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

[Sundog]

Dug this up. No idea what the formulas and technojargons mean honestly.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1675525149393559556

View: https://x.com/drchriscombs/status/1675525149393559556?s=46

If anyone thinks that's a Mach 6 platform, they're wrong. There are other reasons for the wing sweep. It reminds me of when the USAF first showed pics of the F-117 to intel people from a spysat perspective and due to the faceting and wing sweep they all thought it was a hypersonic aircraft. Rightly so, because a hypersonic aircraft would have those features, but they must have concealed it's size, as it was much too small to be a hypersonic vehicle.

 

[Tomboy]

Dug this up. No idea what the formulas and technojargons mean honestly.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1675525149393559556

View: https://x.com/drchriscombs/status/1675525149393559556?s=46

θ-β-M relationship basically is the formula describing the relation between oblique shock angle, flow deflection angle and mach number. It could be used to do a very rough estimate of an airframe's top airspeed since generally as the post said you do not want the leading edge of the shockwave to interfere with the wings and control surfaces so you could find the angle between the nose and the edge of the wings to calculate how fast the plane needs to be going so the leading edge of the shockwave formed at the nose start interfering with the wings. But imo it is a very rough way of estimating top speed and there's a few specially designed aircraft that could operate beyond these restrictions so I personally wouldn't take it as solid facts.

 

[dark sidius]

If anyone thinks that's a Mach 6 platform, they're wrong. There are other reasons for the wing sweep. It reminds me of when the USAF first showed pics of the F-117 to intel people from a spysat perspective and due to the faceting and wing sweep they all thought it was a hypersonic aircraft. Rightly so, because a hypersonic aircraft would have those features, but they must have concealed it's size, as it was much too small to be a hypersonic vehicle.

Mach 2.5 is a pretty good speed.

 

[dark sidius]

After the first drawing of NGAD we saw a secpnd appear , some sort of light NGAD , may be the second will be the affordable one.

 

[Tomboy]

After the first drawing of NGAD we saw a secpnd appear , some sort of light NGAD , may be the second will be the affordable one.
View attachment 755139

Are they still going with their "Digital century" series thing? or did they ditch it for something more conventional ie. a single manned NGAD design+CCAs

 

[dark sidius]

Are they still going with their "Digital century" series thing? or did they ditch it for something more conventional ie. a single manned NGAD design+CCAs

We absolutly don't know what the NGAD look like , we can just speculate with the few informations we have...

 

[joshjosh]

Kendall: Reveal of New Chinese Aircraft Hasn’t Changed USAF Plans

Secretive new Chinese stealth aircraft are already accounted for in the Air Force's NGAD plans, Secretary Frank Kendall said.

www.airandspaceforces.com

Asked what recommendation his blue-ribbon panel of stealth experts—including analysts, former Chiefs of Staff, and senior generals—came up with regarding NGAD, Kendall said they reached “a consensus that there are a number of other things that we need to fund” but if resources are available, “then it would still be beneficial to have an NGAD-like aircraft.”

Kendall could not go into detail because of classification, but said several alternatives were considered.

“We looked at something that’s more of a lower-cost, multi-role kind of a capability. We looked at something that’s more tailored to work with [Collaborative Combat Aircraft], although, of course, NGAD could do that. And we looked at some other ’out of the box’” ideas, he said, adding that “some of them might be worth pursuing independently.”

I haven't heard this said explicitly before. The consensus is that PCA is not the highest priority to fund. I assume "other things" refers to CCAs, NGAS, maybe NGAP, and potentially could be expanded to include entirely separate programs like Sentinel.

 

[Josh_TN]

Well at this point, funding and focus are likely in flux until incoming administration officials make choices. There probably was a well defined plan, and some here have outlined it, but the program is an open question now.

 

[quellish]

Kendall: Reveal of New Chinese Aircraft Hasn’t Changed USAF Plans

Secretive new Chinese stealth aircraft are already accounted for in the Air Force's NGAD plans, Secretary Frank Kendall said.

www.airandspaceforces.com

I haven't heard this said explicitly before. The consensus is that PCA is not the highest priority to fund. I assume "other things" refers to CCAs, NGAS, maybe NGAP, and potentially could be expanded to include entirely separate programs like Sentinel.

NGAS (tanker) and NGAP (engine) are tied to manned NGAD. Sentinel is taking a lot of funding. CCA is not yet.

 

[dark sidius]

NGAS (tanker) and NGAP (engine) are tied to manned NGAD. Sentinel is taking a lot of funding. CCA is not yet.

