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

Should have stated it is our possible next-gen tanker brought to you by China potentially, by BYD. (BYD = Bring Your Dollars and Buy Your Defense), sorry, just had to go there. 2025 is going to be fun.
 
bring_it_on said:
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?
Click to expand...
1) new energetics/rocket fuel and ditching the warhead entirely for a "hittile" design (direct impact with ~150-200lbs of missile), plus smaller electronics to make the seeker smaller and lighter as well. So the overall missile is basically nothing more than a seeker head strapped onto a highly energetic rocket and gets kills via direct impact with the target.
2) the technology doesn't prevent the existence of an AMRAAM-sized weapon with ~twice the range. In fact, I suspect that the AIM-260 is the new energetics in an AMRAAM-sized motor, with a solid DACS for terminal maneuverability after the sustainer burns out.


bring_it_on said:
A highly stealthy CCA that can preserve 'first shot' or survive enough to get a kill and be a credible threat vs other red-platforms that may potentially be carrying weapons that can outstick it would be a good capability to have. I don't see that anywhere in terms of what's being proposed right now. Perhaps that will change down the road.
Click to expand...
Because we're still in the Increment 1 stage of the CCAs. "Figure out how they really work in practice, now how doctrine says they're supposed to work"

If it's possible to make a super stealthy supersonic CCA that's cheap, then there's reasons to load them with halfRAAMs. If you can't make the CCAs super stealthy, though, you're probably better off arming them with AIM-260s to have more reach.


Kaanere said:
Wouldn't the AIM-260 be that? Not exacly twice the range as an AIM-120C, but relatively close.
Click to expand...
I believe that the AIM-260 rocket spiraled out of the CUDA/Peregrine development, yes. I think the AIM-260 does keep a warhead, however.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If you can't make the CCAs super stealthy, though, you're probably better off arming them with AIM-260s to have more reach.
Click to expand...

If they’re armed with the AIM-260 they don’t need to have their own radars. That drastically reduces the electrical power requirements for the CCA which has been a problem for most UAVs.
 
quellish said:
If they’re armed with the AIM-260 they don’t need to have their own radars. That drastically reduces the electrical power requirements for the CCA which has been a problem for most UAVs.
Click to expand...
I am assuming that they're getting something akin to the current top end IRST pod. The AIM-260 is to give them a weapon that can effectively engage at a greater distance than the CCA can be detected.

Side note, I'm assuming that the goal is to have the CCAs present about the same size radar return as their manned planes, just so that if you do manage to detect one on radar it's not screamingly obvious which you have detected.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Which still takes a big chunk of volume, weight, power, and cooling in the CCA. And that costs money. So does armoring the processors to military standards.
Click to expand...

Nope. I expect commercial products in TEMPEST-like box with good filtering at power input plus fiber for communication. Couple of AI oriented commercial processors should put you at 10-20 kW power range. That’s should be well within CCA budget. We are talking about dedicated neural network solution.
 
_Del_ said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have a strong feeling that NGAS is going to be more than just a tanker, and me a drone launcher and communications platform as much as a tanker, if recent studies and experiments being conducted by KC-135s are anything to go by.
 
A tanker must be as lean as possible to remain efficient. Especially when it comes to a pricey Stealthy design.
I think that focusing on making it a tanker able to safely operate at a closer range from an IADS would be enough for the challenges set today.
If you need a platform in parallel to launch drones, just make your drone a big heavier and launch them out of range of the IADS.
 
Ainen said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think that the geopolitical situation has changed since the Second World War and we can all assume that China is not Imperial Japan (though one might be able to draw some parallels, e.g. expansionist power, centralised autocracy, militarism, etc.)

The War Aims of Japan were to clear out the colonial powers out of Asia and take over their former colonies. This would allow them to lay claim to the resource rich regions available in SE Asia and on the Asian continent proper. Hence, the Japanese could choose to move in very different directions (as they did in fact do), which allowed them to split allied resources but also split their own.

It's pretty clear that the PRC has long wanted to integrate Taiwan for various reasons, as well as take control of the Spratly Islands to assert their claims over the 9-dash line. Whilst this concentrates their forces, it does limit them in terms of potential scenarios of where they can attack, and the invasion of countries such as the Philippines, Vietnam, etc. will be politically untenable because they are considered by all to be sovereign nations, Taiwan is more dubious (though the impacts that any invasion would have on the world supply chains of semiconductors is a different matter). Hence, I think that it's pretty clear that the biggest flashpoint will be Taiwan, and that can be both a blessing and a curse for China. If it somehow is able create bases across the globe, then that is a different matter, but (apart from the obvious issue of supplying those bases and replenishment at sea), that would resources away from potentially more important areas.
 
dark sidius said:
We have money with stopping F-35.
Click to expand...
No you really don't because what 'stopping F-35' means is stopping active modernization and replacement of legacy aircraft for an AF that's the oldest its been in a long time (if not ever). You are then going to take that 'procurement' money and spend it on a half a decade to a decade long research program to develop PCA, NGAP and CCA's, and come out of the other side still short of the $6-8 Bn you would need each year to buy NGAD, NGAP, NGAS and CCA's.

All the while you are retiring aircraft and not filling them with replacements.

What you are suggesting is to shrink the USAF down to a significantly smaller force than what it is. Perhaps down by half. If that's the case then yes, stopping F-35 buy at say 700-800 and letting legacy fleets retire so we can have a much smaller, but qualitatively superior force makes sense. Perhaps CCA's will allow them to build it back up. But that's not a very proven thing at the moment and might not be until we invest some serious funds into that effort (AF wants $3 Bn for CCA's in 2028). so is very much a 'TBD'.

Now only if there was someone in the service who could make that case for such a dramatic change and get it past Congress while justifying to the administration and Congress how the AF will continue to meet the needs of the COCOMS and the DOD as it sheds force structure, hardware and people. Until then, it remains a very unserious proposal.
 
Last edited:
BDF said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is that enough though? Wasn't there a statement made a while back by Gen CQ Brown or someone else stating that NGAD would not need tanker support to accomplish mission? That would certainly suggest a radius significantly greater than 1-1.2K nmi. Perhaps 2 to 3 times that. But I haven't been able to dig that statement up so perhaps I'm confusing with something else.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
Is that enough though? Wasn't there a statement made a while back by Gen CQ Brown or someone else stating that NGAD would not need tanker support to accomplish mission? That would certainly suggest a radius significantly greater than 1-1.2K nmi. Perhaps 2 to 3 times that. But I haven't been able to dig that statement up so perhaps I'm confusing with something else.
Click to expand...

There was a statement concerning B-21 that it will not need to operate from or be logistically supported in the WesPac theater; is that what you are thinking of?
 
Ainen said:
I don't believe in Taiwan war scenario personally.
Click to expand...

Fair enough; it would likely be devastating to everyone involved. Though Ukraine is an example of a major high risk operation with major economic blowback that was committed to anyway.

I guess what I should have said more generally is I think we are hitting an inflection point where the role and vulnerability of surface ships is changing and I question China’s ability to change the status quo in the Pacific in the short to medium term by force, regardless of what shape that conflict takes. The Japan analog breaks down a little if you were to also accept that Japan could hit any target on the either US coast on day 1.
 
Josh_TN said:
There was a statement concerning B-21 that it will not need to operate from or be logistically supported in the WesPac theater; is that what you are thinking of?
Click to expand...
B-21 is not a fighter it is a stealth bomber , it don't have the speed to fight something like the futur J-36 , it may coming ten years too late.
 
Josh_TN said:
Fair enough; it would likely be devastating to everyone involved. Though Ukraine is an example of a major high risk operation with major economic blowback that was committed to anyway.

I guess what I should have said more generally is I think we are hitting an inflection point where the role and vulnerability of surface ships is changing and I question China’s ability to change the status quo in the Pacific in the short to medium term by force, regardless of what shape that conflict takes. The Japan analog breaks down a little if you were to also accept that Japan could hit any target on the either US coast on day 1.
Click to expand...
We don't believe in a Ukraine war too ten years ago.
 
bring_it_on said:
Is that enough though? Wasn't there a statement made a while back by Gen CQ Brown or someone else stating that NGAD would not need tanker support to accomplish mission? That would certainly suggest a radius significantly greater than 1-1.2K nmi. Perhaps 2 to 3 times that. But I haven't been able to dig that statement up so perhaps I'm confusing with something else.
Click to expand...

Truthfully I do not know what the optimal radius is. Somewhere in the thread there was a discussion about the size of NGAD and apparently it is about the same size as the Raptor. I was just illustrating that airframe that size could have double the combat radius with emerging technology. Just my amateurish guess is that would be satisfactory, especially if we were to acquire NGAS as that would bring the tanker safe line up much closer the the 1st island chain and Taiwan. Personally I would prefer a bigger airframe that is less reliant on support assets even if unit costs are higher but a NGAD + NGAS solution might be the shell game the USAF needs to play with congress...
 
Another thing to consider is that by relaxing certain maneuver parameters compared to the ATF, the NGAD can achieve considerably better fuel fraction for the same takeoff gross weight, not to mention the other advances in materials science, air vehicle design, etc. I think both F-22 and F-23 would have been roughly similar in empty weight (obviously there's a deal of uncertainty with the F-23 since it never went through EMD). The Raptor itself should have had better fuel fraction than it has now, but cost saving measures during EMD reduced fuel loads, and the production aircraft still have provisions for additional internal fuel tanks although I suspect that reactivating them now would be cost prohibitive.

I would think that the NGAD PCA would need to have sufficient combat radius to reach Taiwan while operating from the Second Island Chain installations, which would indicate a combat radius of at least 1,500 nmi, likely with a portion of it in supersonic cruise in order to improve sortie generation and also help with human factors (i.e. mission duration).
 
Last edited:
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
which would indicate a combat radius of at least 1,500 nmi, likely with a portion of it in supersonic cruise in order to improve sortie generation and also help with human factors (i.e. mission duration).
Click to expand...

I think that is a reasonable start. The Air Force wants not just more range (compared to F-22) but also better payload. I am not sure how they achieve both of those things while retaining raptor like supercruise performance and form factor. At this stage, I would assume that it would considerably larger in size than the F-22A but that's just an educated guess.
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
Payload can be offloaded to CCAs as a way to rein in size, weight, and cost.
Click to expand...

Right. But I was focused on what the AF put out to industry last year in the RFP and what we've been investing in actually developing over the past many years. Kendall said a lot of things including wanting NGAD to cost the same as F-35...Until the AF comes out and says they are extending the pause on NGAD and starting over with a new/fresh set of requirements for the manned element, I'm assuming that they are going to go ahead with what they asked industry to bid on (if anything at all). Which as per CQ Brown is something that has greater payload and range relative to F-22A.
 
Last edited:
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
Payload can be offloaded to CCAs as a way to rein in size, weight, and cost. I think Kendall, et. al has alluded to something like this when discussing the rationale behind the NGAD pause.
Click to expand...
Ideally, one funds multiple CCA types. Some that only need to carry munitions. Some that will need power generation for EW and/or sensors. Everything does not need to be a jack of all trades to be valuable anymore, and the SWAP-C and other requirements for all the different roles are diverse enough to favour smaller, simpler "nodes" in the networked FoS. Also helps that such an approach tends toward cheaper and faster production.

I'm still not convinced the NGAD-mission needs an NGAD-airframe. Or that it needs to be more complex than the F-35. Newer engines, airframe optimized around a shallower bay, better data fusion from the ABMS, eventually newer weapons -- altogether could still represent a more valuable NGAD node than the F-35 at similar price.

NGAD is a mission. Everything is going to be "part of" NGAD. It isn't in the strictest sense "a new shiny, do-everything 6th generation manned fighter".


Regardless, they are still spending foolish amounts of money on projects they shouldn't instead of procuring things that actually work.
 
Regarding the second island chain - if we are talking about an F22 sized (or larger) aircraft with an arrowhead shape, how many airfields realistically can handle that? Maybe 3-4? That is not going to be a STOL ish design.
 
Josh_TN said:
Regarding the second island chain - if we are talking about an F22 sized (or larger) aircraft with an arrowhead shape, how many airfields realistically can handle that? Maybe 3-4? That is not going to be a STOL ish design.
Click to expand...
Realistically, first chain-based smaller fighter is far more attractive. For more - tanker(and heavy stealthy tanker is needed in any case).
 
dark sidius said:
The Gates decision to stop the F-22 line production was realy a good idea.....
Click to expand...

That turned out to be a fantastically shortsighted idea, the USAF now finds itself with an inadequate number of F-22s with a significant number of them already obsolescent.
 
Josh_TN said:
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.
Click to expand...

The more interesting scenario is that the US leaves without firing a shot.

dark sidius said:
No money , no win over China:oops:
Click to expand...

If the cost of winning is the US defaulting on its debt it's probably acceptable to just step aside and let China try running the world. A realistic option might be transferring the GBSD, GBI, and silo fields to Space Force. Make the USAF a purely atmospheric force instead.
 
Would the technology behind KKVs fit well into air-to-air missiles?

Mass produce two versions--one for space use--the other for missiles that fighters can carry.
 
publiusr said:
Would the technology behind KKVs fit well into air-to-air missiles?

Mass produce two versions--one for space use--the other for missiles that fighters can carry.
Click to expand...

...you just rip the warhead out and give AMRAAM a longer motor.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0203.png
    IMG_0203.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 77
  • IMG_0205.png
    IMG_0205.png
    1.8 MB · Views: 77
  • IMG_0206.png
    IMG_0206.png
    1.7 MB · Views: 78
bring_it_on said:
Is that enough though? Wasn't there a statement made a while back by Gen CQ Brown or someone else stating that NGAD would not need tanker support to accomplish mission? That would certainly suggest a radius significantly greater than 1-1.2K nmi. Perhaps 2 to 3 times that. But I haven't been able to dig that statement up so perhaps I'm confusing with something else.
Click to expand...
SECDEF Austin said at the B-21 Raider unveiling that "it won't have to be based in theater to hold any target at risk." I don't recall seeing a similar statement about NGAD


bring_it_on said:
What you are suggesting is to shrink the USAF down to a significantly smaller force than what it is. Perhaps down by half. If that's the case then yes, stopping F-35 buy at say 700-800 and letting legacy fleets retire so we can have a much smaller, but qualitatively superior force makes sense. Perhaps CCA's will allow them to build it back up. But that's not a very proven thing at the moment and might not be until we invest some serious funds into that effort (AF wants $3 Bn for CCA's in 2028). so is very much a 'TBD'.
Click to expand...
I don't really think this would make sense. So many systems in recent decades were stopped short of the intended procurement. We look back on those today with regret. F-22, B-2, F-18, etc. The bulk of the development work on F-35 is done, and the block IV today is very capable. We need to keep buying it. Plus, it can still participate in the NGAD family of systems - it's already planned to be a CCA controller.
 
joshjosh said:
I don't really think this would make sense. So many systems in recent decades were stopped short of the intended procurement. We look back on those today with regret. F-22, B-2, F-18, etc. The bulk of the development work on F-35 is done, and the block IV today is very capable. We need to keep buying it. Plus, it can still participate in the NGAD family of systems - it's already planned to be a CCA controller.
Click to expand...

I totally get it and agree. The F-35 isn't going anywhere though I am sure they will stop well short of the 1.6K plug they've been using for a couple of decades.

But the point is still that if there are no more funds forthcoming and the AF unable to keep pace with rapidly advancing technology, then someone has to suggest a path forward even if that means something radical. You can't just keep on the path they are presently on which is neither modernizing nor rapidly fielding new technologies in core mission areas. It's like the worst of both worlds.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom