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

[Josh_TN]

Why would I delegate that task/power/weight to frequencies that are the quickest to attenuate?

EO/IR? Because the aircraft still needs to take off and land and be in proximity to other aircraft?

As I understand it, the current WVR experiments involve the manned aircraft providing its exact position to the AI in place of the test vipers having any sensors for that kind of tracking. Presumably some type of system is required for operating near other aircraft, friends or foe.

 

[bring_it_on]

As I understand it, the current WVR experiments involve the manned aircraft providing its exact position to the AI in place of the test vipers having any sensors for that kind of tracking. Presumably some type of system is required for operating near other aircraft, friends or foe.

EchoFlight | Echodyne

Learn about EchoFlight, Echodyne's state-of-the-art radar solution that delivers precision airspace deconfliction for uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs).

www.echodyne.com

 

[Josh_TN]

There are direct and indirect costs associated with a sophisticated 'fighter-like' mission system architecture. Think of SWaP, think of all those components that need to be maintained and kept updated and supported. Then there's the Indirect cost then comes from building an air vehicle (with sufficient space weight, power, cooling and propulsion) that can support such mission systems. So you kind have both components baked in from the very onset and leads to a spiral across development, procurement and support costs. We assume that cost on manned fighters because we value the human onboard and because we want to build the most effective systems we can..For the basic "2-AMRAAM" carrier CCA mission or even something that carries more, you are probably going to have a comms system and low cost EO/IR sensors. You really should not be looking to field anything more unless it can exist within the SwAPc constraints of this basic setup. Simplicity and cost are paramount to get to that 'affordable mass' which defines CCA (otherwise its jsut another UCAV project and we have UCAV's costing tens to hundred million dollars alreay). Everything else will be externally provided or have specializes CCA's and UCAV's tied to the sensing mission.



I have no doubt that we'll see EW payloads on CCA's. But not all CCA's. And not those that are acting as an adjunct magazine for NGAD or F-35 for example. Most of these need to be pretty basic to keep costs low and volumes high i.e. just enough capability to make the adversary honor the threat with other manned and unmanned components doing the work when it comes to helping call plays or find targets. Otherwise we will start with a program to field 2000 of these and then stop at 500 because of spiraling cost.

Not disagreeing, at least for Incr1. I still think some CM ejectors are cost effective in that scenario; they have almost no power and cooling footprint and the weight and volume is pretty minimal. But I also think that there might be a lot of potential advantages to carrying a low SWAPC ECM system as well that justify the trade offs. Something like the aforementioned Ghost Mantis or BriteStorm could leverage the fact that your CCAs are probably going to be much more numerous than your manned aircraft and you can introduce ECM from a wider variety of positions and angles. LO CCAs and VLO manned aircraft would heavily cut down on the power requirements of effective countermeasures.

Again, I think finding the sweet spot of capability vs cost will take some large scale real world testing, and I subscribe to the less is better sentiment as a default.

 

[GTX]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRWtACRt8F0

 

[Josh_TN]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRWtACRt8F0

This video, and many other commentaries, seem to assume that the CCA is the sole autonomous aircraft effort for NGAD. I personally find that hard to believe given some of the previous USAF statements and tests. My impression is that CCA is just the top of the UAV NGAD food chain and as such the more challenging, high visibility aspect of the program (perhaps some sensor/relay aircraft are similar sized but likely operate in a less challenging Mission Control profile). I still think there will be at least one level down of recoverable UAVs of a simpler and cheaper nature, as well as at least one common platform of expendables.

 

[GTX]

This video, and many other commentaries, seem to assume that the CCA is the sole autonomous aircraft effort for NGAD.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion

 

[Josh_TN]

I don't see how you come to that conclusion

It solely references the CCA effort and questions if it can achieve sufficient mass.

ETA: I think it might be worth adding a verbal caveat that CCA might not represent the whole of the unmanned NGAD platform, or necessarily even the extent of the UCAV component.

 

[bring_it_on]

It solely references the CCA effort and questions if it can achieve sufficient mass.

CCA is highlighted because the effort has successfully transitioned to something a lot larger in terms of funding and contracts. You can see the dramatic increase in funding and contracts over the last couple of years and the even steeper funding increase in the coming years. While there are most likely other unmanned efforts under NGAD, they don't appear to be at the same level in terms of commitment.

 

[_Del_]

I don't see how you come to that conclusion

Because of the separate existence of programs like OBWS, OBSS, LCAAPS, LCAATS, etc, even though those programs are all sort of inbred in the same family tree?

 

[quellish]

It solely references the CCA effort and questions if it can achieve sufficient mass.

ETA: I think it might be worth adding a verbal caveat that CCA might not represent the whole of the unmanned NGAD platform, or necessarily even the extent of the UCAV component.

"CCA" is not a single aircraft or a single platform. It's not a winner-takes-all competition or anything like that. There will be several CCA types put into service with different capabilities.

 

[_Del_]

People looking for an unmanned F-35 or NGAD will be disappointed, but that's okay. The net effect will be greater at less cost, and hopefully quicker to produce/replace.

The Air Force specifically has a poor record of finding the sweet spot and tend to push programs toward too cheap/useless or too expensive/fantastic where they are then cancelled. So some skepticism is warranted. They are primarily saying the right things at the moment, so we can be patient and see.

 

[GTX]

Seems some people missed the key message being espoused in the video above. the point was that moving to autonomous, less expensive platforms in general offers an opportunity to address quantity concerns. Interestingly, one of the key savings (the reduced need for training operations, is not even mentioned.

 

[NASA]

Might as well add a human and call it a manned fighter?

In my opinion there's tremendous advantage in keeping this as low cost as they can get. Build something that has the range, and has a useful weapons carriage capacity given your intended CONOPS. Add low cost, low SwAP passive sensors and comms and call it a day. Other manned aircraft, and larger UCAV's with more sophisticated sensors plug into the system to elevate its performance. Start thinking like a fourth or fifth generation fighter mission system architecture (active and passive sensors, defensive suite, and other SA aids) and you end up with basically an unmanned fighter which this thing is not intended to be.

The conundrum the AF could however find itself with that apporoach is that it is probably really 'expensive' to have something really 'cheap'. Expensive in terms of inventing and funding new production techniques and going all in on next generation of comms and autonomy. I think those things make or break the 'CCA' model in the long term and that's where the competition with China and others having a similar approach to air superiority and other missions, is going to be fought.

That said, we have at least one low-SwAPc EW suite being developed for CCA's from the ground up.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1871155990625747194

View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1871155990625747194

Not sure if you guys have seen it, but AFRL's YT posted a video on the Skyborg effort (about 4 years ago) and it featured something along similar lines. It had some "dedicated" platforms optimized or fitted with specific capabilities (ISR, EW, C2, OCA/DCA). I think a large part of CCA (at least one the attritable end) will be the creation of sensors/components that are optimized to be low-cost. Be it through sacrificing some performance qualities or else just mass manufacturing and commonality across multiple airframes.

The use of things like GA's gambit core (which is also featured here) also goes a long way of supporting this cost reduction goal on the airframe end.

View: https://youtu.be/XtUxfFaYAPs

 

[NASA]

There have been countless efforts in the past centered around building low cost radar arrays (some of which were multi-use for things like EW/COMMs and sensing), IR sensors, missiles, EW systems (DRFM jammers for target drones), and other such systems. I think all of the lessons learned from these efforts will probably be extremely helpful at creating a base Sensor/CNI suite for perhaps all CCA types.

Because it is my opinion that there will be a base requirement of capabilities for these platforms to survive and be useful. Which is why the US won't be using things like MQ-1s as CCAs.

 

[quellish]

Because of the separate existence of programs like OBWS, OBSS, LCAAPS, LCAATS, etc, even though those programs are all sort of inbred in the same family tree?

OBWS - Unmanned aircraft as remote weapons platform (i.e. flying magazine)
OBSS - Unmanned aircraft as remote sensor
LCAAPS - Low cost attritable aircraft platform sharing, research into whether it was feasible to create a family of unmanned systems using common core components (i.e. Gambit)
LCAATS - Designing and building unmanned aircraft faster using modeling techniques, etc. as well as operations research (i.e. how are we going to use this, logistics, etc.). Constant production line with "model years" like cars.

These (and more, like Skyborg, etc.) were researching different parts of the CCA technology development. None of them was going to result in a production aircraft.

 

[quellish]

AFRL Munitions Directorate Air Dominance technologies broad area announcement November 2024

Air to Air Missile Swarming is an interesting idea.

 

[NASA]

OBWS - Unmanned aircraft as remote weapons platform (i.e. flying magazine)
OBSS - Unmanned aircraft as remote sensor
LCAAPS - Low cost attritable aircraft platform sharing, research into whether it was feasible to create a family of unmanned systems using common core components (i.e. Gambit)
LCAATS - Designing and building unmanned aircraft faster using modeling techniques, etc. as well as operations research (i.e. how are we going to use this, logistics, etc.). Constant production line with "model years" like cars.

These (and more, like Skyborg, etc.) were researching different parts of the CCA technology development. None of them was going to result in a production aircraft.

I remember seeing this handy illustration from a CSIS report which might help others visualize in their head how these efforts have unfolded.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/department-defenses-collaborative-combat-aircraft-program-good-news-bad-news-and

 

[Josh_TN]

"CCA" is not a single aircraft or a single platform. It's not a winner-takes-all competition or anything like that. There will be several CCA types put into service with different capabilities.

No argument, but I also doubt CCA is the sole UAV component of NGAD.

 

[joshjosh]

Mr. Kendall here is your goddamn money

https://twitter.com/x/status/1877774929804034234

View: https://x.com/johnmdonnelly/status/1877774929804034234

Can you share more information on when and where and with whom this interview with the senator took place? I can't find any reporting on this elsewhere.

 

[Josh_TN]

Can you share more information on when and where and with whom this interview with the senator took place? I can't find any reporting on this elsewhere.

Probably a pointless exercise. Individual senators or House members mean nothing. The reality is that while the GOP majority can bypass the filibuster in the senate with a reconciliation bill, the actual problem will be getting every wack job GOP house member to agree to it, sans any democrat support.

That is a high bar to climb, regardless of all other political realities.

 

[dark sidius]

No argument, but I also doubt CCA is the sole UAV component of NGAD.

There is still a lack of supersonic capability with CCA , the F-35 is very good in the transonic regime or it can fly mach 1.6 with full weapon load and fuel, and any of the CCA are able to match it, if F-35 need to dash speed in supersonic the CCA will be behind the F-35 or NGAD ? Or the F-35 must awaiting the CCA ?

 

[joshjosh]

Probably a pointless exercise. Individual senators or House members mean nothing. The reality is that while the GOP majority can bypass the filibuster in the senate with a reconciliation bill, the actual problem will be getting every wack job GOP house member to agree to it, sans any democrat support.

That is a high bar to climb, regardless of all other political realities.

I don't think the Democratic senators are unanimously opposed to raising defense spending, at least if they can be assured that the additional spending will go towards strengthening our own position and that of our allies and partners, rather than towards invading our allies and partners. So I'm hopeful that we can get a bigger defense budget, although our shipbuilding needs more help than our airforce TBH.

 

[_Del_]

I remember seeing this handy illustration from a CSIS report which might help others visualize in their head how these efforts have unfolded.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/department-defenses-collaborative-combat-aircraft-program-good-news-bad-news-and

Yes, it's an incestuous family tree, as I said. But it shows that the end game isn't one do-it-all airframe. They are looking at doing all sorts of different things and optimizing platforms as much as possible. Or in the case of Gambit, making it easy to repackage around a standard core airframe.

 

[_Del_]

There is still a lack of supersonic capability with CCA , the F-35 is very good in the transonic regime or it can fly mach 1.6 with full weapon load and fuel, and any of the CCA are able to match it, if F-35 need to dash speed in supersonic the CCA will be behind the F-35 or NGAD ? Or the F-35 must awaiting the CCA ?

No-one is looking to lash the CCA to manned aircraft. It's not going to be a literal wingman hanging a quarter mile back (yet, ... certainly not at this point). Persistence and range will trump speed. The goal is to saturate platforms close so you can perform functions that enable your manned aircraft farther away. The F-35 ideally doesn't have to dash inside IAD, it can loiter farther away, or penetrate less deeply than otherwise because several CCA's are carrying sensors up close (or EW, or additional weapons, etc).

Will there eventually be unmanned aircraft capable of dashing in at supersonic speeds and performing some of those functions? Yes, at some point.

 

[Training_Dummy]

There is still a lack of supersonic capability with CCA , the F-35 is very good in the transonic regime or it can fly mach 1.6 with full weapon load and fuel, and any of the CCA are able to match it, if F-35 need to dash speed in supersonic the CCA will be behind the F-35 or NGAD ? Or the F-35 must awaiting the CCA ?

Sorry cant read if you’re being facetious or not but isn’t the -35 piggish in the transonic regime, unless you’re comparing to a Rhino?

 

[Ozair]

Sorry cant read if you’re being facetious or not but isn’t the -35 piggish in the transonic regime, unless you’re comparing to a Rhino?

-35 is very close to spec when you consider what its spec was. Per this, https://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-f-35-and-infamous-transonic_22.html#:~:text=The figure of I think,0.8 up to mach 1.2. it matches or exceeds the F-16 , which it was designed to replace along with the F-18, AV-8 and the A-10, at realistic loads and configurations. So given where it was meant to be I think it does very well when likely carrying far more fuel and comparative or more ordnance.

Outside of the above I expect it is better transonic with equivalent loads than Rafale, Gripen and almost all the Russian and Chinese jets. It likely doesn't exceed Eurofighter, F-15 and F-22 across any portions of the envelope (configuration dependant).

 

[Scott Kenny]

In my opinion there's tremendous advantage in keeping this as low cost as they can get. Build something that has the range, and has a useful weapons carriage capacity given your intended CONOPS. Add low cost, low SwAP passive sensors and comms and call it a day. Other manned aircraft, and larger UCAV's with more sophisticated sensors plug into the system to elevate its performance. Start thinking like a fourth or fifth generation fighter mission system architecture (active and passive sensors, defensive suite, and other SA aids) and you end up with basically an unmanned fighter which this thing is not intended to be.

I think the CCAs are going to end up at probably equivalent to 4th gen mission systems, probably a bit better integrated so the whole defensive systems talk to each other.

But that's likely not going to happen until after the CCAs go supersonic.

Before then, CCAs are going to be roughly equivalent to F-5s or maybe early F-16s in terms of mission systems. Day fighters, basically, but since they're using EO/IR instead of the Mk1 eyeball and maybe a gunfire ranging radar they will have some all weather capabilities.

Making the CCAs all weather capable is probably the biggest reason they're going to end up with a small AESA.

Seems some people missed the key message being espoused in the video above. the point was that moving to autonomous, less expensive platforms in general offers an opportunity to address quantity concerns. Interestingly, one of the key savings (the reduced need for training operations, is not even mentioned.

Still gotta train your ground crews, and that's where the real expensive part of the training operations comes from. Not fuel and pilot salary.

There is still a lack of supersonic capability with CCA , the F-35 is very good in the transonic regime or it can fly mach 1.6 with full weapon load and fuel, and any of the CCA are able to match it, if F-35 need to dash speed in supersonic the CCA will be behind the F-35 or NGAD ? Or the F-35 must awaiting the CCA ?

I don't expect CCAs to be F-35 or NGAD speed supercruisers till probably 4th or 5th Increment. There's just no engines to give them in the 10-20klbs thrust levels. F404 or F414 are not really good for supercruise, and those are the biggest engines I expect CCAs to use.


At some point, the CCAs will end up being supersonic dogfighters, on par with early/light F-16s or even the old Rockwell HiMAT.

 

[Training_Dummy]

-35 is very close to spec when you consider what its spec was. Per this, https://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-f-35-and-infamous-transonic_22.html#:~:text=The figure of I think,0.8 up to mach 1.2. it matches or exceeds the F-16 , which it was designed to replace along with the F-18, AV-8 and the A-10, at realistic loads and configurations. So given where it was meant to be I think it does very well when likely carrying far more fuel and comparative or more ordnance.

Outside of the above I expect it is better transonic with equivalent loads than Rafale, Gripen and almost all the Russian and Chinese jets. It likely doesn't exceed Eurofighter, F-15 and F-22 across any portions of the envelope (configuration dependant).

Thank you for the references - I’ll take a look. The transonic performance of the F-35C must be overrepresented in my memory and distorting things.

 

[dark sidius]

Thank you for the references - I’ll take a look. The transonic performance of the F-35C must be overrepresented in my memory and distorting things

Sorry cant read if you’re being facetious or not but isn’t the -35 piggish in the transonic regime, unless you’re comparing to a Rhino?

Sorry cant read if you’re being facetious or not but isn’t the -35 piggish in the transonic regime, unless you’re comparing to a Rhino?

Ozair answer your question, not facetious, F-35 is very good in the mach 0.8/1.2 speed range far more better than the other fighters.

 

[bring_it_on]

Here's the graphic.

I think the CCAs are going to end up at probably equivalent to 4th gen mission systems, probably a bit better integrated so the whole defensive systems talk to each other.

I did not mean 'mission system' quality. I meant architectures in that we probably would not see RF, IR and EW, and survivability systems integrated on a single platform like you would on a fighter. There's no need for that to achieve objectives and disaggregating these sensors actually makes more sense both to how CCA's will be effective as a group, and to the manned platform they are buddied with.

Individually, we will see each of these classes of sensors on these crafts and their technology level will be current and a generational improvement over what 4G fighters had. We see EO/IR, RF and EW products coming to market targeting CCA and CCA like applications. Raytheon's PhantomStrike AESA has started production and is targeting a 2026 first delivery. They've built it in two form factors - a smaller array for CCA's, RW and other similarly SWaPC constrained applications, and a medium array for attack aircraft and light fighters. The smaller variant weighs under 100 lbs.

But with all that you are pushing the cost further to the right and towards that $20+ Million range that Frank Kendall mentioned vs the sub $10 Million which seemed to have been the original intent. At some point, you run the risk of gold plating it to death.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TupHm9yDvIA

 

[GTX]

Still gotta train your ground crews, and that's where the real expensive part of the training operations comes from. Not fuel and pilot salary.

I wasn't just talking fuel/pilots salaries. I was including maintenance. Remember that no onboard crew means no need to physically fly to train (all operator training can be done on simulators - even less so for autonomous systems) which results in less things braking and thus even less MRO requirements. MRO training can also be done on maintenance simulators. also, if one designs the platform right and takes the view of it essentially being a reusable cruise missile style thing then the maintenance requirement can be even less.

 

[elmer]

NGAD: The 6th Generation Fighter Jet the U.S. Air Force Can't Do Without

The U.S. Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program seeks a sixth-generation stealth aircraft to succeed the F-22 Raptor. Originally projected at up to $300 million each, Secretary Frank Kendall has since hinted the final unit cost could be closer to the F-35.

www.19fortyfive.com

 

[bring_it_on]

I wasn't just talking fuel/pilots salaries. I was including maintenance. Remember that no onboard crew means no need to physically fly to train (all operator training can be done on simulators - even less so for autonomous systems) which results in less things braking and thus even less MRO requirements. MRO training can also be done on maintenance simulators. also, if one designs the platform right and takes the view of it essentially being a re0usable crime missile style thing then the maintenance requirement can be even less.

The beauty of the CCA concept, if we can get it to work, is that you can build more than you can sustain and maintain stockpiles. Something like an active CCA force of around 1,200 - 1,500 that you build the logistical support for. You then build attrition reserves and store like you would with weapons. The latter don't need forward deployed resources..additional ground crews, depot capacity etc etc. essentially the bare minimum in support (mostly in CONUS) which can be farmed out to industry.

Something like:

A. 1.2 - 1.5K active CCA's with a CPTPY of $500K each (About $600- $700 MM a year in O&S costs)
B. 500 reserve CCA's with 1/5th the CPTPY of active fleet ($50 MM a year in O&S)

You can get even more aggressive than this and maintain greater stockpile of reserves and field a lot of capability affordably. Like flipping A and B. You can compete a performance based resreve inventory management / logistical contract to get costs even lower.

 

[GTX]

A. 1.2 - 1.5K active CCA's with a CPTPY of $500K each (About $600- $700 MM a year in O&S costs)

No one is going to have a $500K CCA.

 

[bring_it_on]

No one is going to have a $500K CCA.

Its Cost per tail per year (CPTPY) sustainment cost, not the acquisition cost.

 

[GTX]

Its Cost per tail per year (CPTPY) sustainment cost, not the acquisition cost.

Doh!! Missed that qualifier

 

[bring_it_on]

Doh!! Missed that qualifier

No worries. $500K CPTPY is still agressive given that its not merely flying but also the cost associated with maintaining an ability to operate (forward). But if you can achieve these you are looking at a sub $1 Billion annual O&S bill for a sizable combat capability (1.5. - 2K CCA's). That's less than 2% of USAF's current O&S budget. That's why I think simplicity in design, is still important for CCA's. If these get more sophisticated with loads of mission systems they will get expensive pretty fast. In fact, recent wargaming (reporting) suggests that the AF would be better off with more numerous simpler CCA's than fewer of the more sophisticated ones.

 

[NMaude]

a re0usable crime missile style thing

Reusable crime missile style thing?

 

[quellish]

Reusable crime missile style thing?

You keep it in a warehouse until you need it.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I did not mean 'mission system' quality. I meant architectures in that we probably would not see RF, IR and EW, and survivability systems integrated on a single platform like you would on a fighter. There's no need for that to achieve objectives and disaggregating these sensors actually makes more sense both to how CCA's will be effective as a group, and to the manned platform they are buddied with.

And I disagree with that to some extent. I think they're still going to have most of the survivability systems loaded in.

They'll probably have an AESA because that's also the main jammer antenna in the forward arc. Plus other antennas in other directions.

You want the plane to fly like it's manned and start jinking when locked onto, for example, so it needs MAWS and RWRs. Maybe not DIRCM, but you're going to want chaff and flares and the standard towed decoy.

Plus, if I understand the F-35 DAS correctly, it is also the major part of the MAWS.

CCA needs some 360x360 EOIR system to see and avoid other aircraft anyways, might as well fit DAS and use it for the MAWS.


=================

I wasn't just talking fuel/pilots salaries. I was including maintenance. Remember that no onboard crew means no need to physically fly to train (all operator training can be done on simulators - even less so for autonomous systems) which results in less things braking and thus even less MRO requirements. MRO training can also be done on maintenance simulators. also, if one designs the platform right and takes the view of it essentially being a re0usable crime missile style thing then the maintenance requirement can be even less.

Any mission that has those CCAs flying means you still have the full maintenance needed.

And I suspect that there's going to be a lot of "CCAs flying" training to get the pilots used to wrangling CCAs while dodging missiles themselves.