Lockheed Martin Vectis CCA

Attachments

  • 1760959178221.jpg
    1760959178221.jpg
    174 KB · Views: 146
  • G4Em7vDXkAA9z2H.jpg
    G4Em7vDXkAA9z2H.jpg
    196.1 KB · Views: 119
  • G4Em7u2XEAAR-8q.jpg
    G4Em7u2XEAAR-8q.jpg
    212.2 KB · Views: 113
  • G4Em7u1XkAAc0C3.jpg
    G4Em7u1XkAAc0C3.jpg
    184.6 KB · Views: 115

Attachments

  • G1yMPwnXsAA9AiR.jpg
    G1yMPwnXsAA9AiR.jpg
    262.8 KB · Views: 109
  • Skunk Works® Agile Drone Framework.mp4_snapshot_02.04_[2025.09.22_23.18.31].jpg
    Skunk Works® Agile Drone Framework.mp4_snapshot_02.04_[2025.09.22_23.18.31].jpg
    804 KB · Views: 105

Attachments

  • 20251104_071159.jpg
    20251104_071159.jpg
    257.3 KB · Views: 109
Last edited by a moderator:
https://aviationweek.com/defense/aircraft-propulsion/hanwha-emerges-re-engine-option-lockheed-vectis

DUBAI—A Hanwha turbofan engine scheduled to complete development in 2028 is a candidate to re-engine the Lockheed Martin Vectis, a Skunk Works-designed collaborative combat aircraft (CCA) pitched to foreign buyers.
Click to expand...
South Korean defense company Hanwha is developing an engine in a similar thrust class as the 3,600 lb.-thrust FJ-44A but dedicated to the market for CCAs and UAS. Hanwha managers at the Dubai Airshow briefed a group of reporters about the HAF4500, a 4,000-4,500-lb.-thrust turbofan that also offers 100 kW of electrical output.


In addition to more availability, the Hanwha engine also may create a path to increasing the speed of the Vectis CCA.
Click to expand...
Hanwha's bid to re-engine Vectis also may offer a clue about Lockheed’s most interested foreign buyers. Lockheed executives say there are 15 interested countries in talks about buying the Vectis, with two countries leading those discussions. In addition to South Korea, Lockheed also started discussing a “next generation UAS” with Poland in 2020.
Click to expand...
 
Seragina said:
Food for thought, makes me wonder where the X-9 Ghost design from Macross Plus (1994) comes from that predates them. Considering the necessary mechanical design work for the toy that needed to be done before any storyboard drawing & planning are made let alone actually screen footage drawing... at least 2 years would have gone into pre-work. And since it's inspired by the YF22 (1990 Sept.) the earliest time to start work would be in 1991. Any other source of inspiration for this particular planform must predate LM's revelation of the YF22 let alone any detail revelation of the design phase at the time. What other source could that be?
Click to expand...
There were a lot of ATF concepts floating around the media in the early-mid 1980s.



Training_Dummy said:
So far it seems like all US CCA iterations bifurcate into two types: munitions carrier (two AMRAAM, MALD type things or a JDAM) and a sensor or ISR bird.
Click to expand...
Well, yes. Those are the easiest concepts to work out. I mean, we've been flying and using unmanned sensor/ISR drones since the 1980s. Getting them LO has generally been a different discussion.



Training_Dummy said:
i always thought an unmanned aircraft with the power generation capability to enable powerful stand in jamming would be interesting to the USN and USAF, even if the NGAD FoS is spinning up super MALD type systems that can provide some SDR enabled jamming capability or something like that. I wonder if it’s just not relevant, not possible, not cost efficient or some or all of the above.
Click to expand...
With AESAs, I don't think there's much capability for a high-power jammer to force the magic smoke out of the radar. It's a lot more viable for PESAs and their single module, but I'm not sure how many of those will remain in service.
 
Well bring it on was certainly right about drumming up interest - especially OUS operators. I had really been thinking of Vectis with only a US POV. Duh.
 
Training_Dummy said:
Well bring it on was certainly right about drumming up interest - especially OUS operators. I had really been thinking of Vectis with only a US POV. Duh.
Click to expand...

The CCA lends itself nicely to collaboration with foreign customers and partners since the program requirements themselves partition flight and mission autonomy elements. You can see that with Boeing using an Australian design to refine its capabilities, Kratos shipping a Valkyrie to Airbus in Europe, General Atomics offering its product to Germany and Lockheed launching Vectis in the UK and offering it as a collaboration opportunity with a South Korean propulsion partner.
 
TomcatViP said:
new picture (I think). Weapon bay doors open:

View attachment 794145
Click to expand...
That looks a lot more like the "Loyal Wingman" type CCA I was expecting from the early discussions. Supersonic and able to keep up with F-35. Could pack a pair of AMRAAMs or at least 4x SDBs. Maybe 6x if the racks are set up correctly.
 
We may well get there. I think Incr1 is more of a bulk test batch, not the final answer. My guess is USAF wants to prove out the concept on a large scale over an instrumented range to see how the entire arrangement works in real life. They might well judge subsonic to be too limiting.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think Incr1 is more of a bulk test batch, not the final answer. My guess is USAF wants to prove out the concept on a large scale over an instrumented range to see how the entire arrangement works in real life.
Click to expand...
Agreed.


Josh_TN said:
They might well judge subsonic to be too limiting.
Click to expand...
I fully expect that they're going to (edit) eventually end up with a CCA that is capable of keeping up with an F-35 or F-22 in supercruise.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
I fully expect that they're going to end up with a CCA that is capable of keeping up with an F-35 or F-22 in supercruise.
Click to expand...

That last part I doubt. Supercruise is a pretty high end capability for the cost point and weight class. Just getting to supersonic probably requires a small engine with reheat, and while there are a host of civilian products in the 3000-8000 lb thrust range, almost none have augmentation. The only one I can think of is J-85. I think the market will move in that direction - low hour life high output augmented turbofans explicitly for CCA type platforms. But I think it takes some time, and I think supercruise is off the table as too expensive in a platform that is attritable, despite the recent USAF distaste for that word.
 
Josh_TN said:
That last part I doubt. Supercruise is a pretty high end capability for the cost point and weight class.
Click to expand...
I should add "eventually" to that sentence. Somewhere around Increment 5 or 6 is where I think we'll see supercruising CCAs.

  • Increment 1 is figuring out how to integrate the CCAs into operations.
  • Increment 2 is probably adding a new type or two of CCAs and integrating them as well.
  • Increment 3 is then adding supersonic spear carriers.
  • Increment 4 is probably ground-attack-optimized spear carriers (possibly big, possibly little more than wings and an engine strapped to one of those Boeing Enclosed Weapons Pods)
  • Increment 5 could then be supercruising spear carriers OR it could be new airframes in the supporting CCA types.
  • Increment 6 would be whichever type WASN'T deployed in Incr5.


Josh_TN said:
Just getting to supersonic probably requires a small engine with reheat, and while there are a host of civilian products in the 3000-8000 lb thrust range, almost none have augmentation. The only one I can think of is J-85. I think the market will move in that direction - low hour life high output augmented turbofans explicitly for CCA type platforms. But I think it takes some time, and I think supercruise is off the table as too expensive in a platform that is attritable, despite the recent USAF distaste for that word.
Click to expand...
Supercruising requires a relatively low engine pressure ratio in order to limit turbine inlet temperatures, which is honestly the opposite direction from where the civilian market has been going.

So I don't think a CCA would have an FJ33 or FJ44 with an afterburner added, it'd have something bespoke with lower OPR and some very heat-resistant turbine blades. Going back to the J85 might be doable, though I kinda doubt it due to fuel economy.

I suspect that the J85 design interations will be studied as the design went from a disposable one intended to power ADM-20 Quail decoys to one with a long life to power T-38/F-5s.
 
A lot of new small short life time/low cost engines are coming to market with a lot of 3D printing involved. I have no doubt someone will aim for the augmented market at some point. Question will be whether USAF thinks that’s desirable or not. For a cheap enough price point, I am sure they will.
 
Josh_TN said:
That last part I doubt. Supercruise is a pretty high end capability for the cost point and weight class. Just getting to supersonic probably requires a small engine with reheat, and while there are a host of civilian products in the 3000-8000 lb thrust range, almost none have augmentation. The only one I can think of is J-85. I think the market will move in that direction - low hour life high output augmented turbofans explicitly for CCA type platforms. But I think it takes some time, and I think supercruise is off the table as too expensive in a platform that is attritable, despite the recent USAF distaste for that word.
Click to expand...

It came to my mind that this could be an effort shared with the one to provide an engine for supersonic business jets and low capacity fast airliners.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
We may well get there. I think Incr1 is more of a bulk test batch, not the final answer. My guess is USAF wants to prove out the concept on a large scale over an instrumented range to see how the entire arrangement works in real life. They might well judge subsonic to be too limiting.
Click to expand...
The increment 1 is the increment 1 not a means to increment 2 or 3 capability. Those are envisioned as unique capabilities solving operational problems and enabling capabilities that make them distinct from other CCA increments.
 
Josh_TN said:
We may well get there. I think Incr1 is more of a bulk test batch, not the final answer. My guess is USAF wants to prove out the concept on a large scale over an instrumented range to see how the entire arrangement works in real life. They might well judge subsonic to be too limiting.
Click to expand...
Acc. to Guancha (the only private media company in China that can get news from within the military), the PLAAF has flown 1 J-20 coupled with numerous simple UADFs ("CCA"s in American terms) against 2 J-20s multiple times. Each time, the 2 J-20s won.

Therefore, they don't believe that something like a simple CCA is effective in air-to-air missions. If it's going to be simple, it should be expendable. If it's not that simple, it should be equivalent to nearly a 5th generation or even a bit ahead, like a 6th generation jet. Their views are this:

UADF.jpg
CCA9.jpg
 
China and US/Nato technological needs are not at this point of time entirely reciprocal. The US are developing a specific answer to the picture they get from their analysis of the threat which differs from the effort China pursue.

It was the same during the Cold War when US/NATO allies were facing the USSR. So, you make a good observation but that is not all the aspect of the problem.

For example, the USAF is seeking to increase primary information collection/ECM vectors and then missile carriers to augment their present capacity (massification and diversification of assets) when China is obviously attempting to increase the reach and augment the survivability of their own systems through CCA.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
China and US/Nato technological needs are not at this point of time entirely reciprocal. The US are developing a specific answer to the picture they get from their analysis of the threat which differs from the effort China pursue.

It was the same during the Cold War when US/NATO allies were facing the USSR.
Click to expand...
China and the U.S. would find themselves on opposing sides in a conventional Pacific conflict, with the tyranny of vast distance ironically offering both sides the same advantages and disadvantages in UADF/CCA operations.

The Kizilelma, equipped with an F-16-grade GaN radar, conformal datalinks, DAS and an EOTS, has only recently fired and guided a BVR missile against an airborne target. It is also going to be assembled in Italy, with local sensors, for the European market.

https://imgur.com/a/U0sTKCF
View: https://imgur.com/a/U0sTKCF#nt8Jenc




Airbus is developing this tailless (likely broadband, all-aspect LO) wingman, powered by an EJ200, featuring an IRST and conformal datalinks:

Zz9xdWFsaXR5PTg1


General Atomics has already begun marketing their low-tier YFQ-42A drone in the EU, and you can bet others will follow suit with more advanced models, real soon...

I haven't even begun describing what the Russians have been doing with the Okhotnik and none of us even know what Dassault might be working on...
 
Last edited:
snne said:
Therefore, they don't believe that something like a simple CCA is effective in air-to-air missions. If it's going to be simple, it should be expendable.
Click to expand...
Whereas obviously USAF are idiots for launching a multi billion dollar CCA Inc 1 acquisition program based on no evidence whatsoever

But internet randoms judging performance based on pictures, and then even more so judging effectiveness from this, have different views
 
red admiral said:
Whereas obviously USAF are idiots for launching a multi billion dollar CCA Inc 1 acquisition program based on no evidence whatsoever

But internet randoms judging performance based on pictures, and then even more so judging effectiveness from this, have different views
Click to expand...
My condolences for your illiteracy. What the USAF is doing with Inc. 1 is literally a PROOF OF CONCEPT on a wider scale.

Various statements they've made so far show that they're also planning to go the same way w.r.t. human-machine collaboration.

What all the credible players around the globe do point towards is this truth: No one -not Lockmart, not Chengdu, not Airbus, not Baykar, not Sukhoi, etc.- believes that something along the lines of Inc. 1 drones will bring a noteworthy contribution to future air-warfare or be worth their value. CCAs of the future, that actually accompany manned fighters will either be an outsized cruise missile, or a F-16/J-10/Eurofighter-sized, literal 6th-gen minus pilot.

snne said:
Therefore, they don't believe that something like a simple CCA is effective in air-to-air missions.
Click to expand...
That's it. THEY (the PLA) don't believe in it, but that’s not to say the others can't think differently. What all the conclusions about the future of air-warfare that both the PLA and the USM have come to so far point to is the same obvious stuff, which is dictated by the physics.
 
Last edited:
snne said:
Acc. to Guancha (the only private media company in China that can get news from within the military), the PLAAF has flown 1 J-20 coupled with numerous simple UADFs ("CCA"s in American terms) against 2 J-20s multiple times. Each time, the 2 J-20s won.
Click to expand...
I can take their word for it, but I've read different conclusions for very similar stuff lately. @Dilandu posted a paper awhile ago describing a simulation environment where CCAs enhanced with domain knowledge from an air combat controller was able to win against humans every time despite flying less capable aircraft, but before integrating that domain knowledge, the two better armed human fighters won. I've got my qualms about the paper and it is a pretty limited simulation environment though but regardless - it shows potential.

I think the Chinese haven't really given up on the cheap subsonic CCAs either. It's just that they have a greater need for high end supersonic ones as the environment they want to fly those CCAs in is arguably a more forgiving one than what the US wants to fly in (scatter islands and defenses with no real depth, hunting aerial targets vs an entire continental area denial network with depth hosting threats that can't be reached either due to practicality or ROE).

Also @Scott Kenny I remember one of the earlier LM posts about this CCA saying this one is still going to be subsonic. I remember because I threw a fit about it earlier lol
 
Reddington777 said:
I think the Chinese haven't really given up on the cheap subsonic CCAs either. It's just that they have a greater need for high end supersonic ones as the environment they want to fly those CCAs in is arguably a more forgiving one than what the US wants to fly in (scatter islands and defenses with no real depth, hunting aerial targets vs an entire continental area denial network with depth hosting threats that can't be reached either due to practicality or ROE).
Click to expand...
CCA_41b.jpg
CCA_42.jpg
CCA3_40.jpg

Agreed, but these are clearly still intermediary solutions, and the PLA is confident that the future of operationally viable UADF designs is clear. It's just that they got there faster than the USAF's Incr. 2 CCAs.
 
snne said:
It's just that they got there faster than the USAF's Incr. 2 CCAs.
Click to expand...
As far as CCA hardware and software are concerned, I think it's pretty par for course for how China pursues new tech because it's in part due to differences in the two government systems. China likes to go deep - take technology that's not terribly mature yet and field end-to-end prototypes of it and plug in technologies as they become mature. It's high risk, but the government has the organization, funds and political will to see it through. The US likes to field things on existing systems and mature technology through integration. Then when tech is mature, execute an end-to-end product. It's low risk and that suits investors, stakeholders and congress very well. Now there's always exceptions, but the trend tends to be this way for both countries.

I think the meat of the CCA conversation isn't in the airframe, carrying capacity or sensors themselves - those things aren't new and they certainly aren't hard to execute on (relatively speaking) as they aren't facing a knowledge horizon. The controlling software/algorithms and operating tactics is where the meat is, as the AI pipelines behind it still face a knowledge horizon that's being pushed every day. It's the difference between a team that is just fodder and a team that can force the enemy's hand through numbers alone. Just having the plane at this point doesn't really say much beyond what it's intended use is for.
 
Last edited:
To add to this,

If you goal is to have sustained presence and defensive depth, then clouds of subsonic CCAs is the way to go. With sufficient numbers comes greater coverage and that makes it hard for any threat - no matter their speed - to pick your formation apart. If you can achieve full coverage of an area throughout a sustained time, then no amount of maneuvering anywhere is going to allow the enemy to engage without being reciprocally engaged. If you've deployed a stand in force consisting of CCAs, your penetrating fighters don't need to have CCAs following them in. Geographically speaking, this may be achievable temporarily even if its ultimately unsustainable until resupply is possible.

If your goal is to penetrate, well that task looks very different for the US and China. For the US, penetrating to within reach of the Chinese shoreline would require a large inside and outside force to degrade the EW and pin enemy forces before manned fighters can attempt ingress, and that EW would probably need to be sustained for as long as they are there. That requires presence and loiter rather than speed. For the Chinese, your goal is to punch through the containment cloud to hunt aircraft in transit. You can readily sustain the EW degredation thanks to being on home turf. Past that, the threat environment is dispersed, distances are vast and you aren't going to find random CCA hoards roaming around. This offers ample real-estate to interdict without being targeted. The downside is you don't have the bases there to sustain a high quantity of manned/unmanned fighters so you need to bring your own stand-in force in the form of a large capacity 6th gen fighter + high end CCAs.

In addition, I think being fast and having high carrying capacity ought to be separated from sensor capability and observability here and the fundamental problem here isn't a matter of capability but again a problem of production capacity. Is the kinematic and positional advantage imparted via speed going to outweigh the advantage gained by being able to shoot from more angles? Probably not unless you don't care about fuel and loiter. A horde of subsonic CCAs would still be difficult to pick apart unless you can place yourself in the right position to negate their numerical advantage - and that gets harder when you don't know which are the real targets, which are decoys. Instead, carrying sufficient sensors while being low observable has higher payoffs here given the reduced distances at which LO engagements happen at. If you can find the enemy, you can engage them without being super sonic.

And to specifically address the problem of following manned fighters, I'm fairly certain most transits are done subsonic especially given the distances that fighting in the Pacific requires. You really only need to go supersonic or high supersonic during intercepts or when actually penetrating into enemy defenses. If you're flying with a B-21, you aren't going supersonic during ingress anyway. As mentioned above - if you have a stand in force at where you want to operate in after penetrating enemy defenses, then you may or may not need a supersonic CCAs to follow you in all the way. Making an unescorted dash as a 6th gen fighter across 100 - 200 nm should be doable if you have a stand in force and an outside force both doing jamming, supporting and covering. Even if the dash isn't successful, you have the space to run back under cover.

Vectis seems to be the only CCA thus far depicted with a combination of sensors and sufficient LO to give any of the Chinese CCAs a run for their money. My greatest concern with regards to vectis and all western CCAs really is actually production capacity and procurement quantity. You can choose to have a less capable platform, but if you do, you had better be able to produce the numbers to support it. You can't tell me that you've chosen a less capable platform and somehow it still can't be produced in numbers greater than the high end CCAs China wants to field. There's a good conversation to be had regarding just how many subsonic CCAs you need to fight high end CCAs / human aircraft to a standstill.
 
snne said:
Agreed, but these are clearly still intermediary solutions, and the PLA is confident that the future of operationally viable UADF designs is clear. It's just that they got there faster than the USAF's Incr. 2 CCAs.
Click to expand...

I do not think Incr1 is some kind of subscale modeling for a future full sized aircraft. The goal quite clearly was to come up with the cheapest platform that could take off and land conventionally while still being dangerous (2x BVR AAM) and while future increments might increase capability (although if anything the rumor mill indicates they actually may go for even less expensive), I do not think we will see larger aircraft. If future CCAs go supersonic, it is likely because engines are designed around the requirements of low cost, likely by trading engine lifetime for cost/output and accepting some weight/volume inefficiencies for ease of manufacture. It is not hard to build an unmanned supersonic platform; the U.S. has been doing it for decades since at least the QF-100.

The USAF has simply come to a different conclusion and/or has different requirements than the PLAAF. The real challenge for both organizations will be software related, not platform dependent. How the UAVs are controlled and their capacity to operate independently with minimal instruction will matter far more than the kinetics of individual UAVs.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom