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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Boeing could dust off the X-45A and X-45C/Phantom Ray designs, these were very good air vehicles, could be used for CCA Increment II? When I was with HR Textron, we designed and built the EMA flight control actuation suites for both vehicles. The X-45/Phantom Ray FCAS EMAs were of the 270 vdc input power variety.
 
A very good idea Hydroman especially using the X-45 and X-45C Phantom Ray for CCA Increment 2, by using existing technology Boeing would be saving money in the process and not neading to come up with a brand new clean sheet design.
 
Airbus A340 said:
The idea that AI will figure out some physics is ridiculous. Maybe help with CFD for the engines. AI can control drones and make them able to swarm. Being able to flexibly mass and disperse faster than the enemy's OODA loop can respond would enable cheaper and cheaper drones to beat more capable drones.
Click to expand...
Regardless of AI the manufacturing/logistics aspect remains the same. Capability = cost so the more capable the drone the more expensive they are to build and logistically support. Meaning you won't be able to afford absurd numbers of them in the air. 100,000 dirt-cheap quadcopters or kamikaze drones aren't going to do much of anything when they run out of power and fall into the ocean. The distances needing to be flown, the projected levels of air defense and enemy EW support, that all requires some minimum level of capability that AI isn't going to fundamentally change the balance of. Designs like the MQ-28 and MQ-58 are probably the bare minimum that would be useful in an offensive sense that aren't just a one-way expendable munition. But of course, you need other platforms providing them the much of the sensor data and coordinating with them to perform successful sorties.
 
quellish said:
Why do you think Kendall is not the right person?
Click to expand...
In four years still no decision about the NGAD, and he let another administration decide a program vital for the Air Force. in 2020 it seem to go ready with Will Roper, after that we don't see real progress, jut Kendall falling in love with drone and we still don't know if IA will be realy operational to do the job.
 
dark sidius said:
In four years still no decision about the NGAD, and he let another administration decide a program vital for the Air Force. in 2020 it seem to go ready with Will Roper, after that we don't see real progress, jut Kendall falling in love with drone and we still don't know if IA will be realy operational to do the job.
Click to expand...

Before Kendall was SECAF he was the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. In that role he managed the set of DARPA programs (Air Dominance Initiative, Advanced Aerospace Initiative, etc) that became NGAD - including the NGAD demonstrator programs. He was very much a part of creating NGAD.

As SECAF Kendall has been very transparent about the status and progress of the program. After the demonstrator program the cost of the manned aircraft was too high for Congress to allow. The NGAD program was, after an analysis of alternatives, re-scoped to integrate more of the key technologies across more platforms to lower cost. Later, again to lower costs, manned-unmanned teaming was added to NGAD.

Kendall, as SECAF, added CCAs to lower the cost of the manned aircraft. He did this not because he is in love with drones, but because he was working to preserve the program. NGAD and the systems it encompasses are very much his "baby"

Keep in mind the cost numbers are coming from the prime contractors. They arrive at these numbers by asking the customer "How much money do you have? Double that".
 
quellish said:
Keep in mind the cost numbers are coming from the prime contractors. They arrive at these numbers by asking the customer "How much money do you have? Double that
Click to expand...
That's not entirely fair, but I did chuckle.

Sometimes the customer is like a 20 year old picking out a car, and he fizates on a shiny new sports car. Then when you run the numbers you try to steer him towards a more reasonable purchase, but he stamps his foot and says he doesn't care if he can afford because he can borrow it from his rich uncle's grandchildren. So you sell him the sports car.


"Can you do this with this brand new technology."
"Probably, but it's a new technology. It will take time to sort. And if you want it to also do x,y,z it's going to be more complicated, time-consuming and expensive. Or we could do some of that and use some of the old technology and get you 80% of that for 20% of the cost."
You have to break out the weight-capabilities-cost triangle with some of them to bring them back to earth.
 
quellish said:
Before Kendall was SECAF he was the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. In that role he managed the set of DARPA programs (Air Dominance Initiative, Advanced Aerospace Initiative, etc) that became NGAD - including the NGAD demonstrator programs. He was very much a part of creating NGAD.

As SECAF Kendall has been very transparent about the status and progress of the program. After the demonstrator program the cost of the manned aircraft was too high for Congress to allow. The NGAD program was, after an analysis of alternatives, re-scoped to integrate more of the key technologies across more platforms to lower cost. Later, again to lower costs, manned-unmanned teaming was added to NGAD.

Kendall, as SECAF, added CCAs to lower the cost of the manned aircraft. He did this not because he is in love with drones, but because he was working to preserve the program. NGAD and the systems it encompasses are very much his "baby"

Keep in mind the cost numbers are coming from the prime contractors. They arrive at these numbers by asking the customer "How much money do you have? Double that".
Click to expand...
Ok I take that , You are right If we watch the past, I hope he have save the program , response soon....
 
Forest Green said:
I have a feeling you're going to be disappointed.
Click to expand...
For the plane that is replacing the Super Hornet on carriers? The minimum internal load is going to be something like 2x AMRAAM, 2x AARGM, and 2x whatever else like NSMs or 2000lb bombs.

I'm pulling the bomb load from the A-12 program. They may even lengthen the bays enough to stuff AIM-174s internally, which would probably leave enough space to hang 6x1000lb bombs in each of those bays (I need the lengths of 1000lb bombs and the distance between the lugs on the standard Multiple Ejector Rack six pack). 2x AMRAAMs and 4x AIM174s; or 2x AIM260s, 2x AARGMs, and probably 12x1000lb bombs or some disgusting number of SDBs (likely minimum of 16 per AIM174 space, not counting a custom rack to use the depth of the bay).
 
Maybe we need someone with a copy of Raymer. What payload can be delivered by a 40 ton system to a radius of 1000nm?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Catapult limit is ~90klbs/45 tons/41 tonnes, landing limit is ~55klbs.
Click to expand...

Volume will probably be more limiting than mass, at least if they still want good kinetics and range. I suspect it will be more than F-35 but not close to your estimate. partially it will depend on what they want it to carry - for instance if HALO is a requirement, then the bay(s) will likely need to be long and not necessarily well suited to other ordnance.
 
Last edited:
Airbus A340 said:
Maybe we need someone with a copy of Raymer. What payload can be delivered by a 40 ton system to a radius of 1000nm?
Click to expand...
Well if you wanted 1000nm radius, a loose rule of thumb says 40% fuel-fraction unloaded. So minus this 5.5t proposed internal load, that means 13.8t internal fuel, which leaves an empty weight of ~21t, same as an F-22, which doesn't have a 40% fuel fraction or carry anything like 12k lbs internally, nor is it carrier-capable, which tends to add weight too. 6k lbs sounds more plausible.
 
Hydroman said:
Boeing could dust off the X-45A and X-45C/Phantom Ray designs, these were very good air vehicles, could be used for CCA Increment II? When I was with HR Textron, we designed and built the EMA flight control actuation suites for both vehicles. The X-45/Phantom Ray FCAS EMAs were of the 270 vdc input power variety.
Click to expand...
Any idea how the NG X-47B faired by comparison? Were one to blow the dust off something that would seem to be the obvious choice.

X47B-Carrier.jpg
 
I doubt you can get affordability from legacy stealth prototypes.
It seems LM already tried.
 
Ainen said:
I doubt you can get affordability from legacy stealth prototypes.
It seems LM already tried.
Click to expand...
Let's not compare apples and oranges. The X-47B & Phantom Ray are in a completely different class than something like the XQ-58 Valkyrie. They're more like an MQ-25 but for attack instead of tanking.
 
sferrin said:
Let's not compare apples and oranges. The X-47B & Phantom Ray are in a completely different class than something like the XQ-58 Valkyrie. They're more like an MQ-25 but for attack instead of tanking.
Click to expand...
sferrin, I overlooked the X-47B, could also be a candidate for CCA Increment II. I assume the various CCA missions and CONOPS are going to drive size, range, payload, etc. I also assume any air vehicle concept or type would and could be possible depending on the mission scenarios.
 
Airbus A340 said:
Maybe we need someone with a copy of Raymer. What payload can be delivered by a 40 ton system to a radius of 1000nm?
Click to expand...
So the "fighter" empty weight fraction trend line gives ~0.5 or 20t empty weight

As representative of a modern stealthy fighter then F-35A has a fuel fraction ~0.35 for <700nm radius. So to get to 1,000nm is about a 40% increase. If this is all on fuel fraction then we need to get up to about 0.45. Maybe this could be reduced a little with a more aerodynamic configuration. Probably won't get much change in engine SFC.

So with empty weight fraction of 0.5 and fuel fraction of 0.42-0.45 then this leaves a payload fraction of 0.05-0.07 or <2-2.5tons
 
Hydroman said:
sferrin, I overlooked the X-47B, could also be a candidate for CCA Increment II. I assume the various CCA missions and CONOPS are going to drive size, range, payload, etc. I also assume any air vehicle concept or type would and could be possible depending on the mission scenarios.
Click to expand...

What requirements for Increment 2 of the CCA drive us towards an X-45/47 class of AVs? Do we have firm indications of those from the AF at this point?
 
bring_it_on said:
What requirements for Increment 2 of the CCA drive us towards an X-45/47 class of AVs? Do we have firm indications of those from the AF at this point?
Click to expand...
I don't know, my post is making assumptions, I am not a USAF CCA mission planner. I don't think anyone knows outside of the program what air vehicle type CCA Increment II is planning for. I look at the platform type and it's potential capabilities.
 
bring_it_on said:
What requirements for Increment 2 of the CCA drive us towards an X-45/47 class of AVs? Do we have firm indications of those from the AF at this point?
Click to expand...

As far as I know we do not even have the Incr1 requirements in open source. I think he was just noting it was another established UCAV platform that could be produced off the shelf, if it fit the requirements.

Since Incr1 seems completely A2A oriented and focused on low cost over capability, I suspect nothing like X47 is adopted. Furthermore the USN seems just as focused on short lifespan UCAVs, so I cannot imagine they dig up the design either.
 
VTOLicious said:
Someone should look up the cost of MQ-25 ;)
Click to expand...
For sure but you wouldn't necessarily use something like an X-47B for a mission an XQ-58 could fill. But an XQ-58 won't be able to do everything an X-47B could do. If you want to drop 2,000 pounds of drone swarms ten miles from the target area a thousand miles away. . .
 
Hydroman said:
I don't know, my post is making assumptions, I am not a USAF CCA mission planner. I don't think anyone knows outside of the program what air vehicle type CCA Increment II is planning for. I look at the platform type and it's potential capabilities.
Click to expand...

The assumption that these get more sophisticated in terms of survivability (as in their attritable nature dilutes as we move up the increments) as we go from Inc 1 to 2 and 3 might not be all that valid. I don't think the AF knows for sure, but a X-45/47 like CCA gets you something that isn't exactly cheap especially if its LO and I'm not sure the want to go towards that. This is what France is doing with its nEUron effort but I suspect the USAF might go somewhere else at least with the next increment.

Increment 2 was initially seen as a more advanced platform, with a high degree of stealth and capability, but more recently, service leaders have said it could be a less sophisticated aircraft built in large quantities. The Air Force has been wargaming various future force mixes to see what characteristics provide the greatest combat payoff.
Click to expand...


Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman reportedly submitted Increment 1 concepts that were substantially stealthier and more complex than Anduril and General Atomics’ selected proposals. Some industry officials whose proposals didn’t win have confessed to misreading the Air Force’s desires and have said they plan to offer less costly and sophisticated concepts for Increment 2.
Click to expand...



www.airandspaceforces.com

New Air Force Leadership Will Set CCA Increment 2 Requirements

Incoming Air Force leaders will decide the requirements and characteristics of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) Increment 2.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
 
sferrin said:
For sure but you wouldn't necessarily use something like an X-47B for a mission an XQ-58 could fill. But an XQ-58 won't be able to do everything an X-47B could do. If you want to drop 2,000 pounds of drone swarms ten miles from the target area a thousand miles away. . .
Click to expand...
Might be surprised on the range for a Valkyrie. It won't lug 2000 lbs that far down range, but if you can by 10 or more of them that far for the price of one X-47B-style UCAV, I'm not sure the math leans in the direction of the more capable platform.
 
_Del_ said:
Might be surprised on the range for a Valkyrie. It won't lug 2000 lbs that far down range, but if you can by 10 or more of them that far for the price of one X-47B-style UCAV, I'm not sure the math leans in the direction of the more capable platform.
Click to expand...
That's why they pay people to run the math. And XQ-58s have short-comings of their own. How do you launch it from a ship? Like a 1950s Regulus? How do you get it back to the ship?
 
sferrin said:
That's why they pay people to run the math. By the way, 10 XQ-58s can't fly any further than one can. Just sayin'. ;)
Click to expand...
One will reach out twice as far if you buy enough of them to make them cheap enough that you don't care if that one comes back because you have nine more in a crate.

ETA: and I'd assume the radius of action for an operational X-47B-class and the Valkyrie would be very similar. Goodness knows they have put up some endurance numbers at YPG.
 
_Del_ said:
One will reach out twice as far if you buy enough of them to make them cheap enough that you don't care if that one comes back because you have nine more in a crate.
Click to expand...
If you're throwing them away it won't take long until the cost is prohibitive. And you give up a lot to get that cost down.
 
sferrin said:
If you're throwing them away it won't take long until the cost is prohibitive. And you give up a lot to get that cost down.
Click to expand...
Costs in the same ballpark as a Tomahawk, and more capable.

I'd have all the same things on my wishlist as you guys, I just think the reality is we're facing a budget crunch, the fleet has recapitalization concerns, every time a major shooting war breaks out we realize militaries burn through ordinance and vehicles at an astonishing rate, while our production capability continues to decrease. All signs, including statements by the decision-makers in various branches, are that they are trying to break the procurement death spiral and looking to do more with less.
 
bring_it_on said:
What requirements for Increment 2 of the CCA drive us towards an X-45/47 class of AVs? Do we have firm indications of those from the AF at this point?
Click to expand...
What I've read here on SPF is mostly that they want stealthier airframes than the Ghost Bat or Valkyrie.

And a little critical thinking suggests that the services will want CCAs to have about the same RCS as the FAXX or NGAD, so that you don't have non-stealthy airframes getting detected at ludicrous distances and giving away the presence of a 6th Gen aircraft.

Also, needing to fly from at least the First Island Chain means more range than a Valkyrie, IIRC.
 
Scott Kenny said:
What I've read here on SPF is mostly that they want stealthier airframes than the Ghost Bat or Valkyrie.

And a little critical thinking suggests that the services will want CCAs to have about the same RCS as the FAXX or NGAD, so that you don't have non-stealthy airframes getting detected at ludicrous distances and giving away the presence of a 6th Gen aircraft.

Also, needing to fly from at least the First Island Chain means more range than a Valkyrie, IIRC.
Click to expand...

Pretty much everything in this thread is speculation rather than fact, and facts are often ignored in favor of speculation.


If the manned NGAD had X “rails” in an internal weapons bay and 1/2 of those were then on CCAs, how would that affect the sizing and costs of the manned aircraft?

If the manned aircraft had Lazer Cats as a primary weapon how would that affect internal weapons bays and cost?

If the manned aircraft was optimized to deliver Uber Eats, how would that affect the costs?
 
Scott Kenny said:
What I've read here on SPF is mostly that they want stealthier airframes than the Ghost Bat or Valkyrie.

And a little critical thinking suggests that the services will want CCAs to have about the same RCS as the FAXX or NGAD, so that you don't have non-stealthy airframes getting detected at ludicrous distances and giving away the presence of a 6th Gen aircraft.

Also, needing to fly from at least the First Island Chain means more range than a Valkyrie, IIRC.
Click to expand...

CCA does not have to be as stealthy as NGAD; it just needs to be able to achieve a favorable firing position. I wouldn’t read “loyal wingman “ so rigidly such as to assume the CCA is close enough to give away a position; in fact I think one of its goals will be explicitly to draw fire.

The first island chain only requires ~1000 mile combat radius, roughly what Incr1 seems capable of and less than XQ-58, which likely has performance issues meeting Incr1 requirements IMO, on top of not having landing gear.
 
quellish said:
Pretty much everything in this thread is speculation rather than fact, and facts are often ignored in favor of speculation.


If the manned NGAD had X “rails” in an internal weapons bay and 1/2 of those were then on CCAs, how would that affect the sizing and costs of the manned aircraft?

If the manned aircraft had Lazer Cats as a primary weapon how would that affect internal weapons bays and cost?

If the manned aircraft was optimized to deliver Uber Eats, how would that affect the costs?
Click to expand...

I would suggest if NGAD is equipped with cats, that no laser designators be used on it…
 
Scott Kenny said:
What I've read here on SPF is mostly that they want stealthier airframes than the Ghost Bat or Valkyrie.
Click to expand...

As posted a few posts above:

Increment 2 was initially seen as a more advanced platform, with a high degree of stealth and capability, but more recently, service leaders have said it could be a less sophisticated aircraft built in large quantities. The Air Force has been wargaming various future force mixes to see what characteristics provide the greatest combat payoff.

New Air Force Leadership Will Set CCA Increment 2 Requirements​

Click to expand...

The idea that CCA's will eventually evolve to small fighter sized stealthy UCAV's may not pan out in the near to medium term.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom