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

[dark sidius]

The concepts of operations, and ultimately the performance attributes and requirements for CCA's will be very different from traditional manned fighter jets. The CCA's will never be required to defeat in 1 v 1 combat, a $100+ Million Chinese stealth fighter. These serve a very specific role and mission. They need to capable enough to be credible and a value add and simple enough to be cheap and allow for mass. The sort of CCA vs CCA conflict is going to happen years down the road once autonomy is developed and advanced enough to field full-fledged unmanned fighters. Until then it will be about play calling and using the adjunct sensors and magazines to accomplish missions which would otherwise be very hard or very expensive (or both) if done using $200 Million plus next gen fighters. The first few increments of CCA's will probably not be fast, nor very stealthy..they will need to carry a reasonable sensor and/or weapon load and have the computing and autonomy to add value as sensor and/or magazine extenders for NGAD PCA, F-35's etc.

I agree with you , but we have a lack of time with China they running very fast , CCA-1 will flight in what ? 5 years in squadron ? CC-2 will be in 10 years ? at this time China will surely have plenty of 5th gen and 6th gen squadron in PLAAF , I understand the concept but for me me the timing is not good, we are losing a lot of time with NGAD , losing a lot of time with F-35 and in the same time China are building more and more advanced capacity , and I m afraid that China could built a hypersonic striker soon in a ultimate capacity. I don't understand why we are losing so long time to develop advanced programs.We can't win a power like China with a discount Air Force. We are February and still no decision on how to build the NGAD we have lost 6 months since July in the same time we saw 2 Chinese demonstrator flying in public and one over a higway , who say it is more advanced than we think.

 

[bring_it_on]

but we have a lack of time with China they running very fast , CCA-1 will flight in what ? 5 years in squadron ?

I don't know how you are backing into these timelines. CCA Inc 1 will fly this year. I think how the two vendors perform, and how the mission autonomy suits, being developed for these, evolve will determine how quickly we can field force structure. As it is, NGAD isn't even expected till 2030s and the idea that you'll be able to deploy CCA's in bulk with F-35's and F-15EX's in the next few years is dodgy if not extremely unproven at scale. So, I don't expect CCA's to be a 'real' credible capability until well into the 2030s. But once they do, the individual Increments should be absorbed into the mix pretty easily as these are role and capability variations and not technology or generational leaps in capability.

 

[dark sidius]

I don't know how you are backing into these timelines. CCA Inc 1 will fly this year. I think how the two vendors perform, and how the mission autonomy suits, being developed for these, evolve will determine how quickly we can field force structure. As it is, NGAD isn't even expected till 2030s and the idea that you'll be able to deploy CCA's in bulk with F-35's and F-15EX's in the next few years is dodgy if not extremely unproven at scale. So, I don't expect CCA's to be a 'real' credible capability until well into the 2030s. But once they do, the individual Increments should be absorbed into the mix pretty easily as these are role and capability variations and not technology or generational leaps in capability.

We must choose NGAD this year to be in the 2030 timing. CCA-1 this year ok , but realy in squadron ? surely more years.

 

[bring_it_on]

We must choose NGAD this year to be in the 2030 timing. CCA-1 this year ok , but realy in squadron ? surely more years.

My point was that it is too early to tell. How quickly CCA's can be fielded depends on what the maturity on the autonomy side of the program is, and what plans are being funded to allow existing fighters to control them and how mature these plans are. We know very little on who is developing the autonomy side of the CCA program and what sort of timelines we are working with. So if the assumption is that CCA's race into the inventory ahead of NGAD then we need to learn a quite a bit more on those two issues. If CCA induction in numbers is aligned with NGAD induction then we can expect early to mid 2030s when NGAD platform is likely to become operational realistically so CCA's will stay mostly experimental and/or low production volume efforts for the next 6-8 years under such a scenario (that won't stop the program evolving and going through multiple increments of the capability).

 

[_Del_]

Yes agree that there will definitely be a sensor mix as you and others have said. Correspondingly though there is value in volume production. RTX making 1000 radars at a rapid rate, instead of 400 slow, could reduce the average unit price by as much as 40% (based on typical 10-15% reduction in cost for doubling production). That would also allow the US to stockpile these for future buys and for situations where the CCA fleet has to grow quickly. Bending the metal to make the airframe is cheap and relatively quick but the higher tech parts have longer lead times.

Rate of production is a huge issue, but it is too easy to distract some decision-makers with fancy power points showing how much cooler a $60m CCA that will take forever to develop and produce would be, rather than these "disposable cheap CCA's that can't do all these things".
The big primes have lots of money to make power points to lobby congresscritters and promise jobs to generals advocating the "next whizbang do everything drone" which will be a two-decade gravy train for the giant.

 

[bring_it_on]

I don't that sensor production is any serious limitation when it comes to rate of production. Both Raytheon and Northrop Grumman have each delivered over a 1,000 airborne AESA radars to date and we consistently produce 200 or more each year. Adding capacity will not be hard or very expensive.

 

[_Del_]

Adding capacity will not be hard or very expensive.

Disagree with this part, but I agree that with a proper production run, you can drive the costs strongly in the right direction for sensors. As Ozair notes, securing long lead items in quantity is half the battle. The smaller the subs making components are, the harder it is to ramp up production without a large commitment.

 

[bring_it_on]

Disagree with this part, but I agree that with a proper production run, you can drive the costs strongly in the right direction for sensors. As Ozair notes, securing long lead items in quantity is half the battle. The smaller the subs making components are, the harder it is to ramp up production without a large commitment.

It really isn't for the type of sensors we are talking about here (leveraging commercial components and other in-production or about to enter in production products). You want a 100-200 such radars a year..RTX should be able to ramp up and deliver. You want more, you have two OEM's working to supply it instead of just one. There are no requirements to produce CCA's at that scale in the near term so that buys you the 3-5 year ramp to establish the production program for mission systems.

 

[_Del_]

It really isn't for the type of sensors we are talking about here

Systems integration is now the cost/time, not the hardware. The reason the F-35 is taking forever to get to block 4 is not hardware. The more stuff you pack in, the more stuff you have to make code for. We are hopefully moving into open architecture that makes that easier, but nothing rides free.

 

[bring_it_on]

Systems integration is now the cost/time, not the hardware.

We were literally talking about volume production of HW components. System integration is a time not a scale issue. Once the radar is integrated onto CCA Increment 1, it doesn't matter from a systems integration perspective whether that's on 20 CCA's, or 2000 CCA's.

 

[quellish]

a $60m CCA

Where does that $60m number come from?

From 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

So, taking that as the case, taking that as the case that we are going to retire those 801 aircraft, and we are going to look at F–35As and F–15EXs, to me, there ought to be in the Air Force’s plan as part of that a bridge, and that bridge, in my mind, should be the unmanned component, the CCA component, where you could build quickly with existing platforms that are already out there today, that a whole cadre of companies are manufacturing.

Those platforms roughly $8 or $9 million a platform. And let’s say you add $10 million additional for weapons to go on those platforms. That is something that could be purchased today. You don’t have to do a program of record. It could be purchased today as a bridge to F–35 additional capability, to whatever comes next in the next-generation air defense system.

 

[_Del_]

Where does that $60m number come from?

A notional number birthed from the big primes like LM admitting they have been pushing "gold-plated" proposals with broadband stealth characteristics, and that their own assessments prioritize survivability of the platform over attritable platforms on "cost effectiveness" not cost. GA's spat with Anduril after the increment one award. Etc.

I also think you'll see the price tag about double from the 2023 testimony even for the lighter end that they are looking at currently based on Congressional reports citing Kendall ("1/3" the cost of manned aircraft).

The decision-makers all get shiny new toy syndrome when the chips are down.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

F/A-XX is a 'strike fighter'. Strike fighters have a range of performance attributes they are optimized around. Efficient supersonic cruise without reheat is cool but also a very expensive attribute to chase in terms of impact on cost and other attributes. To say, that a strike fighter that can't supercruise is of no use to the Navy in the Pacific is quite a bold statement especially since F/A-XX alternatives probably look something like an unmanned subsonic flying wing and more F-35C's which both won't supercruise or in the case of the UCAV even fly supersonic.

I think the Navy would be quite comfortable trading away supercruise and supersonic perf (high Mach flight) in general for more range and payload on F/A-XX. Going for all three, while still requiring at least F35 level LO would lead to a very expensive aircraft and thus be totally unaffordable as a Rhino replacement. If the Navy had high confidence or was more deeply invested in autonomous / semi-autonomous unmanned strike systems (like if it had X-47 /NUCAS in production) one could make a case for a higher performing more expensive F-XX to be purchased in smaller quantities. But that's not the case. USN appears to be taking a crawl - walk - run approach with unmanned (MQ-25 by 2030 followed by some ISR capability and then strike systems sometime after that) and thus probably sees F/A-XX as a platform that has to replace majority of SH's fielded at the moment. That imposes a very real cost ceiling.

The term "strike fighter" is a pretty wide term. The Strike Eagle family (including the latest F-15EX) had its basis in a design that was a no-compromise air-superiority fighter. Yet even with the heavier airframe and other optimizations to make it a strike fighter, it still has excellent air-to-air capabilities. Similarly, Grumman tried pretty hard to sell improved strike versions of the Super Tomcat, and that would still have had first-rate air-to-air performance.

Even the F-111, although not really fitting the modern concept of a "strike fighter" had speed and long range, showing you don't have to necessarily limit yourself to a subsonic design for long range strike or interdiction missions.

As for supercruise, perhaps the Navy's requirements really give no reason to have a specific goal in that area. Yet considering what modern turbofans can do and how it would often be flying in a "clean" configuration, I don't see why the F/A-XX couldn't manage some ability to supercruise according to a technically precise definition of the term (above M1.0), even without any design emphasis. It just wouldn't be like the ATF and resulting F-22, which can cruise at something like M1.7 without afterburner. Hopefully NGAD has excellent performance in that area, but I just wanted to talk about F/A-XX here.

When it comes to raw maximum speed however, I think M2.0+ level performance at full afterburner would be good to have for time critical interception and other scenarios. Basically, similar to what the Tomcat could do in an emergency. In terms of a general concept, I'd say look at something like the advanced strike Tomcat proposals and reimagine that with VLO stealth (F-35+ level) and accounting for all of the technological progress since then.

The matter of budgets and cost is a whole different can of worms that is just maddening. I simply think there is no reason as a country we shouldn't be able to afford that sort of capability within the total the DoD has to work with. It's all technically possible and I think there is a need for it given the geopolitical situation.

 

[bring_it_on]

A notional number birthed from the big primes like LM admitting they have been pushing "gold-plated" proposals with broadband stealth characteristics, and that their own assessments prioritize survivability of the platform over attritable platforms on "cost effectiveness" not cost. GA's spat with Anduril after the increment one award. Etc.

In other words, it is not a 'real' number derived from actual statements on the effort or the CCA programs preferred approach. The higher end/performing designs that LM referenced in their approach to CCA led them to a path of failure on Increment 1. These will surely force them to recalibrate their approach for Increment 2 or 3 of the program or else they run the risk of failing again. We should expect some growth in cost between the various increments as requirements evolve. But these will be nothing like a jump from $10-20 MM range to $60 Million levels unless the program evolves to something that is now supporting B-21's etc or is meeting the needs for a very different concept..than what the current focus seems to be.

 

[_Del_]

In other words, it is not a 'real' number derived from actual statements on the effort or the CCA programs preferred approach.

UCLASS was supposed to be ISR, Strike and potentially other roles for $30m-50m then dollars. Today they are now buying a far less capable devolutionary step into a tanker for $125m each. I am sure you would have hounded my institutional cynicism then, too.

If you don't like my opinions and conjecture, I invite you again to add me to your ignore list. My feelings will not be hurt. Noone haa publicly said LM offered a $60m bird but me. I just know how the sausage gets made.

The big primes have already circled the wagons against the upstarts arguing for more capability. General Atomics, once an upstart itself, compared Anduril to Elizabeth Holme's Tharanos scam -- after the award. It's all a game filled with lobbyists and their own assessments driving decision-makers.

The (mostly fictional) Pentagon Wars movie about the Bradley was a pretty good caricature of the process.

 

[red admiral]

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/kendall-air-force-100-ccas-five-years/

There seems plenty of more recent statements from SecAF with a $25-30m cost for each CCA following the industry CCA Inc 1 awards. Could be an average unit cost, could be 100th aircraft unit cost. Who knows?

 

[bring_it_on]

UCLASS was supposed to be ISR, Strike and potentially other roles for $30m-50m then dollars. Today they are now buying a far less capable devolutionary step into a tanker for $125m each. I am sure you would have hounded my institutional cynicism then, too.

Can you provide details of what the cost estimates were for UCLASS? Specifically, APUC for the program and the requirements (specifications and quantities). You would need specifics to do an apples to apples comparison.

 

[bring_it_on]

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/kendall-air-force-100-ccas-five-years/

There seems plenty of more recent statements from SecAF with a $25-30m cost for each CCA following the industry CCA Inc 1 awards. Could be an average unit cost, could be 100th aircraft unit cost. Who knows?

The AF needs to develop a production plan for CCA's. Once they do, you'll see what they plan on buying in terms of quantities and what it plans on paying for those on average. Right now, they intend on spending RDT&E money to buy experimental and early production aircraft. Those are low volume production runs.

 

[dark sidius]

UCLASS was supposed to be ISR, Strike and potentially other roles for $30m-50m then dollars. Today they are now buying a far less capable devolutionary step into a tanker for $125m each. I am sure you would have hounded my institutional cynicism then, too.

If you don't like my opinions and conjecture, I invite you again to add me to your ignore list. My feelings will not be hurt. Noone haa publicly said LM offered a $60m bird but me. I just know how the sausage gets made.

The big primes have already circled the wagons against the upstarts arguing for more capability. General Atomics, once an upstart itself, compared Anduril to Elizabeth Holme's Tharanos scam -- after the award. It's all a game filled with lobbyists and their own assessments driving decision-makers.

The (mostly fictional) Pentagon Wars movie about the Bradley was a pretty good caricature of the process.

Whar do you mean for the another award ?

 

[Ozair]

Whar do you mean for the another award ?

I think he is referring to this back and forth between the two Increment 1 winners,

Speaking to Breaking Defense on the show floor, General Atomics spokesman C. Mark Brinkley called Anduril “the Theranos of defense,” referring to the much-hyped but ultimately hollow promises from the infamous pharma tech firm. He questioned how the Fury could carry weapons and host a landing gear with a large bottom inlet along the belly of the aircraft.

“Sometimes you find these companies, and they say they’re going to use one drop of blood and they’re going to revolutionize the whole world, and then they grow up to be Theranos,” he said. “Quite frankly, when you look at the Fury — to me, it looks like trying to use a drop of blood to change the world. And I don’t see it.”

Asked about Brinkley’s comments, Anduril Chief Strategy Officer Chris Brose declined to comment specifically about where the weapons would be stored on Fury, or to offer his own critique of General Atomics.

“We don’t make it a habit of talking trash about our competitors,” Brose said. “We don’t think that it advances Anduril’s cause to talk down other amazing companies that have been doing this for a really long time. Our focus is on ourselves and doing great work and continuing to beat expectations that people have of us. And, you know, seven years of evidence would suggest we’re doing pretty well.”

However, Anduril founder Palmer Luckey wasn’t so measured. He called out the legacy dronemaker publicly on Sept. 16 in a response to a sponsored post where General Atomics claimed, “No other aerospace and defense manufacturer is poised to deliver a CCA as capable.”

“The sponsored article written by General Atomics PR people doth protest too much, methinks,” Luckey posted on the X social media platform.

‘I don’t see it’: Before their CCA drones even take to the air, Anduril and General Atomics trade shots - Breaking Defense

Drone wingmen models were the talk of Air, Space & Cyber Conference 2024, including some pointed barbs from the competitors themselves.

breakingdefense.com

Both are likely to bid on CCA Increment 2 as will Boeing, LM, maybe NG, and probably one or two others.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think he is referring to this back and forth between the two Increment 1 winners,

‘I don’t see it’: Before their CCA drones even take to the air, Anduril and General Atomics trade shots - Breaking Defense

Drone wingmen models were the talk of Air, Space & Cyber Conference 2024, including some pointed barbs from the competitors themselves.

breakingdefense.com

Both are likely to bid on CCA Increment 2 as will Boeing, LM, maybe NG, and probably one or two others.

Kratos at least as well, and NG already has a scaled composit craft in this MTOW range. There have been some suggestions that potential both Incr1 contractors might be selected, though I do not know how likely that is. It would make some sense however if the USAF was looking to maximize the number of production lines as a long term goal. If several different companies had active lines for CCA increments, potentially hundreds of aircraft might be produced per year.

 

[dark sidius]

I think he is referring to this back and forth between the two Increment 1 winners,

‘I don’t see it’: Before their CCA drones even take to the air, Anduril and General Atomics trade shots - Breaking Defense

Drone wingmen models were the talk of Air, Space & Cyber Conference 2024, including some pointed barbs from the competitors themselves.

breakingdefense.com

Both are likely to bid on CCA Increment 2 as will Boeing, LM, maybe NG, and probably one or two others.

Surely Kratos with the secret Thanatos model.

 

[red admiral]

The AF needs to develop a production plan for CCA's. Once they do, you'll see what they plan on buying in terms of quantities and what it plans on paying for those on average. Right now, they intend on spending RDT&E money to buy experimental and early production aircraft. Those are low volume production runs.

Quoting early prototype costs vs a longer term target (e.g. the ~100 Inc1 production phase) would be odd if not outright misleading. The $25-30m figure appears to have some traction and other analysis e.g. Mitchell Institute gets to this sort of number. Still plenty of uncertainty in it by lack of clarity of what is included: is engine GFX? sensors GFX? etc.