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

[Josh_TN]

I'd be really surprised if we don't get a CUDA/Peregine "halfRAAM", a BVRAAM that you can stick 2 per AMRAAM slot in a bay.

I would be really surprised if we do. If it has not happened yet then I’m confident there is no need/desire, and more to the point insufficient inventory to matter.

 

[Josh_TN]

Remember that the HalfRAAMs supposedly have the same range as an AMRAAM but take up half the length.

So if your HalfRAAM carrier is sufficiently stealthy, you absolutely can shoot HalfRAAMs at a target that can shoot back.

There is no way you get AIM-120 range at half the volume, even if you sacrifice the warhead. Regardless, if a half ram existed in sufficient numbers to matter we would know by now. AIM-120 is standard with thousands in inventory, and AIM-260 is next thing that also might equip some CCAs.

 

[bring_it_on]

CUDA/Peregrine style weapons will exist and the AF is probably investing in them for the 2030 and beyond timeframe. The prospect of doubling your stealth fighter magazine is too good to pass on. Of course, you would need considerable advances in miniaturization of guidance and components and advances in rocket motors to achieve that. But those same things can also be rolled into your standard length missile and greatly enhance their performance which is why I think we will see these investments flow through. But like air-defense, increasing magazine would come at the cost of all out range so you need a platform that can get close enough i.e. survive long enough to use that magazine against an aerial target capable of shooting back. Will CCA's have that level of stealth, EW or other forms of survivability relative to adversary fighters and CCA's? I have my doubts. There are obviously other missions (Cruise Missile defense, shooting down drones etc) where a 2x magazine increase would also be very useful.

 

[_Del_]

There is no way you get AIM-120 range at half the volume, even if you sacrifice the warhead. Regardless, if a half ram existed in sufficient numbers to matter we would know by now. AIM-120 is standard with thousands in inventory, and AIM-260 is next thing that also might equip some CCAs.

You can with more energetic propellant. SACM isn't supposed to be ready for production for a while yet. Whether they end up with CUDA or Peregrine or something else, it's in the works.

 

[Kaanere]

On the part in bold, what's so unique about 'halfRAAM' that allows it to match AIM-120 range in half the form factor and that prevents the AF to use a similar technology to get a AMRAAM sized profile that has double the range of HalfRAAM?

Wouldn't the AIM-260 be that? Not exacly twice the range as an AIM-120C, but relatively close.

 

[bring_it_on]

Wouldn't the AIM-260 be that? Not exacly twice the range as an AIM-120C, but relatively close.

I have no idea nor any info to base its relative kinetmatic advantage over the AIM-120 A - D

 

[_Del_]

Wouldn't the AIM-260 be that? Not exacly twice the range as an AIM-120C, but relatively close.

Even -120D is supposed to be a significant improvement on the C. Raytheon is working on Peregrine. If they think it's within reach, there's no real reason to doubt it. Whether they can ultimately do it cheaper than the AMRAAM as is the goal remains to be seen, of course.

 

[bring_it_on]

Even -120D is supposed to be a significant improvement on the C. Raytheon is working on Peregrine. If they think it's within reach, there's no real reason to doubt it. Whether they can ultimately do it cheaper than the AMRAAM as is the goal remains to be seen, of course.

You would need to be at about half the cost of the AMRAAM to maintain inventories to fill weapon bays. Perhaps some real competition can lower cost if the service choses not to embark on a three to five decade long monopoly production run like they did with AMRAAM/

 

[_Del_]

You would need to be at about half the cost of the AMRAAM to maintain inventories to fill weapon bays.

Not sure that one follows the other.

Perhaps some real competition can lower cost if the service choses not to embark on a three to five decade long monopoly production run like they did with AMRAAM/

Hopefully they mean what they have said about getting out of the "winner takes all" game of acquisition. You might have two or three companies producing their own versions of SACM, so that you have the ability to quickly ramp up production when necessary.

 

[BDF]

I have no idea nor any info to base its relative kinetmatic advantage over the AIM-120 A - D

Yeah that was my thought. The original statement was kind of nebulous; perhaps it equals the range of -Bs or early Cs.

 

[Hydroman]

Since it is now 2025, it will be interesting to see how NGAD and F/A-XX progress or what the services discuss after the two new Chinese platforms have flown. Happy New Year to All!

 

[bring_it_on]

Not sure that one follows the other.

It may or may not. But if it costs as much as the 'big missile' you will either have to increase funding or fly with partially filled bays / magazines. Sort of like " It doubles my magazine but I can only really buy half the amount needed".

