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

Scott Kenny said:
And I disagree with that to some extent. I think they're still going to have most of the survivability systems loaded in.
Click to expand...

We will have to wait and see what sort of stuff gets added to these 'atrittable' aircraft over time to make them look (and cost) more like traditional combat aircraft. I would hope that we explore new ways rather than copy paste the same things we used to evolved manned tacair.
 
sferrin said:
How will you learn all its shortcomings if you don't train with and maintain it regularly?
Click to expand...

There will have to be a lot of testing, at least initially. But on the other hand, no AI pilot needs to make their minimum qualification hours or do any basic training. Training should be limited to familiarizing the human pilots with MUMT scenarios with large numbers of aircraft, and as much as possible the CCAs should just be simulated. Any high hour CCA can be stored for high risk missions as an expendable store.
 
Josh_TN said:
There will have to be a lot of testing, at least initially. But on the other hand, no AI pilot needs to make their minimum qualification hours or do any basic training. Training should be limited to familiarizing the human pilots with MUMT scenarios with large numbers of aircraft, and as much as possible the CCAs should just be simulated. Any high hour CCA can be stored for high risk missions as an expendable store.
Click to expand...
Even more so now, some of the AR training solutions that Boeing has suggested to be used in pair with the T-7 program could put CCA pairs "in the fight" virtually with next generation aircraft during EXs.
 
Regarding what sensors would/should be carried by CCAs, I think the need for multiple signals for range data in passive collection means that every platform has to be carrying. Defensive equipment might be less consequential, but at the same time these will be expensive enough that you do not want them shot down with trash fire at max AAM range because they blindly blunder into a missile in a straight line. CM ejectors seem like a minimum, and if there is any kind of ranging or collision avoidance radar, it seems to me you would want that to have EW modes as well.
 
Last edited:
GTX said:
One would keep a relatively small number for training etc. The majority could be stored in a "break glass in case of war" style arrangement.
Click to expand...

Which becomes not so easy if these things are packed with technology. You could tier readiness and availability with some that are always ready to be sent forward with short notice, while others would need more time. Loads of ways to be creative here if we had the flexibility to pursue some of those strategies.
 
Not to mention, JIC anyone hasn't noticed, a lot of training is going virtual. Even the T-7 will be able to to perform BFM against virtual generated opponents or even a plane that isn't in the sky, but shows up on the systems and is flown by a pilot in a simulator. They can do the same with CCAs.
 
Minimally, at least some training flights do not need to happen for simple quals or basic maneuvering. You would only need CCAs actually flying for large scale realistic exercises like the various Flags, and you could probably rotate the force in and out of these to limit flight hours on individual airframes to limit maintenance. Also the commercial engines that Incr1 uses probably have far lower requirements; those likely will outlast the airframes.
 
Josh_TN said:
Minimally, at least some training flights do not need to happen for simple quals or basic maneuvering. You would only need CCAs actually flying for large scale realistic exercises like the various Flags, and you could probably rotate the force in and out of these to limit flight hours on individual airframes to limit maintenance. Also the commercial engines that Incr1 uses probably have far lower requirements; those likely will outlast the airframes.
Click to expand...

Pretty simple to address that. Build an ability to support (logistically and for training etc) about 1000 CCA's. Build another 1000 more and store. You can think the former having something like $400K - $600K CPTPY with the latter a fraction (say <$100K CPTPY of storage and sustainment cost). But for something like this to happen, Congress and OSD would need to overcome the optics of moving something costing $10-15 Million from the factory to a storage warehouse...sort of like what we do with weapons - though in this case they are meant to boost manned fighter shortfalls.
 
Sundog said:
Not to mention, JIC anyone hasn't noticed, a lot of training is going virtual. Even the T-7 will be able to to perform BFM against virtual generated opponents or even a plane that isn't in the sky, but shows up on the systems and is flown by a pilot in a simulator. They can do the same with CCAs.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I said!
 
Forest Green said:
www.twz.com

$20 Billion Price Tag To Complete Development Of USAF's Next Generation Fighter

Investing more in long range strike, procuring a cheaper 'drone controller' aircraft, or a mix of F-35s and drones are alternatives.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
A smaller NGAD should be a non starter. So what's the role? Is the only reason to have a manned NGAD platform is to have a man in the loop in an air battle? You don't really need them as a network node. Sensors and weapons are distributed to CCAs, which will increase the cost of CCAs. What happens when the CCAs expend all their weapons? You bug out? Well, sometimes you can't.

The strategy of the high-low mix is what the USAF employed during the height of the Cold War. There is no substitute for the capabilities of and exquisite fighter like the F-15 or F-14. When it is combined with less expensive assets it makes the force more effective.

Josh_TN said:
Regarding what sensors would/should be carried by CCAs, I think the need for multiple signals for range data in passive collection means that every platform has to be carrying. Defensive equipment might be less consequential, but at the same time these will be expensive enough that you do not want them shot down with trash fire at max AAM range because they blindly blunder into a missile in a straight line. CM ejectors seem like a minimum, and if there is any kind of ranging or collision avoidance radar, it seems to me you would want that to have EW modes as well.
Click to expand...
Mitchell's notional CCA, costing $15-40 million has an AESA radar and IRST. The cost may not be realistic. Whatever the case, how far does the CCA need to operate from the manned fighter to impart an adequate level of survivability to it? F-35s operate up to 50 miles away from each other, but they have onboard sensors. 5th Gen enemy aircraft complicates the matter. Would passive sensors like IRST be adequate?

Josh_TN said:
Minimally, at least some training flights do not need to happen for simple quals or basic maneuvering. You would only need CCAs actually flying for large scale realistic exercises like the various Flags, and you could probably rotate the force in and out of these to limit flight hours on individual airframes to limit maintenance. Also the commercial engines that Incr1 uses probably have far lower requirements; those likely will outlast the airframes.
Click to expand...
Great idea, but what do the support people do without any aircraft to maintain or launch in peacetime? Sure, they could pull CCAs out and check their health, but whatever they do in peacetime will not come close to wartime. You will not have enough work for them. What about the pilots?
 
Kendall says the Air Force cant afford the $20bn it would take to develop an air-superiority F-22 successor and that their thinking now was to not develop NGAD and instead focus on developing an F-35 multi-role successor for service entry around 2050.

www.defensenews.com

Kendall floats F-35 successor, casts 2050 vision for Air Force

The Air Force and Space Force "need to go through a transformation" by 2050, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said on the eve of his departure.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
B2Blain said:
Mitchell's notional CCA, costing $15-40 million has an AESA radar and IRST. The cost may not be realistic. Whatever the case, how far does the CCA need to operate from the manned fighter to impart an adequate level of survivability to it? F-35s operate up to 50 miles away from each other, but they have onboard sensors. 5th Gen enemy aircraft complicates the matter. Would passive sensors like IRST be adequate?
Click to expand...

I think a radar capable of tracking 5th gen fighters is a non starter in this class of aircraft. It might have a collision avoidance/ECM system, but long range active detection of a J-20 seems iffy even for F-35. However forcing J-20s to either radiate or close to IRST range seems like a workable option, especially if there is a less expensive layer of passive sensor UAVs working with CCA. Turn on your radar? They will snigff you out. Don’t turn on your radar? You’re the one with two huge turbofans and a much larger surface area in the IR spectrum. Choose your pain.
 
So nothing til 2050? Insanity. We went from Kendall saying “we’ve moved so quickly with this digital design stuff will have the next generation ready in the quickest time ever” (to paraphrase) to “we really can’t build an F-22 successor so we will shoot for a better F-35 by 2050”.

Really?
 
bobbymike said:
So nothing til 2050? Insanity. We went from Kendall saying “we’ve moved so quickly with this digital design stuff will have the next generation ready in the quickest time ever” (to paraphrase) to “we really can’t build an F-22 successor so we will shoot for a better F-35 by 2050”.

Really?
Click to expand...
Something is not clear , is there something in work for long range strike family we don't know about ? it is like the priority is to protect the long range strike budget instead of 6th gen fighter, something is strange in this NGAD history, Chinese show 6th gen , all must be going in this direction and Kendall speak about financing other priority, B-21 is on track and on budget , so what else is so important ?
 
B2Blain said:
Hunter is more credible than Kendall. We need to fish or cut bait at this point.

breakingdefense.com

China 'could beat us to the punch' to a 6th-gen fighter, Air Force official warns - Breaking Defense

“It's fair to say we pay a lot of attention to what the Chinese are doing. And so, not everything that becomes public is a shock,” Andrew Hunter said when asked about new images of purported Chinese fighters. “But having said that, their pace is incredibly fast.”
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...

Amazing insight from Hunter..repeating (almost verbatim) essentially what uniformed officials have been saying for the last few years.

Hunter held little sway over NGAD as I believe it was in the SecAF's portfolio and out of his.
 
bring_it_on said:
Amazing insight from Hunter..repeating (almost verbatim) essentially what uniformed officials have been saying for the last few years.

Hunter held little sway over NGAD as I believe it was in the SecAF's portfolio and out of his.
Click to expand...
There is a hurry for the new administration to take the decision too time is lost in questions and bla-bla, time to go full throttle on NGAD , China is making a sprint and it could be a big danger for the world.
 
WatcherZero said:
Kendall says the Air Force cant afford the $20bn it would take to develop an air-superiority F-22 successor and that their thinking now was to not develop NGAD and instead focus on developing an F-35 multi-role successor for service entry around 2050.

www.defensenews.com

Kendall floats F-35 successor, casts 2050 vision for Air Force

The Air Force and Space Force "need to go through a transformation" by 2050, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said on the eve of his departure.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
To clarify, Kendall was speaking of where he sees the Air Force going by 2050, but that date isn’t tied with any milestone for the proposed F-35 successor from NGAD, which could enter service considerably earlier.

That said, rescoping the NGAD from the F-22 successor to a smaller F-35 successor will likely add years to the schedule, as companies will need to essentially design a new aircraft, even if it draws heavily from their current PCA bids. Not to mention that all the work in terms of air vehicle and propulsion integration with NGAP will have to be redone. We saw a similar slide in schedule when NGB was canceled and then re-scopes into the LRS-B.
 
dark sidius said:
There is a hurry for the new administration to take the decision too time is lost in questions and bla-bla, time to go full throttle on NGAD , China is making a sprint and it could be a big danger for the world.
Click to expand...
No bucks, no Buck Rogers! It wasn't like the previous administration (or the one before it) was aiming to spend 4-5% of GDP on defense. AF cannot overcome the bow wave it faces in the 2030s unless it gets a serious funding increase which likely won't happen absent a huge DOD spending boost beyond the 1-2% real growth that we are probably looking at under the incoming administration. Would love to be proven wrong but there are unlikely to be wholesale changes within DOD spending profiles (spending across services) in the new admin and we are also unlikely to see huge savings from DOGE (and whatever we do see are unlikely to go to DOD). So back to square one..how will the AF budget grow over the next ten years to support current and expected acquisition priorities?

icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
That said, rescoping the NGAD from the F-22 successor to a smaller F-35 successor will likely add years to the schedule, as companies will need to essentially design a new aircraft, even if it draws heavily from their current PCA bids.
Click to expand...

What's to stop from that being the case and then Kendall coming back to the building and wanting to rescope that F-35 follow on to a C-17 follow on?
 
There's a possibility that the B-21 ends up as the manned CCA controller for air dominance not because it is best suited for that role, but because we don't end up starting production on anything else.
 
bring_it_on said:
No bucks, no Buck Rogers! It wasn't like the previous administration (or the one before it) was aiming to spend 4-5% of GDP on defense. AF cannot overcome the bow wave it faces in the 2030s unless it gets a serious funding increase which likely won't happen absent a huge DOD spending boost beyond the 1-2% real growth that we are probably looking at under the incoming administration. Would love to be proven wrong but there are unlikely to be wholesale changes within DOD spending profiles (spending across services) in the new admin and we are also unlikely to see huge savings from DOGE (and whatever we do see are unlikely to go to DOD). So back to square one..how will the AF budget grow over the next ten years to support current and expected acquisition priorities?



What's to stop from that being the case and then Kendall coming back to the building and wanting to rescope that F-35 follow on to a C-17 follow on?
Click to expand...
Do you realy think Mr Trump and Mr Musk will let China winning the technological race ? They have no choice this time it is not a joke , China is soon to becoming the first Air Force and surely Space Force in the world , and when it will arrive, we will surely live in a more dangerous world than today.
 
dark sidius said:
Do you realy think Mr Trump and Mr Musk will let China winning the technological race ? They have no choice this time it is not a joke , China is soon to becoming the first Air Force and surely Space Force in the world , and when it will arrive, we will surely live in a more dangerous world than today.
Click to expand...

I think their understanding of strategic matters is quite limited and thier control of the House of Representatives fleeting, even assuming they cared. We will see how NGAD is prioritized shortly; personally I suspect a lot of people will be disappointed.
 
joshjosh said:
There's a possibility that the B-21 ends up as the manned CCA controller for air dominance not because it is best suited for that role, but because we don't end up starting production on anything else.
Click to expand...

Good luck. It costs $600-700 Million a pop and we are planning to produce seven a year.
 
joshjosh said:
There's a possibility that the B-21 ends up as the manned CCA controller for air dominance not because it is best suited for that role, but because we don't end up starting production on anything else.
Click to expand...
Broadly speaking, I don't think there will be combat aircraft "controllers". Just cogs in machine.
 
bring_it_on said:
Good luck. It costs $600-700 Million a pop and we are planning to produce seven a year.
Click to expand...
Agree and the production couldn't scale quickly enough to get to the point it would be valuable. Seems like the solution is more F-35 and CCA integration. Enough CCA can overcome a perceived 6th gen gap between platforms and allow the F-35 to penetrate with sufficient munitions and gas. Would require NGAS but an unmanned NGAS seems more cost effective with wider application than a manned NGAD at this point.
 
_Del_ said:
Broadly speaking, I don't think there will be combat aircraft "controllers". Just cogs in machine.
Click to expand...
You still have to account for EW effects on the battlespace and space superiority, which some of the C2 solutions will rely on, is not certain so some form of LOS comms between platforms has to be the fall back.
 
Ozair said:
Seems like the solution is more F-35 and CCA integration.
Click to expand...

Problem with that is that the AF has consistently cut the number of F-35A's it plans on acquiring each year. The plan to buy more is always magically right outside the FYDP. The AF's buy rate is inconsistent with its plan to field 1,700 odd F-35A's. Its more consistent with them buying somewhere in the 800-1200 levels.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
Problem with that is that the AF has consistently cut the number of F-35A's it plans on acquiring each year. The plan to buy more is always magically right outside the FYDP.
Click to expand...
And if they bought more before the software is ready making them more expensive to update, we'd bitch about that, too.

That's not a shot at you or anyone. There are just choices being made between bad options. I don't think anyone is happy about the F-35 situation.
 
_Del_ said:
And if they bought more before the software is ready making them more expensive to update, we'd bitch about that, too.
Click to expand...

The point is that there is no chance in hell (short of dramatic increases in naitonal security spending or prioritization) that we buy the F-35's we planned to buy originally. a 30-40% cut to that number is likely to be the case. So if the option is that we'll just have more F-35A's because there's no NGAD then the reality is that the F-35's fleet won't even reach its own stated planned inventory level let alone grow to meet inventory levels of future programs that we chose not pursue..Must also remember that the administration also killed perhaps the most valuable F-35 modernization effort as far as its relevance in the Pacific was concerned.
 
Ozair said:
Seems like the solution is more F-35 and CCA integration.
Click to expand...

At this time there is no way for an F-35 to control / manage a CCA, and there is no clear plan to get there. There are also conflicting visions of what the end result will be.

F-35s that can control CCAs have not been built yet, and there is currently no plan for when that will be or how.
 
bring_it_on said:
Problem with that is that the AF has consistently cut the number of F-35A's it plans on acquiring each year. The plan to buy more is always magically right outside the FYDP. The AF's buy rate is inconsistent with its plan to field 1,700 odd F-35A's. Its more consistent with them buying somewhere in the 800-1200 levels.
Click to expand...
Original SARs, for example 2013, has the build rate at 80 frame a year all the way through to the late 2030s. While I agree consistent procurement has been a rock show to date there are, as you know, reasons why.

Were the USAF to commit to an F-35/CCA plan then could easily see the F-35 getting back to the 80 a year number or even approaching 100 with some additional investment. Given later SARs already extended out the build to 2043 and also the potential absence of a viable replacement means it becomes almost the only option.

Then NGAD can wholly invest in CCAs and push that as fast and as far as it can go.
 
bring_it_on said:
Must also remember that the administration also killed perhaps the most valuable F-35 modernization effort as far as its relevance in the Pacific was concerned.
Click to expand...
Could see that coming back if manned NGAD doesn't go forward. Would be all post 2030 deliveries at this point but certainly feasible.
 
bring_it_on said:
The point is that there is no chance in hell (short of dramatic increases in naitonal security spending or prioritization) that we buy the F-35's we planned to buy originally. a 30-40% cut to that number is likely to be the case. So if the option is that we'll just have more F-35A's because there's no NGAD then the reality is that the F-35's fleet won't even reach its own stated planned inventory level let alone grow to meet inventory levels of future programs that we chose not pursue..Must also remember that the administration also killed perhaps the most valuable F-35 modernization effort as far as its relevance in the Pacific was concerned.
Click to expand...
I think we'll ultimately end up with about the same amount.

A lot will depend on what shape the manned NGAD platforms look like and how well they keep cost down. If they do a great job keeping cost down, then the A-buy likely gets smaller, but it's going to be in production for allied countries for a long time, and an existing platform frequently finds new production life over time.

Original F-16 buy was 650. Many more of later sub-models (C and later blocks) were eventually produced for the Air Force because it was in production and added affordable "mass" as the latest buzzword trend would call it.

Would not surprise me to see an even larger buy of later blocks of F-35, and the older (still functional but not as fancy blocks) sold or leased to allied nations on the cheap. We might eventually see a trimmed down F-35 model that further reduces costs (no, EOTS, maybe. Maybe no radar, if you wanted to get really radical).

The Marines love theirs. The Navy would probably love to cancel it and buy a new platform, but their track record is so bad, it would be foolish. Congress will likely force them to buy at least the number of C-models originally planned unless the follow-up program starts producing hardware that works and promises to be affordable quickly.

A lot will depend on how fast they get the software sorted and what direction they decide to go on NGAD platforms (cost, complexity, and perhaps even more importantly readiness).
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom