USAF/USN 6th Gen Fighters - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS News & Analysis

[dark sidius]

Kendall Outlines Long-Term USAF Priorities As He Leaves Office | Aviation Week Network

Survivability and increased standoff head the list of priorities for long-term Air Force modernization.

aviationweek.com

This read is interesting and we understand more in a not so distant futur the tactical fighters start to be in difficulty.....

 

[jsport]

Kendall Outlines Long-Term USAF Priorities As He Leaves Office | Aviation Week Network

Survivability and increased standoff head the list of priorities for long-term Air Force modernization.

aviationweek.com

This read is interesting and we understand more in a not so distant futur the tactical fighters start to be in difficulty.....

... large numbers of penetrating bombers escorted by fighters capable of penetrating heavily defended airspace will have limited utility.”

The report again raises the likelihood of increasing the total B-21 program of record, now set at 100, while beginning work on what would come next. “While there is no standoff platform currently in development after the B-21, one could be initiated in the next decade or so and be fielded by 2050,” the report says. “It is also possible that B-21 production may be increased substantially above current projections.”
huh?

 

[Ozair]

... large numbers of penetrating bombers escorted by fighters capable of penetrating heavily defended airspace will have limited utility.”

The report again raises the likelihood of increasing the total B-21 program of record, now set at 100, while beginning work on what would come next. “While there is no standoff platform currently in development after the B-21, one could be initiated in the next decade or so and be fielded by 2050,” the report says. “It is also possible that B-21 production may be increased substantially above current projections.”
huh?

If you read the actual report here then there is a little more context to what he has written. This is the paragraph that references your second point, emphasis mine on advantages a larger B-21 fleet would likely provide over NGAD.

Global Conventional Strike The structure of the Air Force currently emphasizes relatively large inventories of short-range, multi-role, crewed aircraft and a small fleet of longer-range, higher-payload crewed aircraft. By 2050, this balance is likely to shift to greater reliance on stand-off aircraft and weapons even though just adding greater range is no guarantee of resilience in the future. While there is no stand-off platform currently in development after the B-21, one could be initiated in the next decade or so and be fielded by 2050. It is also possible that B21 production may be increased substantially above current projections. Another nearer-term possibility is to provide stand-off weapon release from transport aircraft, which has already been demonstrated. Longer-range strike aircraft offer the United States the ability to easily shift combat power from one theater to another and deliver stand-off weapons at reasonable scale. Given current trends in potential adversary counterair weapons engagement zone distances, even long-range bombers carrying stand-off weapons may be vulnerable to anti-air missile threats between now and 2050. As a result, a means to provide adequate survivability features, or tactics, techniques, and procedures, and, potentially, novel platform designs, may have to be developed as well.

 

[jsport]

That threat to operating bases has been a driving factor in the decision to pause NGAD and has influenced the analysis for a future tanker and the next increment of the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program. The historic model of emphasizing one platform, at a high cost and long development cycle, is no longer relevant; the Air Force needs to find new ways to strike enemy targets.

“The tendency to make major warfighting platforms self-sufficient—and both lethal and survivable independently—will be replaced by the need to disaggregate and network capabilities across multiple systems,” the report asserts.

Kendall’s report describes a 2050 reality in which multiple nations possess terrestrially based and space-based weapons that are “ready to use with little or no warning.” He warns that even now there are no significant technical or financial obstacles preventing an adversary from deploying a space-based weapon, such as an orbital hypersonic glide vehicle.

offensive defensive trans atmospherics uber alles

 

[quellish]

- All aspect and all frequency stealth (hence most potential examples/concepts remove the vertical stabilizers)

Mr. Maxwell is calling, he would like to have a word.

 

[Josh_TN]

Kendall Outlines Long-Term USAF Priorities As He Leaves Office | Aviation Week Network

Survivability and increased standoff head the list of priorities for long-term Air Force modernization.

aviationweek.com

This read is interesting and we understand more in a not so distant futur the tactical fighters start to be in difficulty.....

Actually my read is that by 2050, whoever can make better use of space assets wins the war, or deters it from happening in the first place.

 

[Ozair]

Actually my read is that by 2050, whoever can make better use of space assets wins the war, or deters it from happening in the first place.

It would be interesting to include cyber in that assessment. I think we all discount that aspect of a future conflict especially in the context of greater space based assets or even just the impact a cyber campaign will have on the ability to deliver beans, bullets and bandages... That may render some space based assets unusable, fuel not available for aircraft and spares either not being shipped or sent to the wrong places.

A qualitative advantage with NGAD and space based wonder weapons won't win if that aspect of the campaign is lost.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Will a 6th gen platform gain a significant improvement over the 5th gen to gain that decision superiority? I'm not convinced of that yet. 5th gen will have radar and sensor upgrades that may keep it in pace with 6th gen and allow it to compete, perhaps similar to how a 4th gen wasn't markedly more improved than the 3rd gen, ie we didn't see so completely lop sided kill figures as we do in 4th to 5th gen engagements.

F-15s say hi, and have a really disgusting kill ratio versus 3rd gen aircraft. Especially once AMRAAMs are in use instead of Sparrows.

It would be interesting to include cyber in that assessment. I think we all discount that aspect of a future conflict especially in the context of greater space based assets or even just the impact a cyber campaign will have on the ability to deliver beans, bullets and bandages... That may render some space based assets unusable, fuel not available for aircraft and spares either not being shipped or sent to the wrong places.

Agreed. While I'm not sure how vulnerable the US supply computers are to someone deliberately screwing around, there's plenty of reports of typos and two-digit transpositions causing havoc. Like a complete Bradley turret being delivered to an aircraft carrier, because a system valve is NSN XXXXXXXXXXX29 and the turret is NSN XXXXXXXXXXX92 (not gonna use the actual numbers because they don't really matter).

Captain was not happy, and Master Chief Bosun was not happy either, because Captain didn't let him keep the turret.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The tax law from the first Trump admin sunsets after ten years (this year? Next?).

Assuming law was passed in the first year in office, 2017, a 10 year sunset would be 2027.

But the proposition would never pass Congress or the current administration.

Probably not without the sponsor(s) knowing where ALL the bodies were buried.

 

[dark sidius]

Envisioning The Future Of Dynamic Spaceborne Operations | Aviation Week Network

“It’s time to be able to move through space at will and to be able to defend ourselves when we are attacked,” ULA CEO Tory Bruno says.

aviationweek.com

Saddly behind paywall, the futur combat capacity seem to go in Space. May be the B-21 folow on will be an orbital hypersonic glider, able to saty in orbit and glide to earth for attacks high value targets on demand.

 

[Ozair]

F-15s say hi, and have a really disgusting kill ratio versus 3rd gen aircraft. Especially once AMRAAMs are in use instead of Sparrows.

The F-15 has a great record as does the F-16 although in the F-15 case very few kills are with the AIM-120, the vast majority are AIM-7 or AIM-9. F-16 certainly benefited from AIM-120 in later years. Problem I have with the F-15 is all US kills are operating within the structure of AWACS and against pilots who have no where near the training of the US aircrew. Same with all the Israeli kills in the late 70s and early 80s, the Israelis were supremely well trained and operating in a manner that suited the platform.

In that context it is hard to judge the technical capability of the platform aside from the operator aspects of the platform.

Agreed. While I'm not sure how vulnerable the US supply computers are to someone deliberately screwing around, there's plenty of reports of typos and two-digit transpositions causing havoc. Like a complete Bradley turret being delivered to an aircraft carrier, because a system valve is NSN XXXXXXXXXXX29 and the turret is NSN XXXXXXXXXXX92 (not gonna use the actual numbers because they don't really matter).

Captain was not happy, and Master Chief Bosun was not happy either, because Captain didn't let him keep the turret.

Yeah a perfect example. Cyber doesn't even have to result in non-use, if it destroys your confidence that the system will function as it has previous then it has achieved its goal.

 

[paralay]

Problem I have with the F-15 is all US kills are operating within the structure of AWACS and against pilots who have no where near the training of the US aircrew.

Please remind me, what was the ratio of forces between NATO and the enemy - 20 to 1 or 30 to 1? Using the Bf.109
or Focke-Wulf Fw 190 on the NATO side with this ratio probably would not have greatly changed the effectiveness.

 

[MrTopaz]

Please remind me, what was the ratio of forces between NATO and the enemy - 20 to 1 or 30 to 1? Using the Bf.109
or Focke-Wulf Fw 190 on the NATO side with this ratio probably would not have greatly changed the effectiveness.

“I don’t know why they gave me a German plane,” said colonel Chuck Henderson, USAF. “I mean, if we had to do it this way, wouldn’t it have made more sense to give me a P-51, or a p-47? Anyway, Operation Obstinate Falcon is proceeding smoothly…”

 

[Josh_TN]

Reminds of the old joke about the Scottish RAF pilot:

“There were folkers flying everywhere!”

“FW-190s?”

“No, these folkers were flying Messerschmitts!”

 

[bring_it_on]

Its a hard question to answer as we still haven't had a valid definition of how a 6th gen aircraft differs from a 5th gen. It could be argued a 6th gen has
- All aspect and all frequency stealth (hence most potential examples/concepts remove the vertical stabilizers)
- Greater electrical power generation
- AI integration across likely EW, sensors, CCA control, ??
- Adaptive engine technology (likely only defines western 6th gen)
- Something else not defined yet?

A 5th gen gains decision superiority over a 4th gen due to its ability to detect, target, maneuver and engage a 4th gen aircraft before that 4th gen likely knows it has even been detected primarily from advantages of stealth, sensor and sensor integration.

Will a 6th gen platform gain a significant improvement over the 5th gen to gain that decision superiority? I'm not convinced of that yet. 5th gen will have radar and sensor upgrades that may keep it in pace with 6th gen and allow it to compete, perhaps similar to how a 4th gen wasn't markedly more improved than the 3rd gen, ie we didn't see so completely lop sided kill figures as we do in 4th to 5th gen engagements.

I think we can elaborate on some of these to somewhat get to the areas of advantage that a future 6G platform would enjoy over a baseline or upgraded 5G aircraft.

- All aspect and all frequency stealth (hence most potential examples/concepts remove the vertical stabilizers)

Let's assume better stealth (RF & IR) is included as part of a 6G aircraft. What does it enable such a platform to do that a 5G would struggle to do? Does it enable it to apply sensors, or effects differently? Does it allow it to employ new sensors and effects? If yes, then those will be part of the system and likely a defining feature setting it apart from previous generation designs.

- Greater electrical power generation
It could be that a dramatic power and cooling advantage over 5G aircraft enables new systems to be employed that are not feasible on these 4+ - 5+ generation platforms without serious mods or compromises.

- Adaptive engine technology (likely only defines western 6th gen)
Adaptive engine is a defining feature for USAF NGAD. Not sure if that's the case for other western or non-western 6G fighters. But for USAF, it is one of the public ones.

- AI integration across likely EW, sensors, CCA control, ??
Given the CCA effort split off from NGAD, its pretty safe to assume that some sort of autonomy core was considered for future 6G aircraft. This is more organic capability and not like what LM is trying to do with F-35 via a tablet.

- Something else not defined yet?

From a capability perspective, probably something about kinetic and non-kinetic weapon employment etc..The "E-Series" approach also highlights how the 6G fighter / NGAD is to be designed and built so that it can evolve a lot quicker than 5G platforms before it. While not a defining feature like say a sensor, shaping RCS etc, it is an important component of the program and thus consuming resources.

 

[Hanse]

I think we can elaborate on some of these to somewhat get to the areas of advantage that a future 6G platform would enjoy over a baseline or upgraded 5G aircraft.



- Adaptive engine technology (likely only defines western 6th gen)
Adaptive engine is a defining feature for USAF NGAD. Not sure if that's the case for other western or non-western 6G fighters. But for USAF, it is one of the public ones.

Tempest appears to have a 3-stream analog.

 

[_Del_]

Owning the Skies with Integrated Air Dominance

Lockheed Martin Skunk Works is securing America’s dominance of the skies.

www.lockheedmartin.com

Lockheed Martin has demonstrated its piloted-drone teaming interface, which can control multiple drones from the cockpit of an F-35 or F-22. This technology allows a pilot to direct multiple drones to engage enemies using a touchscreen tablet in the cockpit of their 5th Gen aircraft.
...
The world’s most advanced stealth fighter jet has the capability to control drones, including the U.S. Air Force’s future fleet of Collaborative Combat Aircraft. Recently, Lockheed Martin and industry partners demonstrated end-to-end connectivity including the seamless integration of AI technologies to control a drone in flight

 

[quellish]

This technology allows a pilot to direct multiple drones to engage enemies using a touchscreen tablet in the cockpit of their 5th Gen aircraft.

Sounds awesome. How many millions did that kludge cost?

 

[dark sidius]

Owning the Skies with Integrated Air Dominance

Lockheed Martin Skunk Works is securing America’s dominance of the skies.

www.lockheedmartin.com

Have they finish the Block 4 ? before playing with drones ? Since the first flight of J-36 Lockheed communicate with air dominance publicity only with the F-35 , most beautiful, most dominant , bla-bla- bla they worried about the new administration on the futur of the F-35 ? it will be cool to have something else than the F-35 to dominate the decades to come when we see the hurry of Chinese Air Force.

 

[Ozair]

I think we can elaborate on some of these to somewhat get to the areas of advantage that a future 6G platform would enjoy over a baseline or upgraded 5G aircraft.

- All aspect and all frequency stealth (hence most potential examples/concepts remove the vertical stabilizers)

Let's assume better stealth (RF & IR) is included as part of a 6G aircraft. What does it enable such a platform to do that a 5G would struggle to do? Does it enable it to apply sensors, or effects differently? Does it allow it to employ new sensors and effects? If yes, then those will be part of the system and likely a defining feature setting it apart from previous generation designs.

- Greater electrical power generation
It could be that a dramatic power and cooling advantage over 5G aircraft enables new systems to be employed that are not feasible on these 4+ - 5+ generation platforms without serious mods or compromises.

- Adaptive engine technology (likely only defines western 6th gen)
Adaptive engine is a defining feature for USAF NGAD. Not sure if that's the case for other western or non-western 6G fighters. But for USAF, it is one of the public ones.

- AI integration across likely EW, sensors, CCA control, ??
Given the CCA effort split off from NGAD, its pretty safe to assume that some sort of autonomy core was considered for future 6G aircraft. This is more organic capability and not like what LM is trying to do with F-35 via a tablet.

- Something else not defined yet?

From a capability perspective, probably something about kinetic and non-kinetic weapon employment etc..The "E-Series" approach also highlights how the 6G fighter / NGAD is to be designed and built so that it can evolve a lot quicker than 5G platforms before it. While not a defining feature like say a sensor, shaping RCS etc, it is an important component of the program and thus consuming resources.

I certainly have no issues with any of that above. Perhaps 20 years from now we will class what arrives as 5.5 gen compared to the platforms afterwards, if there are even platforms afterwards...

 

[Ozair]

Have they finish the Block 4 ? before playing with drones ? Since the first flight of J-36 Lockheed communicate with air dominance publicity only with the F-35 , most beautiful, most dominant , bla-bla- bla they worried about the new administration on the futur of the F-35 ? it will be cool to have something else than the F-35 to dominate the decades to come when we see the hurry of Chinese Air Force.

LM is playing in both the Manned NGAD and the F/A-XX programs. I'm not sure what else they can do given both, before pause of NGAD, are meant to be close to contract award.

 

[dark sidius]

LM is playing in both the Manned NGAD and the F/A-XX programs. I'm not sure what else they can do given both, before pause of NGAD, are meant to be close to contract award.

Why don't taking the FA/XX for USAF ? they do that with the F-4 Phantom, One air dominant fighter could do the same job for both service ?

 

[Ozair]

Why don't taking the FA/XX for USAF ? they do that with the F-4 Phantom, One air dominant fighter could do the same job for both service ?

Never say never but I personally see zero interest from the USAF in the F/A-XX. F/A-XX is most certainly not a viable replacement for manned NGAD.

 

[SlothmanAllen]

I am not really sure how the USAF can look at what China is doing with their manned fighters and conclude a manned next-generation fighter is not necessary? Like, what are they even talking about?

Outside of that, just look at the state of the Air Force in general. The average airframe age for the fighter / attack aircraft is 26 years old. The whole Air Force needs to be replaced with a mix of new build F-15, F-16 and F-35. The A-10 should dropped immediately. On top of paying for a manned air superiority NGAD and massively increasing B-21 production output and fleet size. Oh, and that core fleet of manned aircraft should be replaced in less than a decade.

If you are claiming you are in a great power competition with China, yet are saying you cannot afford to develop a next generation manned aircraft and maintain a non-geriatric fleet of aircraft I think you might need to rethink your foreign policy stance and goals.

 

[bring_it_on]

Why don't taking the FA/XX for USAF ? they do that with the F-4 Phantom, One air dominant fighter could do the same job for both service ?

FA-XX is a strike fighter. NGAD Platform was designed as an F-22 replacement. You are probably looking at a different design goal and mission. If the USAF is asked to or decides to re-evaluate NGAD platform and look at alternates because they can't field a direct F-22 replacement, It may be worth looking at what the Navy. From what we know, the USAF assembled a blue ribbon committee to decide the future and that recommended pursuing the NGAD platform. There are still other considerations but scrapping a particular mission focus in favor of another can't just be done without a serious consideration.

 

[Josh_TN]

Sounds awesome. How many millions did that kludge cost?

Realistically I suspect that’s the best the U.S. can do without a new fighter, given the state of the F-35 program. I kinda question if ground control shunted through UAVs or satellites would not be more practical given the timeframes we are looking at for integrated fighter control.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Why don't taking the FA/XX for USAF ? they do that with the F-4 Phantom, One air dominant fighter could do the same job for both service ?

USN has size and weight limits for aircraft that the USAF doesn't. Assuming that NGAD is still supposed to be a 3000+nmi range monster, that's looking to be a 105+klb airframe.

The Nimitz class carriers cannot handle an aircraft weighing more than 90klbs on the catapults, and max recovery weight is on the order of 55klbs. And the Nimitz class limits matter because they're still going to be in service till at least 2050.

 

[jsport]

USN has size and weight limits for aircraft that the USAF doesn't. Assuming that NGAD is still supposed to be a 3000+nmi range monster, that's looking to be a 105+klb airframe.

The Nimitz class carriers cannot handle an aircraft weighing more than 90klbs on the catapults, and max recovery weight is on the order of 55klbs. And the Nimitz class limits matter because they're still going to be in service till at least 2050.

fiscally then an increased AF investment in B-21 (max munitions, including AAMs, DEW) and a combined USN Strike/Air Sup. NGAD/FA-XX would be realistic. Space & Munitions are going to make significant fiscal demands.

 

[Ozair]

On the F/A-XX we know what the USN wants out of the airframe,

We expect that sixth-generation platform to be able to have advanced sensors, advanced lethality, advanced range, and being able to integrate with manned and unmanned capabilities together,” said Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti. “That’s one of the things, as we learn from the Air Force and the work they’re doing, to integrate that with what we know that we need to be able to do.”

Navy Will Pick a 6th-Gen Fighter as Air Force Pauses NGAD

The Navy is moving towards awarding a contract for its next-generation, long-range fighter amid uncertainty over the Air Force's NGAD fighter.

www.airandspaceforces.com

But they also want to do it on what is appearing to be a shoestring budget. It also appears the USN is looking for an in service engine to power the aircraft and not a AETP derived engine.

According to Rear Adm. Donnelly, the new carrier-based fighter will be affordable, versatile and independent of Air Force-funded technologies such as an adaptive-cycle turbofan engine.

...

“We’re looking at more of a derivative-type engine solution,” said Donnelly. “That’s just one example where we probably are different in many ways from the Air Force. In totality, they are two unique programs from an acquisition point of view and also going forward, so we’re relatively independent of each other at this point.”

U.S. Navy to Develop F/A-XX Next-Generation Fighter Independently of Air Force NGAD

The Navy’s decision could shield the F/A-XX program from the impacts of the Air Force’s NGAD review, especially as the source selection process is

theaviationist.com

That engine is potentially then a derivative F135 or a F414/110. I cannot see the USAF interested in an aircraft that does not use an adaptive engine for a start before you add the host of other things the USN wants that the USAF likely sees as either not necessary or not good enough.

 

[dark sidius]

May be it is not a so bad idea to use a derivative of an actual engine, F-135 is soon enhanced with the ECU program it is the most powerfull engine for a fighter , a fighter with 2 F-135 engines will have realy a plenty of power.

 

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

Sounds awesome. How many millions did that kludge cost?

As much as people talk ad nauseum about SeNsOr FuSiOn, with the addition of yet another capability/responsibility, at what point does this become information overload for the pilots, (if we're not already there, of course)?

*Head of fembot explodes*

 

[Ainen]

As much as people talk ad nauseum about SeNsOr FuSiOn, with the addition of yet another capability/responsibility, at what point does this become information overload for the pilots, (if we're not already there, of course)?

The whole point of sensor fusion is to not overload the pilot.

 

[Ozair]

The whole point of sensor fusion is to not overload the pilot.

And the feedback from F-35 pilots is that they are not being saturated but able to focus on larger aspects of the battle space and not just the immediate environment, essentially allowing them to plan a couple of moves ahead instead of just the next.

 

[bring_it_on]

May be it is not a so bad idea to use a derivative of an actual engine, F-135 is soon enhanced with the ECU program it is the most powerfull engine for a fighter , a fighter with 2 F-135 engines will have realy a plenty of power.

Two F-135's on a naval FA-XX would lead to a very interesting design especially if the point is to get significantly longer strike ranges than F/A-18E/F...that's probably too big of an aircraft the Navy can afford to field in enough quantity to replace the Super Hornet which is an objective for the program.

Something build around the F414 EPE or perhaps a clean sheet engine in that class seems more feasible.

 

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

The whole point of sensor fusion is to not overload the pilot.

I know, but all of that combined with having to direct drones from a tablet sounds rather problematic, does it not?

 

[jsport]

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2465160/afrl-demonstrates-first-collaborative-weapon-technologies/

Even w/ all the fusion & AI the CCAs will need to launch their own UASs. Standoff w/ Standoff. An argument would be that four seats are necessary in order to manage all the analogue & digital issues, sets of UASs plus collaborative munitions, high offboard sensor input, maintaining local Light frequency Dominance, and local RF Dominance etc.

 

[Ozair]

I know, but all of that combined with having to direct drones from a tablet sounds rather problematic, does it not?

I don't believe the tablet is the long term solution for obvious reasons, it is just a bridge to allow the associated components to be tested. In the same press release LM also said they had tested control via the current F-35 testbed which to me indicates the plan is to integrate into the mission systems directly. This paragraph;

• F-35 CCA Connectivity Demo – The world’s most advanced stealth fighter jet has the capability to control drones, including the U.S. Air Force’s future fleet of Collaborative Combat Aircraft. Recently, Lockheed Martin and industry partners demonstrated end-to-end connectivity including the seamless integration of AI technologies to control a drone in flight utilizing the same hardware and software architectures built for future F-35 flight testing. These AI-enabled architectures allow Lockheed Martin to not only prove out piloted-drone teaming capabilities, but also incrementally improve them, bringing the U.S. Air Force’s family of systems vision to life.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-u...-the-skies-with-integrated-air-dominance.html

The way I read above is that the functionality will come with a later software blk, would assume 5.

 

[Joint Soviet Fighter]

I don't believe the tablet is the long term solution for obvious reasons, it is just a bridge to allow the associated components to be tested. In the same press release LM also said they had tested control via the current F-35 testbed which to me indicates the plan is to integrate into the mission systems directly. This paragraph;

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-u...-the-skies-with-integrated-air-dominance.html

The way I read above is that the functionality will come with a later software blk, would assume 5.

And even more bugs & glitches.

 

[Ozair]

And even more bugs & glitches.

Every aircraft has bugs and glitches and globally military aircraft are flying daily with exemptions. F-35 probably has more code than any other military airframe but the consolation is subsequent aircraft that use common mission systems will benefit from the work done.

Would the US DoD do the same again if they had the chance? Almost certainly not but the current and especially the end result is likely worth the wait.

 

[quellish]

F-35 CCA Connectivity Demo – The world’s most advanced stealth fighter jet has the capability to control drones, including the U.S. Air Force’s future fleet of Collaborative Combat Aircraft. Recently, Lockheed Martin and industry partners demonstrated end-to-end connectivity including the seamless integration of AI technologies to control a drone in flight utilizing the same hardware and software architectures built for future F-35 flight testing. These AI-enabled architectures allow Lockheed Martin to not only prove out piloted-drone teaming capabilities, but also incrementally improve them, bringing the U.S. Air Force’s family of systems vision to life.

This statement from Lockheed is a little misleading. The demo they are talking about was done on the ground, in a laboratory, using *some* F-35 hardware and software. It was a demonstration that the faux-F-35 test setup could send commands to a completely virtualized / simulated CCA using the Autonomy Government Reference Architecture. The A-GRA is an interface specification or contract. The virtual F-35 was talking to the virtual CCA. The method of communication - the data link - was unspecified. It did not exist in any form. In reality this would be the F-35 connecting to a support aircraft that acts as a router such as a KC-46, which in turn communicates with the CCA through ABMS or directly.