps and bounds. But even Taranto raid was looked at as a niche sneak attack on targets in harbor. Bringing weight to battleships and cruisers maneuvering at sea at distance still hadn't been demonstrated. Took a little while for technology and experience to catch up to the pie in the skies naval aviator dreams.


What do we need NOW and the next ten-fifteen years? Not what can we deliver in fifteen years time. The catch is if you commit to an extremely expensive and capable NGAD right now, you might be caught holding the bag in fifteen years when the technology delivers even further. The expensive NGAD that is redundant and worse tying up assets you could have used to field the new technologies.

That's where the talk about "re-imagining" and punting on NGAD commitment is coming from, and where the small, fast, programs delivering cheap aircraft with short life cycles generates from. They aren't being completely feckless. We're on the dawn of truly revolutionary technology, and noone wants their balls in the vice because we emptied the treasury for a very fancy and redundant aircraft that missed the revolution.

 

[Josh_TN]

Good point on the CVNs.

Is the USAF's NGAD+ expected to provide air cover for the USN in the Pacific if carriers & their airwings can be held at risk? If so, I'd imagine that would drive even more emphasis on the range requirement for the USAF.

I cannot imagine the USAF is concerned with baby sitting USN assets. I assume its goals are more price to making windows of opportunity for strategic bomber strikes, both stand off and stand in. But that has its own range requirements. See previous posts for lots of speculation on basing and range, all of which is probably moot until someone the new admin takes ownership (and ideally responsibility).

 

[Josh_TN]

What do we need NOW and the next ten-fifteen years? Not what can we deliver in fifteen years time. The catch is if you commit to an extremely expensive and capable NGAD right now, you might be caught holding the bag in fifteen years when the technology delivers even further. The expensive NGAD that is redundant and worse tying up assets you could have used to field the new technologies.

That's where the talk about "re-imagining" and punting on NGAD commitment is coming from, and where the small, fast, programs delivering cheap aircraft with short life cycles generates from. They aren't being completely feckless. We're on the dawn of truly revolutionary technology, and noone wants their balls in the vice because we emptied the treasury for a very fancy and redundant aircraft that missed the revolution.

This is the problem I think. Development time of a capable manned platform takes a lot longer than a UAV, because you cannot just send pilots out to die in substandard planes for moral and cost reasons (and costs in this context should be read as time at least as much as money).

There is a huge fear inside the USAF that manned NGAD will simply be cancelled if it’s too ambitious, regardless of how correct that is: the entire B-21 programs was explicitly arranged for low production rates to make it “budget proof”: cancellation does not save enough on any given year to generate savings to make it vulnerable. CCA seems like it is a similar effort on a vastly larger scale and lower tech base: it’s has almost no development costs at this point (most of these are tied to developing government proprietary AI) and the physical product is small cheap aircraft the shelf. The big ticket item will be government owned and not an unending cost.

Manned NGAD is going to have a hard time staying afloat if the new admin does not specifically champion it, and I think that is quite intentional.

 

[_Del_]

There is a huge fear inside the USAF that manned NGAD will simply be cancelled if it’s too ambitious

Part of it. There is also the opportunity costs.

The fleet is in need of recap, and has been for some time. We burned hours off tactical and strategic airframes fighting guys in the desert with AK's for 2+ decades. Not real bright. That (and corporate welfare/industrial concerns) brought us the EagleEX, not really operational needs.

If you commit several trillion to another "successful", "too big to fail" program like JSF, and it takes another 30 years to develop, but in fifteen years it's obsolete, that is worse than nothing, because you burnt all that time and money and don't have money for new programs to recap with.

If you can get four CCA and a pair of F-35's and a B-21 in the next six years for the price of three or four hypersonic, intercontinental NGAD delivered in 20 years time, what's the right play when you need airframes now to start replacing the ones we rode hard and put up wet?

 

[joshjosh]

The problem is that if the DOD abandons the cutting edge in favor of systems they can produce quickly and cheaply, they will be ceding ground to the Chinese in one of the main advantages we have (the cutting edge). We aren't going to outproduce the CCP, so we need to stay ahead on the tech curve.

 

[dark sidius]

Part of it. There is also the opportunity costs.

The fleet is in need of recap, and has been for some time. We burned hours off tactical and strategic airframes fighting guys in the desert with AK's for 2+ decades. Not real bright. That (and corporate welfare/industrial concerns) brought us the EagleEX, not really operational needs.

If you commit several trillion to another "successful", "too big to fail" program like JSF, and it takes another 30 years to develop, but in fifteen years it's obsolete, that is worse than nothing, because you burnt all that time and money and don't have money for new programs to recap with.

If you can get four CCA and a pair of F-35's and a B-21 in the next six years for the price of three or four hypersonic, intercontinental NGAD delivered in 20 years time, what's the right play when you need airframes now to start replacing the ones we rode hard and put up wet?

CCA of today is a bullshit, F-35 unable to become block 4 , and a Bomber for air dominance? CCA increment 1 is a joke , you want to fight supersonic enemy fleet with a mach 0.8 mini fighter ? it is impossible to win a war with a discount AIR FORCE , cheap thinking cheap and soon we will see the return of piston engine fighter ? PLAAF will realy laughing soon , the only way is to be at the cutting edge , it cost a lot but there is no another way with comptetitor like China. How do you win in air dominance if China built a 6th gen fighter ? I remember very well Gates saying no problem J-20 is a paper plane don't worry bla-bla and couple years after we see J-20 appear in real. It is time for USAF to wake up and battle for the crucial program, NGAD fighter is a vital program, you don't chase fighter with a bomber it is a joke, we don't see the WW2 B-17 chasing the BF-109 and dog fight with it. After you say me long range missile can do the job bla-bla, but at each air combat there is a need for speed and B-21 don't have it and CCA is worst because it is no fast and stealthy, CCA will be a good food for the High tech AA defense of today.

 

[kqcke for you]

CCA of today is a bullshit, F-35 unable to become block 4 ,

Isn't f-35 on the way for Block 4 and the problems in TR3 solved?

and a Bomber for air dominance? CCA increment 1 is a joke , you want to fight supersonic enemy fleet with a mach 0.8 mini fighter ?

CCA increment 1 is pretty mutch just a carrier for systems which don't have place in the fighter or of which more are needed (next to the whole making the CCA concept work stuf) and for that role its enough. You don't need anything more to use sensors, jammers or shoot AMRAAMs at something.

but at each air combat there is a need for speed and B-21 don't have it and CCA is worst because it is no fast and stealthy, CCA will be a good food for the High tech AA defense of today.

I don't really see the problem in this case for CCA given that they are already more expensive then one hopes to be. Also CCA Inc. 1 isnt the only CCA coming while combat in areas with AA is quite unlikely without an solution for it (SEAD/DEAD). Even stealth jets would have a hard time fighting under sutch conditions.

 

[quellish]

I don't really see the problem in this case for CCA given that they are already more expensive then one hopes to be.

A $30m CCA is cheaper than a $30m manned fighter.

You don’t take the CCA out of the box until you need it.

 

[kqcke for you]

A $30m CCA is cheaper than a $30m manned fighter.

You don’t take the CCA out of the box until you need it.

Allways but its not where one hopes it to be expendable which would allow more freedom (given the same capabilitys of the airframe). Also now put stealth and speed into it which shoots the price even higher which he ask for. Yes the manned component would be even more expensive but its just not worth the extra cost (in this case speed and stealth should be somewhat like F-35/22 capabilitys from my understanding).

 

[_Del_]

it is impossible to win a war with a discount AIR FORCE

Also impossible to win with wunderwaffe that we can only procure in extremely limited numbers. Further, if we have a peer-opponent war between now and the next 20 years it would take to develop and produce your hypersonic, intercontinental NGAD instead of investing in mature technology, we're simply boned.

They finally got a JSF that works and one can purchase in numbers at an affordable price. It was the last wunderwaffe. It cost a ton of money, took thirty years to mature, and it hasn't reached the promises. It's going to be around a long time, even if it's not everything it promised, because it is now affordable, and the US (to say nothing of other countries) don't have the time and money to develop a bleeding edge hypersonic, VLO, long range program right now.

You're probably going to be very disappointed in our future.

Interest Costs Surpass National Defense and Medicare Spending | The U.S. House Committee on the Budget - House Budget Committee

The Official U.S. Congressional website of The Republican Budget Committee

budget.house.gov

And deficit spending continues to increase, so that debt service will continue to rise in relation to the rest of the yearly budget.

 

[quellish]

They finally got a JSF that works and one can purchase in numbers at an affordable price.

The “some number” of F-35s that will be paired with CCAs are F-35s that have not been produced yet. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

 

[_Del_]

CCA increment 1 is pretty mutch just a carrier for systems which don't have place in the fighter or of which more are needed (next to the whole making the CCA concept work stuf) and for that role its enough. You don't need anything more to use sensors, jammers or shoot AMRAAMs at something.

How much time do most fighters spend at supersonic speed? Not much right now because it burns too much gas and cuts range/endurance. Trying to introduce a VLO Mach 3+ cruiser with intercontinental range is simply not in the cards. Difficult, but not impossible to do. Impossible to keep as an affordable program, and it would take too much time. No appetite for that at the top, I think.

The first CCA effort is not and shouldn't be an air superiority fighter. It's exactly what you describe. A rangey sensor and/or emitter with weapons that lets other assets do their job from a position of relative safety. Think PAACK-P.

https://ir.kratosdefense.com/news-releases/news-release-details/kratos-xq-58a-demonstrates-collaborative-ew-and-kill-chain

Flying alongside four USMC F-35B aircraft from the Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 214 (VMFA-214) and two USAF F-15E/EX aircraft from the 40th Flight Test Squadron, the USMC XQ-58A operated under vehicle-level autonomy to perform maneuvers in a simulated threat environment. The Valkyrie’s on-board sensors identified and geolocated relevant threats, and simultaneously passed targeting data to collaborating air and ground platforms over tactical networks.

More like the ULUUV-effort. It isn't designed to be the fastest most capable platform. It's an enabler. It's also the first toe-dip into the water. One we can afford and can integrate quickly.

 

[_Del_]

The “some number” of F-35s that will be paired with CCAs are F-35s that have not been produced yet. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

The Marines are flying Valkyrie with F-35's right now. We can also connect those dots as we choose.

 

[quellish]

The Marines are flying Valkyrie with F-35's right now. We can also connect those dots as we choose.

The F-35 and XQ-58 are operating independently. The F-35 isn’t linked directly with the unmanned aircraft.

 

[_Del_]

The F-35 and XQ-58 are operating independently. The F-35 isn’t linked directly with the unmanned aircraft.

Incorrect.

During the exercise, the XQ-58A was also flown by a USMC aviator, and control was passed between air and ground control methods which can command multiple Valkyries simultaneously. This demonstration of the XQ-58A’s ability to support crewed-uncrewed teaming and Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations

 

[Ainen]

How much time do most fighters spend at supersonic speed? Not much right now because it burns too much gas and cuts range/endurance. Trying to introduce a VLO Mach 3+ cruiser with intercontinental range is simply not in the cards. Difficult, but not impossible to do. Impossible to keep as an affordable program, and it would take too much time. No appetite for that at the top, I think.

If a bar is unreasonably high, cost will indeed bite. Requesting a tailormade deathstar will indeed cost some premium.

By itself, LO supercruiser is not a very big deal. F-35 isn't one simply because of other contradictory requirements. It made it unachievable.

Just a few threads away, a rather cheap Su-75 does so(well, at least on paper, but this isn't some aerodynamic black magic) through simple lack of length restrictions and payload requirements.
While not said specifically, J-35 is widely understood to be aimed at supercruise, too.

 

[Scott Kenny]

How much time do most fighters spend at supersonic speed? Not much right now because it burns too much gas and cuts range/endurance. Trying to introduce a VLO Mach 3+ cruiser with intercontinental range is simply not in the cards. Difficult, but not impossible to do. Impossible to keep as an affordable program, and it would take too much time. No appetite for that at the top, I think.

But designing and building a plane that is VLO and has best (intercontinental) range at Mach 2 (+-0.2) would be much more affordable. And for grins let's give it a max speed of about Mach 2.5.

Minimal Titanium needed, for example. And we have at least 3 examples of aircraft with a supersonic range equal or greater than their subsonic range: SR-71, XB-70, and 2707. (Those are just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's a few more lurking around)

 

[_Del_]

But designing and building a plane that is VLO and has best (intercontinental) range at Mach 2 (+-0.2) would be much more affordable. And for grins let's give it a max speed of about Mach 2.5.

Minimal Titanium needed, for example. And we have at least 3 examples of aircraft with a supersonic range equal or greater than their subsonic range: SR-71, XB-70, and 2707. (Those are just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's a few more lurking around)

How much did/would designing and operating an SR-72, XB-70, or B2707 cost compared to less ambitious but still capable designs?

 

[Scott Kenny]

How much did/would designing and operating an SR-72, XB-70, or B2707 cost compared to less ambitious but still capable designs?

You're missing the point. The only reason I mentioned those airframes was because they have a supersonic range equal or greater than their subsonic range. We know that such a thing is possible because of those aircraft.

I am talking about building a plane that has a supersonic range greater than its subsonic range, but it only cruises at Mach 2 (give or take), so it's a significantly less ambitious design than the Blackbirds were.

So you don't have to build the entire thing out of Titanium or Stainless Steel or whatever scary exotic materials you need to survive Mach 3 ish temps. You can get away with mostly aluminum construction. Or mostly composite construction, and make pieces the size of an entire fuselage half as a single part.

Also, we wouldn't have to develop the whole "how TF to work with titanium" because the Blackbirds already did that for us. We already have certified cadmium-free tools (and processes for making more of them!) for working on titanium and know why we need to pay for those certified cadmium-free tools. I'd hate to even see the budget breakdown in terms of how much money was spent learning how to work with titanium and what not to use on titanium as part of the Blackbird project...

 

[quellish]

Incorrect.

You have misinterpreted that information.

 

[quellish]

By itself, LO supercruiser is not a very big deal. F-35 isn't one simply because of other contradictory requirements. It made it unachievable.

Actually, it is. Coatings and structures of VLO aircraft very quickly reach their curie point with sustained operations at supersonic speeds. Coatings and structures that can retain their electromagnetic and physical properties at high temperatures is not an easy problem to solve.

 

[Ainen]

Actually, it is. Coatings and structures of VLO aircraft very quickly reach their curie point with sustained operations at supersonic speeds. Coatings and structures that can retain their electromagnetic and physical properties at high temperatures is not an easy problem to solve.

But F-22 was a thing, in two generation of coatings (including mirrors).
If you solve it, you solve it.

All 4(6, counting different f-35s separately) 5th generation fighters went through supersonic trials ultimately. We know that f-35c encountered problems, but the only way to do it would be to stay for extended time at supersonic speeds.

 

[_Del_]

You have misinterpreted that information.

The mission capability demonstrated during the latest exercise – enabling Marine Corps pilots to lead a strike package of multiple Valkyries seamlessly transferring C2 between crewed aircraft and expeditionary ground control stations, to autonomously accomplish the mission while reducing risk exposure – will be a force multiplier.

?