 

[bring_it_on]

Hopefully they mean what they have said about getting out of the "winner takes all" game of acquisition.

Looks like they did not follow that on JATM it being a competitively acquired winner takes all effort. Same on ARRW, SiAW, HACM and other weapons moving through the development pipeline.

 

[Ainen]

The USAF expects to confront a numerically superior force if it has to engage the PLAAF in its own backyard.

Eventually.
But for now, US air arms are far more numerous. It's hard to justify underdog position when you aren't, and aren't used to be.
You can sort of see from all the promised hellscapes in Taiwan strait; it's arguably the first promise that becomes questionable the moment one realises he tries to outspan world drone factory, at its doorstep, in high priority area.
It is obviously foolish, yet that's the intention.

CUDA/Peregrine style weapons will exist and the AF is probably investing in them for the 2030 and beyond timeframe. The prospect of doubling your stealth fighter magazine is too good to pass on. Of course, you would need considerable advances in miniaturization of guidance and components and advances in rocket motors to achieve that. But those same things can also be rolled into your standard length missile and greatly enhance their performance which is why I think we will see these investments flow through. But like air-defense, increasing magazine would come at the cost of all out range so you need a platform that can get close enough i.e. survive long enough to use that magazine against an aerial target capable of shooting back. Will CCA's have that level of stealth, EW or other forms of survivability relative to adversary fighters and CCA's? I have my doubts. There are obviously other missions (Cruise Missile defense, shooting down drones etc) where a 2x magazine increase would also be very useful.

This is our forum wisdom, it may or may not match service internal equation.
It was kinda obvious that super hornet without aim-54 replacement isn't acceptable as interceptor, but it only got one two decades later, when China delivered a very apparent threat.

When USAF wanted a purpose-built IWB weapon design - it had one (the first USAF a2a missile, GAR-1/2 Falcon was built exactly for that - to the point that IWB optimization was a big reason for its demise). IWBs returned for almost 2 decades by now; it's clear it just isn't high on priority list, as long as aim-120/260 fit.

 

[_Del_]

Looks like they did not follow that on JATM it being a competitively acquired winner takes all effort. Same on ARRW, SiAW, HACM and other weapons moving through the development pipeline.

Probably because they are also funding things like LREW, and have sniffed around AIM-174.
JATM isn't going to be bought in huge numbers if it survives, imo. The -160D is now approaching the original range requirements for JATM and it's substantially cheaper and in mass-production.

Boeing, Lockheed, NG, Raytheon all have contracts for LR and/or compact AAMs right now. Undoubtedly there are others.

I can only tell you what they've said they would like to do in the future. I can't tell the future.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

US haven't participated in a single air conflict where it didn't have numerical superiority in the air, ever.
Probably this isn't much of a concern.

The US has been expecting to fight at a numerical disadvantage since the days of the Cold War. The status quo has been that the current force structure was deemed fine to deal with expected threats. This was found not to be the case some years ago and programs were started to fix that issue. The issue is that these programs take time. The question is now whether there is time, but I would argue that there is, any conflict started by China would be a fool's errand. However, the same was said about Ukraine.....

 

[bring_it_on]

JATM isn't going to be bought in huge numbers if it survives, imo.

Your opinion is based on what facts or statements?

 

[_Del_]

Your opinion is based on what facts or statements?

Based on the statements of John Norman, Gen Brown, Sec Kendall and others who describe JATM as an expensive "high" solution, to the high-low mix?

 

[bring_it_on]

Based on the statements of John Norman, Gen Brown, Sec Kendall and others who describe JATM as an expensive "high" solution, to the high-low mix?

You mentioned "if it survives" which one would assume means someone said "it may not survive". Who did that?

 

[_Del_]

You mentioned "if it survives" which one would assume means someone said "it may not survive". Who did that?

Me. They have not said anything to that effect, just like they didn't whisper about ARRW before killing it.

 

[NMaude]

just like they didn't whisper about ARRW before killing it.

Isn't the ARRW back in contention?

 

[bring_it_on]

Me. They have not said anything to that effect, just like they didn't whisper about ARRW before killing it.

Its difficult to discuss when you are admitting to making things up. ARRW's budget for procurement was zero'd out for the fiscal year, and there were public statements made by AF officials to that effect.

No one has explicitly made any such statements on JATM.

SecAF had said last year that he was hoping for it entering production by the end of the year. This is not inconsistent with OEM disclosures.

 

[_Del_]

Isn't the ARRW back in contention?

I know they released RDT&E money for it, but it no longer features among the shiny new toys they promote.

 

[_Del_]

Its difficult to discuss when you are admitting to making things up.

"if it survives" is inherently a speculative statement, not an invention. I'm not sure what your problem is. Feel free to add me to a blocked list if you do not want to read my speculation or discuss things with me. *shrug*

 

[bring_it_on]

if it survives" is inherently a speculative statement

Fair. It was a wrong assumption on my part in terms of thinking that there was perhaps some public disclosure, that I missed, that would be suggestive of such a statement.

 

[quellish]

Probably because they are also funding things like LREW, and have sniffed around AIM-174.
JATM isn't going to be bought in huge numbers if it survives, imo. The -160D is now approaching the original range requirements for JATM and it's substantially cheaper and in mass-production.

Boeing, Lockheed, NG, Raytheon all have contracts for LR and/or compact AAMs right now. Undoubtedly there are others.

I can only tell you what they've said they would like to do in the future. I can't tell the future.

The capabilities of the AIM-260 far exceed those of the AIM-120. It is not an “AMRAAM with more range”

 

[NMaude]

The capabilities of the AIM-260 far exceed those of the AIM-120. It is not an “AMRAAM with more range”

We don't really know what those capabilities are as very little information about the AIM-2660A have been released.

 

[quellish]

We don't really know what those capabilities are as very little information about the AIM-2660A have been released.

There has been a lot released and even more is available if you ask for it.

 

[Josh_TN]

Eventually.
But for now, US air arms are far more numerous. It's hard to justify underdog position when you aren't, and aren't used to be.
You can sort of see from all the promised hellscapes in Taiwan strait; it's arguably the first promise that becomes questionable the moment one realises he tries to outspan world drone factory, at its doorstep, in high priority area.
It is obviously foolish, yet that's the intention.

The U.S. does not need to equal Chinese production. It just has to produce sufficient capability to destroy < 100 ro/ro and car carriers and about a dozen cruisers, three dozen destroyers, and a similar number of frigates. The CSIS wargame, the most recent open source exercise I am aware of, generally had this entire force devastated in three weeks in most of its couple dozen scenarios (generally with very high U.S. casualties as well, of course). The U.S. is adopting an asymmetrical strategy of sea denial as opposed to its traditional position of sea control. The question is not how many U.S. ships and planes will survive the effort or how many sausages the U.S. can crank out; the question is whether the PLA can force a change to the status quo or not. The default setting is the region being aligned with the US and the PRC having to make a major military commitment to alter it.

 

[Ainen]

The U.S. does not need to equal Chinese production. It just has to produce sufficient capability to destroy < 100 ro/ro and car carriers and about a dozen cruisers, three dozen destroyers, and a similar number of frigates. The CSIS wargame, the most recent open source exercise I am aware of, generally had this entire force devastated in three weeks in most of its couple dozen scenarios (generally with very high U.S. casualties as well, of course). The U.S. is adopting an asymmetrical strategy of sea denial as opposed to its traditional position of sea control. The question is not how many U.S. ships and planes will survive the effort or how many sausages the U.S. can crank out; the question is whether the PLA can force a change to the status quo or not. The default setting is the region being aligned with the US and the PRC having to make a major military commitment to alter it.

I don't believe in Taiwan war scenario personally.
No one begins a big war just for a scenario from your last paragraph, in a huge maritime region completely unsuitable for it. It's assumption of opponent being completely clueless. As such, it's close to impossibility, because it can happen only if war is (1)forced by Taiwan, (2)catches China completely without pants, scrambling for solution, and (3)sure that bluefor won't dare.
This is a mighty set of assumptions. US made it quite clear to anyone not completely stupid, that dare at will.
And there was a good example in the exact same place, how to operate in this specific region under assumption that US will dare.

It reminds me is how allies, seing japanese invasion convoys sailing away in november 1941, tried to guess a single point where they'll eventually go; US even looked how to set up provocation options. Allies of our time, apparently, already decided that single point, despite knowing that they'll be outproduced to.... outproduced.
Japan, as it turned out, knew the region, and there was no such point. Invasion was bound to happen everywhere.
Japan could be rather easily outproduced, in fact, it was a course that was set before the war, to which Japan failed to react even before the war(which strictly speaking it could). But the point is not that it could, the point is that it had to be, which is a planning failure.

And the problem is exactly that China can not be outproduced, and it is also a course visible even before. Making such plans is not much more than giving oneself false direction.

 

[NMaude]

There has been a lot released and even more is available if you ask for it.

That's news to me.

 

[_Del_]

The capabilities of the AIM-260 far exceed those of the AIM-120. It is not an “AMRAAM with more range”

I assume it has a dual pulse motor, a multimode seeker, better eccm, better data link ability, maybe even something like DACS to give much higher terminal ability, which I once heard conversationally mentioned as possible but have not read in print and have nothing to support. And a price tag to match!

I also know we depleted our own AMRAAM stores, bought up every foreign one we could pet loose, and sent them to arm our proxy. AMRAAM production has topped out at 1200 per annum, and it doesn't make sense to open another one unless there is 2000 unit demand.

I, too, want all the toys the same way the RN wanted CVA-01. I just think reality is also calling.

I don't think JTAM will replace AIM-120 production as originally intended. If/when it arrives in number it'll be the expensive end of the mix, like a Phoenix. Improved AMRAAMs will probably still have a place, and affordable SACM-like missiles will hopefully eventually phase out the low end for around Sidewinder prices.

USAF is still looking to spend more money on RDT&E than procurement, so I'm not sure we're learning the right lessons fast enough.

 

[bring_it_on]

..USAF is still looking to spend more money on RDT&E than procurement, so I'm not sure we're learning the right lessons fast enough..

The SecAF literally testified in 2023 that he is looking to both put JATM into production and ask for additional funding to increase production line and quantities..

“We’re entering production, hopefully, for JATM, the new air-to-air missile,” Kendall said at the congressional hearing. “And we’re going to be asking for funds to increase the size of that production line [and] increase capacity of our production line from what we originally had planned.”

Could it be that instead of investing in the AMRAAM production line to increase production and add capacity, the AF wants to use those supplement and budget dollars to increase production of the AIM-120's replacement? Especially since the SecAF is on the record stating that production increase on JATM is in the works?

The AMRAAM has been used in several engagements and is credited with sixteen air-to-air kills in conflicts over Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir, and Syria. Now over 30 years old in design, the AMRAAM is due to be replaced by the new AIM-260 JATM, which will offer better long-range performance and ability to defeat electronic warfare jamming.

We also cannot rule out that, like JATM, there are other missile programs out there that we don't fully know or understand. Its within the realm of possibility given the JATM competition, down-select and development occured out of the public eye until it was announced years after contract award.

 

[BDF]

If you optimized the airframe for range at cruise at the cost of maneuverability, why not? Trade offs in acceleration also could be made.

Late to the party on this one but here's my measly two cent, super crude back of napkin observation: The F-23A had ~ 25% more internal gas than the YF-23, the latter having the same as the Raptor. So that is ~22,500lbs usable internal. If you throw in the NGAP that is another ~38% increase in range. So right there that is ~1025nm combat radius. . Right away we are at a Raptor level of structural strength with ~1000nm combat radius. I am well aware it is not nearly that simple but this is just for illustrative purposes.

Presumably a NGAD would have improved aerodynamics and thus reduced drag so that would further increase range over a notional F-23A w/NGAP engines. So I do not think it is much of a stretch that a ATF sized airplane can have 1000-1200nm combat radius (perhaps even more) with emerging engine/airframe technology. Perhaps even that kind of radius with a larger payload too. A somewhat bigger airframe should have even better radius.

 

[dark sidius]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1874225517127491863

View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1874225517127491863

What type it could be ? it is not NGAD there is no contract for now ?

 

[bring_it_on]

Its been described as an ISR platform by some in the media (cited in my original tweet quoted above), and a high speed platform built around the LRS-B by another (Aviation Week).

 

[dark sidius]

Its been described as an ISR platform by some in the media (cited in my original tweet quoted above), and a high speed platform built around the LRS-B by another (Aviation Week).

Interesting to follow , a high speed platform for the B-21 strike package ? family of system?

 

[_Del_]

So I do not think it is much of a stretch that a ATF sized airplane can have 1000-1200nm combat radius (perhaps even more) with emerging engine/airframe technology.

Agree with this.

And while I disagree with the Air Force on this point and have for a long time, NGAS also seems to be featuring more in more of their plans to achieve long-range and -endurance.

 

[NMaude]

NGAS also seems to be featuring more in more of their plans to achieve long-range and -endurance.

NGAS?

 

[quellish]

NGAS?

New “stealth” tanker