Sentinel is very not a priority it have zero need in a battle, nuclear weapons are a waste of money , Bomber and submarines are enough for launching nuclear weapon. This is not a sentinel missile who will stop the Chinese expansion, this end of the world weapons have realy no utility, insteed if we want a collective suicide. They are speaking a lot of Space weapons it seem to be a hurry now for this kind.
This is interesting :
"“What motivated us to take another look [at NGAD] was the affordability” Kendall said, noting that there were other missions to which the service wanted devote added resources such as “more aggressive counter-space capabilities, airbase protection, particularly our forward air bases.” Is there a hurry to fight in Space a new priority ?
"former Chiefs of Staff, and senior generals—came up with regarding NGAD, Kendall said they reached “a consensus that there are a number of other things that we need to fund”
What is more important to fund than a new fighter ?
And the last interesting too:
"And we looked at some other ’out of the box’” ideas, he said, adding that “some of them might be worth pursuing independently.”

 

[Hydroman]

Well at this point, funding and focus are likely in flux until incoming administration officials make choices. There probably was a well defined plan, and some here have outlined it, but the program is an open question now.

Maybe we can get our 6th gens cheaper and in larger quantities by copying China? Or could be available on Amazon for FY2026 for outright purchase and 2-day delivery, Amazon Prime.

 

[raptor82]

Kendall: CCA Increment 2 Shouldn’t Be ‘Exquisite,’ But Better than Increment 1

Increment 2 of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) should have more capability but not be "exquisite," Secretary Frank Kendall said.

www.airandspaceforces.com

Analyses and wargames indicate the second increment of the Collaborative Combat Aircraft program should not be an “exquisite” aircraft—meaning very stealthy and equipped with many sensors and weapons—but it should have more capability than Increment 1, and an additional cost of 20-30 percent would be acceptable, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told Air & Space Forces Magazine this week.

 

[aim9xray]

My Little Pony. KC-46

YMMV.

 

[dark sidius]

Kendall: CCA Increment 2 Shouldn’t Be ‘Exquisite,’ But Better than Increment 1

Increment 2 of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) should have more capability but not be "exquisite," Secretary Frank Kendall said.

www.airandspaceforces.com

It will be better signing for the NGAD fighter insteed to be proud for signature, CCA1 . I realy don"t understand this change with no stealth CCA, when China are building a big fleet of high performance aircraft and UCAV. I hope in the CCA2 we will see the coming of Kratos with their new Thanatos who look more serious to high end threat.

 

[FighterJock]

Surprised at that point about not having a stealthy CCA myself dark sidius, will that come with CCA2 though? We will just have to wait and see what happens next.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think 1) stealth is relative, and the Incr1 CCAs might well be low enough in signature to get into a firing position and 2) there are other aspects of NGAD that we probably are not seeing. The complete system of systems was to be comprised of several different UAV types of different sizes/costs - CCA appears to be the top tier UAV, and possibly the only armed platform, but there might be more numerous and more expendable UAV platforms that operate solely as sensor/ECM nodes. There also might be MALD like expendables associated with the program, with the major difference being’NGAD MALD’ (for lack of a better word) is under constant control of a larger swarming/Mission Control agent rather than a vehicle with pre programmed route or even waypoint updates. The goal would be to blur the line between all of these platforms and conceal which ones were actually armed UCAVs, thereby making engagement dependent on non radar related sensors or else forcing prohibitively large AAM expenditures against low value targets. This strategy would not require VLO CCAs.

ETA: as an example, it would probably be quite easy for either Incr 1 platform to carry a pair of MALDs on ejectable wing pylons while retaining a pair of conformal/internal AAMs. XQ-58 already has a similar payload mass (600 lb internal/600 lb wings). It also would be easy for the CCAs to have a MALD like blip enhancement capability such that everything might likely look the same to most types/frequencies of airborne radar. We have also seen an air launched UTAP-22 mounted on an F-15 with what appears to a FLIR/IRST and missile detection/avoidance sensors.

 

[_Del_]

The Pentagon is still plagued by shiny new toy syndrome. By the time they are ready to actually make a decision on increment two, they'll say let's wait for increment three which will be even neater.
Anything other than buying actual hardware that exists. Let's divest all of our actual weapons so we can keep seeding more vaporware so I can get a cushy job on a corporate board or a lobbyist when I retire.

 

[bring_it_on]

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).

Roughly 1,500 nmi with a 'supercruise' requirement would put the NGAD platform at something like 2x the performance of the F-22A when equipped with 2 x 600-gallon tanks. Even with more efficient adaptive engines, you are probably looking at an internal fuel load that's +>50% vs F-22A..perhaps closer to 30,000 lbs?..perhaps something like 50+% more fuel for 100% more range...

 

[FlyGuy369]

Roughly 1,500 nmi with a 'supercruise' requirement would put the NGAD platform at something like 2x the performance of the F-22A when equipped with 2 x 600-gallon tanks. Even with more efficient adaptive engines, you are probably looking at an internal fuel load that's +>50% vs F-22A..perhaps closer to 30,000 lbs?

Since we are talking range extension, what's your take on VLO conformation fuel tanks coming into the mix for our current fleet of stealth birds? I know there's much in the works for birds like the raptor with drop tank studies. But I wonder if there will be a CFT program in response to potential action in the Pacific Theater. Will PCA or F/A-XX (carrier-borne I know) be able to carry what they need to get it done, or are we going Strike Eagle on this.

 

[bring_it_on]

It will be better signing for the NGAD fighter insteed to be proud for signature, CCA1

You'd be lucky if the Inc 1 RDT&E effort for CCA funds 1/10th of NGAD development. CCA's get expensive to develop later in the FYDP but one would assume that a lot of the RDT&E around autonomy and buying test and development assets for increment 2.

 

[Moose]

Since we are talking range extension, what's your take on VLO conformation fuel tanks coming into the mix for our current fleet of stealth birds? I know there's much in the works for birds like the raptor with drop tank studies. But I wonder if there will be a CFT program in response to potential action in the Pacific Theater. Will PCA or F/A-XX (carrier-borne I know) be able to carry what they need to get it done, or are we going Strike Eagle on this.

Conformal tanks on current, as in 5th gen, is very unlikely. 6th gen would be a possiblity if they are designed for such an option from the jump, but I doubt it. We're more likely to simply see much greater fuel fraction in the base design.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Since we are talking range extension, what's your take on VLO conformation fuel tanks coming into the mix for our current fleet of stealth birds? I know there's much in the works for birds like the raptor with drop tank studies. But I wonder if there will be a CFT program in response to potential action in the Pacific Theater. Will PCA or F/A-XX (carrier-borne I know) be able to carry what they need to get it done, or are we going Strike Eagle on this.

Maybe some collab work with the Israeli for small CFTs on the F-35s, unless we reactivate the wing tanks. Raptor has the LDTP which is probably enough for CONUS and Japan air defense, and they won't be performing bomber escort anytime soon.

I doubt that PCA will have CFTs right off the bat. More likely - NGAS, MQ-25 and high fuel fraction design.

 

[Josh_TN]

The Pentagon is still plagued by shiny new toy syndrome. By the time they are ready to actually make a decision on increment two, they'll say let's wait for increment three which will be even neater.
Anything other than buying actual hardware that exists. Let's divest all of our actual weapons so we can keep seeding more vaporware so I can get a cushy job on a corporate board or a lobbyist when I retire.

Everything to date indicates this is not the route CCAs are going. While Oncr 2 requirements may not have been decided, there does not appear to be any delay in the program, and Incr1 seems to be proceeding at its anticipated schedule. Barring some kind of direct action on the part of the incoming administration I think the USAF is on course to introduce a new increment every 2-3 years.

 

[Josh_TN]

I wanted to circle back to something we discussed a page or two ago regarding mission management /swarming software agents - some had mentioned trying to run something like this on CCA would make it prohibitively expensive; others like myself believe it is a manageable cost. But it occurs to me there is no reason to duplicate this functionality into every armed CCA, and indeed it would probably better served living in a high altitude VLO platform dedicated to communication relay and processing. It could serve as a gateway to various control platforms, from manned aircraft to ships to ground stations to satellite networks, and could provide mission level automation for a force of CCAs and other NGAD UAVs. The “Gambit” series of GA UAVs that XQ-67 seems to be based on already has a hypothetical platform that might fill that role.

 

[Josh_TN]

Roughly 1,500 nmi with a 'supercruise' requirement would put the NGAD platform at something like 2x the performance of the F-22A when equipped with 2 x 600-gallon tanks. Even with more efficient adaptive engines, you are probably looking at an internal fuel load that's +>50% vs F-22A..perhaps closer to 30,000 lbs?..perhaps something like 50+% more fuel for 100% more range...

There is probably a lot to be gained by modest range extensions even if NGAD is still tanker dependent from the second island chain. Presumably you will need an intact runway to launch from anyway.

 

[bring_it_on]

I wanted to circle back to something we discussed a page or two ago regarding mission management /swarming software agents - some had mentioned trying to run something like this on CCA would make it prohibitively expensive; others like myself believe it is a manageable cost. But it occurs to me there is no reason to duplicate this functionality into every armed CCA, and indeed it would probably better served living in a high altitude VLO platform dedicated to communication relay and processing. It could serve as a gateway to various control platforms, from manned aircraft to ships to ground stations to satellite networks, and could provide mission level automation for a force of CCAs and other NGAD UAVs. The “Gambit” series of GA UAVs that XQ-67 seems to be based on already has a hypothetical platform that might fill that role.

Heterogeneity is probably going to be a feature in the CCA family. Whether that's within each increment, or across increments remains to be seen. I think it will be the former since that's where you get the biggest impact on performance and cost.

 

[bring_it_on]

There is probably a lot to be gained by modest range extensions even if NGAD is still tanker dependent from the second island chain. Presumably you will need an intact runway to launch from anyway.

Double the range is not marginal. Or did you mean marginally more than even 2x? I'm looking at the cost which has been described to be something like $300 MM a pop by Frank Kendall. depending on what dollar years that is you are somewhere between 30 and 50% above the unit cost of the F-22A in current year dollars which is a constraint that will likely define size / weight and other features..

 

[dark sidius]

Double the range is not marginal. Or did you mean marginally more than even 2x? I'm looking at the cost which has been described to be something like $300 MM a pop by Frank Kendall. depending on what dollar years that is you are somewhere between 30 and 50% above the unit cost of the F-22A in current year dollars which is a constraint that will likely define size / weight and other features..

I think that a single variable cycle engine and a high aerodynamic design for the NGAD in a size a little more than a F-35 could match the need for long distance fight, for a not too much cost by plane , like the last Loockheed design we saw .

 

[Sevrent]

I think that a single variable cycle engine and a high aerodynamic design for the NGAD in a size a little more than a F-35 could match the need for long distance fight, for a not too much cost by plane , like the last Loockheed design we saw .

Will they be able to get the power generation, sensors and avionics they need to fit in a much smaller airframe like that? USAF has been studying power generation in the MW class and I dont think thats possible in something F-35 sized.

 

[FighterJock]

I liked the look of that last lockheed design dark sidius, I wonder if they are going to modify it beyond what we saw though? It would not surprise me if they did.

 

[quellish]

Double the range is not marginal. Or did you mean marginally more than even 2x? I'm looking at the cost which has been described to be something like $300 MM a pop by Frank Kendall. depending on what dollar years that is you are somewhere between 30 and 50% above the unit cost of the F-22A in current year dollars which is a constraint that will likely define size / weight and other features..

To put things in perspective:

HEARING ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION FULL COMMITTEE HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET REQUEST HEARING HELD APRIL 27, 2023

Secretary KENDALL

We also have a very serious challenge on the basis of affordability. The aircraft that we currently have in production, both the EX and the F–35, are costing on the order of $85 million to $100 million apiece. The NGAD platform, the Next Generation Air Dominance manned platform, is going to cost multiple times those numbers.

And in other places the Air Force has indicated it wants the NGAD price to be closer to those (F-35, etc.)

But the F-35 and F-15 have the advantage of much larger production runs, which drives down the unit cost. If the F-35 had been produced in the quantities being discussed for NGAD the unit price would have been much, much larger.

NGAD would deliver new, expensive to develop capabilities in a much smaller production buy. Of course the unit cost is going to be much higher. The development cost for the engine alone will drive the aircraft unit cost up considerably.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

If anyone thinks that's a Mach 6 platform, they're wrong. There are other reasons for the wing sweep. It reminds me of when the USAF first showed pics of the F-117 to intel people from a spysat perspective and due to the faceting and wing sweep they all thought it was a hypersonic aircraft. Rightly so, because a hypersonic aircraft would have those features, but they must have concealed it's size, as it was much too small to be a hypersonic vehicle.

Not to mention, there are different theta-beta-M tables and charts for 2D ramp flow, conical flow, and those aren't interchangeable. And of course it changes again when you're dealing with a non-axisymmetric shape of a radome with chines.

This is why these visual analyses both here and on X/Twitter using nose radome angles are frankly not helpful.

 

[bring_it_on]

But the F-35 and F-15 have the advantage of much larger production runs, which drives down the unit cost. If the F-35 had been produced in the quantities being discussed for NGAD the unit price would have been much, much larger.

NGAD would deliver new, expensive to develop capabilities in a much smaller production buy. Of course the unit cost is going to be much higher. The development cost for the engine alone will drive the aircraft unit cost up considerably.

Right. Which is why I compared it to the F-22A which had a small production run as well. F-22A had a fly-away cost of around $130 Million in FY07. That would be roughly $215 Million in 2020 dollars or $260 Million in 2024 dollars. A $300 Million NGAD is going to be around 40% more expensive than the FY20 cost though who knows what dollar year Kendall may have been using.

 

[Josh_TN]

Heterogeneity is probably going to be a feature in the CCA family. Whether that's within each increment, or across increments remains to be seen. I think it will be the former since that's where you get the biggest impact on performance and cost.

I would think more the latter, unless the payloads are truly swapable (MQ-28 seems to have a large nose mounted payload section). But so far Incr1 CCA seems to be the armed flavor of UAVs for NGAD, and the outsized length of AAMs on such a small aircraft probably limit payload flexibility. I suspect other programs cover different NGAD capabilities - for instance the XQ-67A for OBSS. That would not mean those non combat platforms were necessarily unrelated to the CCAs, again with OBSS being a good example. But the CCAs seem to be the A2A platforms. Perhaps we will see more variation in later increments.

 

[Josh_TN]

Double the range is not marginal. Or did you mean marginally more than even 2x? I'm looking at the cost which has been described to be something like $300 MM a pop by Frank Kendall. depending on what dollar years that is you are somewhere between 30 and 50% above the unit cost of the F-22A in current year dollars which is a constraint that will likely define size / weight and other features..

I just meant even if a 1500 mi combat radius was unachievable for reasonable weight and financial costs, extending to say 1000-1200 mi would still have merit. Also I think the distance from Guam to the center of Taiwan is more like 1700 anyway; I do not think tanker independent operations from the 2nd chain will be practical.

 

[bring_it_on]

I think a 2x increase over F-22A with tanks is not completely off the books but is not easy either assuming a 30-40% cost increase over inflation adjusted F-22 fly away cost. ACE is something like 38% increase in sub/super range for NGAD over prior gen engines so the aircraft would most certainly have to carry somewhere around 30K lbs of fuel which would be around 30-40% more vs what the YF22 and 23 carried IIRC. It becomes more complicated if you expect it to get there without using those low-drag tanks that the F-22's are testing.

 

[bring_it_on]

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.

So I was able to dig it up (in this very thread a hundred or so pages back)..

Brown brushed that notion aside, however, saying the Next Generation Air Dominance family of systems, intended to operate inside an enemy integrated air defense system (IADS), will have “the range to go where it needs to go” and that an escort tanker is probably not needed. Brown specifically said, “I wouldn’t call [KC-Z] an escort tanker.”

Brown: KC-Y and KC-Z Likely Traditional Tankers; NGAD Has the Range 'to Go Where it Needs to Go' | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Air Force probably won’t pursue some exotic approach for the KC-Y and KC-Z tranches of the service's plan to modernize its tankers.

www.airandspaceforces.com

Now it could be that Gen Brown was rolling in "NGAS" into NGAD Family of Systems and thus drawing the distinction between NGAS and KC-Z etc. but it could also mean that they were at the time planning for a much larger, longer ranged aircraft. This was a full year before they dropped the RFP for NGAD IIRC.

 

[dark sidius]

I would think more the latter, unless the payloads are truly swapable (MQ-28 seems to have a large nose mounted payload section). But so far Incr1 CCA seems to be the armed flavor of UAVs for NGAD, and the outsized length of AAMs on such a small aircraft probably limit payload flexibility. I suspect other programs cover different NGAD capabilities - for instance the XQ-67A for OBSS. That would not mean those non combat platforms were necessarily unrelated to the CCAs, again with OBSS being a good example. But the CCAs seem to be the A2A platforms. Perhaps we will see more variation in later increments.

For instance there is no A/A unmanned fighter in the CCA1, both of Anduril and GA have poor kinematics capacity, and not realy stealth to face of 5 th or 6th gen fighter.

 

[Forest Green]

Kendall: CCA Increment 2 Shouldn’t Be ‘Exquisite,’ But Better than Increment 1

Increment 2 of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) should have more capability but not be "exquisite," Secretary Frank Kendall said.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[Josh_TN]

For instance there is no A/A unmanned fighter in the CCA1, both of Anduril and GA have poor kinematics capacity, and not realy stealth to face of 5 th or 6th gen fighter.

They both might well have sufficient kinetic performance and signature reduction to get within BVR range. And even if they do not, I have outlined an alternative strategy when employed with other lower value platforms.