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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DrRansom said:
The way I view it, every airbase in the Pacific Rim is under some degree of missile attack risk (obviously insane at Kadena and declining to the West Coast). Running-away to safe-spaces will see the USAF run out of the Pacific Theater entirely. This means each airbase has to be resilient to continuous missile attack and the aircraft have to be designed to support that requirement. Which brings back STOL-esque (Variable-Wing or SAAB Viggen/Gripen) requirements for point-defense interceptors and medium range missile-carrying bombers.

Right now, neither NGAD nor CCA seem to have that in-mind. However, CCA is starting to make some noises about STOL capability.
Click to expand...
Plus the Kratos Q-58 is already launched from a ZLL. But a ZLL is hardware that you'd need to drag to wherever you're basing the CCAs.



Josh_TN said:
NGAD (manned) seems to be moving in the direction of increasing range. I think there’s merit to this. The costs for China increase dramatically as their missiles have reach intercontinental ranges (for instance, basing in Australia). The PLAs ability to place its bombers or its surface ships outside tactical air cover is likely pretty limited for the foreseeable future, so I think ballistic missiles will continue to be the primary threat going forward.

Making a new STOVL fighter out of NGAD would involve a huge number of compromises to every other performance factor. The CCA on the other hand might have a lot of room for that. It seems likely there is no single CCA design and one variant could potentially be optimized for short runways, or possibly even runway independent (XQ-58). More recently the USAF seems to be going for a UAV that is larger and more complex but I’m hopeful that something cheaper and less runway dependent ends up being integrated into the system of systems.
Click to expand...
I'm expecting 4 major classes of CCA:
  1. extended fighter weapons magazine - think XQ-58 or a bit bigger, something to carry about as many AAMs as an F-22 standard. 6x AMRAAM and 2x Sidewinders is right about 2000lbs. Carrying the Sidewinders for variation in guidance, not that we expect the flying weapons bay to dogfight.
  2. recon/sensors - think TACIT BLUE in terms of job and probably shape. Depending on size and available electrical power these could be separate sensor types or both radar and EO on one airframe. If we're okay with nearly disposable CCAs, use the long JASSM-ER airframe with parachute recovery, and have separate radar and EO airframes.
  3. EW - think EA-18G Growler in terms of jammers and weapons carried for SEAD/DEAD. ~7000lbs of EW and ~2000lbs of boom for emergency targets.
  4. Ground Attack - possibly using the EW airframe but loaded with 10klbs of boom internally. Big bomb bays to carry a maximum of SDBs, 8x SDB in the volume of 1x BLU-109 instead of just 4x SDB. Could also re-use the NG A-12 design, with 2x AMRAAM, 2x AARGM, and ~8klbs of bombs.
The USAF isn't talking about having a Ground Attack CCA. Yet.

Eventual goal is to have one manned plane as the flight lead for the entire strike package. Manned plane plus 3x flying AMRAAM bays, pre-strike and post-strike recon, 2x EW, and however many Ground Attack CCAs as necessary (4x-8x is my guess). Alternatively, Manned plane is for Ground Attack so has 4x flying AMRAAM bays, recon, and EW as escorts.
 
Right now NGAD is exclusively anti air. That might change, but not soon: B-21 is the LRS
Component of the LR family. “RQ-180” is likely the ISR element. LRSO is the strategic component.
 
asVAL said:
ngl RQ-180 sounds like what Quartz was trying to accomplish. God forbid the USAF goes with some extravagant design that cost 10billion apiece and couldn't buy more than a dozen or so.
Click to expand...


QUARTZ was supposed to be a TR-1 replacement, and carry the PAVE MOVER radar, and new payloads, and be semi autonomous, at a time when nobody had controlled anything by satellite before

The bar isn’t quite that high anymore
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm expecting 4 major classes of CCA:
  1. extended fighter weapons magazine -
  2. recon/sensors -
  3. EW -
  4. Ground Attack -
Click to expand...
Personally I think main categorization would be range, speed, and basing requirements and role would change with the payload.

Personally I'd probably categorize the following:
Strike Package CCA: Fighter level range, speed and basing requirement. In relative terms, fast, long range, and low endurance.

Persistent Drone: Long Range, low operating speed, very high endurance and relative time on station. Conducts ISR, EW, rapid response strike and some air defense. Also kept on station with in flight refueling.

Rapid Cycling drone: Forward operating capability, very high sortie rate, short range and low endurance. Basically a engine that tosses munitions towards the enemy. Should be cheapest way to add throw weight to the force.

Support Drone: Does not come close to the front line but conduct only rear line duties like in flight refueling, communication relay, long range intelligence gathering and transport. Probably just get converted cargo aircraft, yet man such missions shouldn't need a pilot onboard.
 
shin_getter said:
Personally I think main categorization would be range, speed, and basing requirements and role would change with the payload.

Personally I'd probably categorize the following:
Strike Package CCA:

Persistent Drone:

Rapid Cycling drone:

Support Drone:
Click to expand...
That's a way to look at it I hadn't considered. Thanks!
 
quellish said:
Broadband stealth requires a large, draggy aircraft. Not what you want in a fighter. Having a very low signature at low frequencies generally isn’t worthwhile for anything but ISR or a bomber. For a fighter districting every part of the RF kill chain is not worth the effort.

In the 1990s the state of the art in signature reduction was -70dbsm. It would be reasonable to believe things have advanced since then. RCS ranges have been continuously upgraded to measure smaller and smaller signatures.

Shaping, not materials get you to these numbers. No material is physically able to absorb more than X dbsm of RF energy, and even then the material would be too thick/heavy for an aircraft.
Click to expand...
Long time lurker here. With due respect to your world-class OSINT skills and encyclopedic knowledge, this post is off the mark.
 
joewee said:
Long time lurker here. With due respect to your world-class OSINT skills and encyclopedic knowledge, this post is off the mark.
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate?
 
Got to watch some of the YouTube videos that some people put on regarding military aviation most of them are down right bad and should be avoided at all costs. I have watched some of them myself years ago but have since learned to avoid them.
 
Any talk or thoughts on airforce interest in a unmanned tanker platform? Something XQ47 like , but scaled up since it's not constrained by carrier use? Seems it would be a great CCA to extend the legs of NGAD in the pacific.
 
I am sure there will be interest in the USAF in an enlarged unmanned tanker platform along the lines of the XQ-47, it would be a good idea to develop such an air refuelling tanker for the USAF to replace legacy aircraft completely like the KC-135 fleet.
 
I’ve not heard of such a project being mentioned. There is however talk of making the next tanker a purpose built blended wing-body type to reduce its signature. I’m not sure losing the manned component buys anything in the tanker size classes; the studies of a unmanned B-21 sized drone determined that you pretty much might as well have facilities for pilots and make craft optionally manned, given the minor cost of cockpit in such a large aircraft in terms of weight, fuel, and money
 
I have seen images on the Web and in books for years about the next tanker being a blended wing body aircraft Josh_TN, and it is interesting that the USAF are even talking about making the aircraft optionally manned.
 
Tool_Shed_Toker said:
Any talk or thoughts on airforce interest in a unmanned tanker platform? Something XQ47 like , but scaled up since it's not constrained by carrier use? Seems it would be a great CCA to extend the legs of NGAD in the pacific.
Click to expand...

KB-2 Spirit?

That could be a very useful second life for the B-2 once the B-21 fleet is sufficient.
 
FighterJock said:
I have seen images on the Web and in books for years about the next tanker being a blended wing body aircraft Josh_TN, and it is interesting that the USAF are even talking about making the aircraft optionally manned.
Click to expand...

To the best of knowledge they are not talking about any unmanned tankers at all, but previous studies with aircraft in this size range (B-21) seem to indicate there’s no value in a dedicated unmanned platform of that size.
 
I wonder how deep into the black the NGAD is? SAP Level 1 clearance? Which was as we all know the clearance level that the F-117A was given when that program started.
 
FighterJock said:
I wonder how deep into the black the NGAD is? SAP Level 1 clearance? Which was as we all know the clearance level that the F-117A was given when that program started.
Click to expand...

Not very. Similar to ATF in the mid 80s. NGAD is an acknowledged program.
 
Josh_TN said:
I'd not heard of that...do you have a source?



If your assumption fundamentally impacts the performance of a design, then yes I think there can be harm in overestimating.



Supercruising will increase an aircraft's IR signature. But it will also extend the range of the aircraft's weapons and allow it to leave the envelope of opponent weapons faster. Given the adaptive engine designs that GE and PW are working on, it seems likely the USAF can have its cake and eat it too - it can probably have a fuel efficient engine that allows for supercruise. I don't see why you would want to delete the option, even if it might not be useful in every single tactical situation. Presumable you would delete the afterburner as well?





The ranges are still much shorter than for a radar search against a 4th generation aircraft. IRST is also somewhat weather dependent.



We will agree to disagree. Also, if not in the Pacific, then where?
Click to expand...
The contrarIan Kat knows as little about airplane design as he does about tanks. Granular details to extrapolate how what anyone else says is wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom