USAF/US NAVY 6G Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS news

Scott Kenny said:
I suspect that there will be one generation of manned fighters past the F22/F35. Maybe two, though the second generation would definitely be a Human/AI combo working together (Yes, I've read Yukikaze, that's where I got the idea from). It's possible that the 6th generation would have an AI copilot, kinda depends on the software engineers at this point.

Past that, it's AI-controlled UCAVs basically told "anything flying in the following geographical area that doesn't pass IFF is to be shot down."
Click to expand...

I think that there will be manned aircraft roles for decades to come, even fighters (especially air policing). But I also think for the US, and likely the PRC soon after, the effectiveness of a simple two AAM UAV at getting to with lethal range of anything else and shooting it down (and if necessary just taking the hit rather than b evading) is going to ignite an attritional war of UCAV vs manned, followed shortly their after by UCAV vs UCAV, with the kind of loss rates normally associated with WWII. I’m not sure a “star destroyer” type manned platform has any place in that environment. And if you want to just geo fence a UAV into an airspace that is a free fire zone devoid of friendly aircraft, then that seems completely achievable now.
 
NMaude said:
I can't remember the name of the paper but I remember reading a paper touching on this subject about 11-12 years ago from the DTIC website about how the USMC after it got the F/A-18 hornet over time realised that it needed two-seaters for reasons other than training. I don't recall the exact details but I suspect that a two-seat version of the F-35 would have its uses.
Click to expand...
The difference between a classic Hornet and an F-35 though is night and day. The two seats Hornets were/are used as FACs. I expect an F-35 pilot would be able to accomplish that role today.

Explorer121 said:
The NGAD has always been planned as multicrew because they would scale the number of drone wingmen up as they upgraded it
This ends up needing a dedicated weapons officer
Click to expand...
I haven't seen anything that suggests manned NGAD would be multi-crew. Conversely I have seen this from the USAF

Jobe noted that in the experimentation underway for CCAs, concerns that pilots in fighters would be task-saturated managing two CCA escorts have proved unfounded. Former pilots in F-22 simulators could comfortably manage up to six CCAs, he said.
Click to expand...
www.airandspaceforces.com

First Increment of CCA Contracts Coming in ‘Next Few Months’; Second Round Next Year

The Air Force will award two or three Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) contracts by mid-2024, and a second phase by 2025, leaders said.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

NMaude said:
I just did a search over at the DTIC website for "Two-seat JSF" and this was the first entry:

JSF: The Need for a Two-Seat Variant EWS Contemporary Issue Paper

I do believe this was the paper I mentioned in my previous post (I must reread it).
Click to expand...
While primarily focused on EW that paper is from 2008. Today we have cognitive EW which significantly reduces the workload of the operator while also significantly improving the effectiveness of the EW programs.

NMaude said:
Why would it reduce transonic acceleration?
Click to expand...
Have you viewed the transonic acceleration numbers for the A versus the Cee? The Cee is a little heavier but the main difference is the wings and horizontal stabilizers.
 
Scott Kenny said:
And the US doesn't own the bases in the Pacific to fit them with HAS and SAMs etc.
Click to expand...

The U.S. does own the handful of bases in the second chain, and effectively owns several in Japan. For whatever reason the effort La towards hardening are extremely modest, though there is a lot of runway and apron expansion going on. On the flip side Mizowa is covered with fighter HAS.
 
quellish said:
Software is one of the biggest problems with the program right now. Software and the politics/commercial interests around it.

Does anyone really think that Lockheed is going to willingly integrate with non-Lockheed CCA platforms, or are they going to push to make the CCAs as well? And use integration with an existing platform as leverage?

It does not help that the primes and certain DoD components outright lied to SECAF about aspects of the program and how ready the technology was.

If the press was competent this would have been out in the open by now rather than “shrouded in secrecy”.
Click to expand...
I and the quote from Scott I was responding to wasn't talking about the F-35 which you are clearly referencing.

If you look at the CCA program it is not being run the same as traditional acquisitions. There is a hardware group and a software/autonomy group that have separate intents. The companies participating in these groups include both the big SIs but also the smaller newer entrants and surprise surprise the two who won Phase 1 were smaller leaner companies. I expect it will likely be a similar composition for phase two.

As for integrating the CCAs with F-35, yes I expect LM to tow the line. It would be in their business interest to because it actually secures the F-35s place in the future battlespace irrespective of where the CCAs themselves come from.
 
quellish said:
Software is one of the biggest problems with the program right now. Software and the politics/commercial interests around it.

Does anyone really think that Lockheed is going to willingly integrate with non-Lockheed CCA platforms, or are they going to push to make the CCAs as well? And use integration with an existing platform as leverage?

It does not help that the primes and certain DoD components outright lied to SECAF about aspects of the program and how ready the technology was.

If the press was competent this would have been out in the open by now rather than “shrouded in secrecy”.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the Skyborg project and other programs require the source code to be delivered to USAF and for it to operate across platforms. ThexSDA seems to be building it’s new satellite constellation with a similar forced open architecture requirement, and if you don’t want to play ball, you aren’t part of the program.
 
Josh_TN said:
if you don’t want to play ball, you aren’t part of the program.
Click to expand...

Boeing, Lockheed: “play ball? We’re the only game in town, baby!”

The Air Force wants to use the CCA program to grow new and innovative contractors. Do you really think Boeing and Lockheed are ok with that?
 
quellish said:
Boeing, Lockheed: “play ball? We’re the only game in town, baby!”

The Air Force wants to use the CCA program to grow new and innovative contractors. Do you really think Boeing and Lockheed are ok with that?
Click to expand...
Phase 1 has already proven the USAF is on the right path and Boeing and LM are no longer the only game in town. Perhaps if we are talking manned NGAD then I would agree but CCA has opened the flood gates now and the options are much broader. Doesn't mean LM and Boeing won't play in the CCA space but they have a lot more competition to keep them honest and hungry.
 
Ozair said:
Phase 1 has already proven the USAF is on the right path and Boeing and LM are no longer the only game in town. Perhaps if we are talking manned NGAD then I would agree but CCA has opened the flood gates now and the options are much broader. Doesn't mean LM and Boeing won't play in the CCA space but they have a lot more competition to keep them honest and hungry.
Click to expand...

It has not.

Phase I and Phase II CCA have to integrate with existing aircraft and other systems to be viable. At one point the technology was advertised by a certain organization as mature when the fighter pilot had to manually control companion aircraft through an iPad while also flying his own aircraft in a simulated engagement.

That… didn’t… work.

I planned to post a complete, concise account of what the Air Force is trying to achieve vs what has actually been delivered and advertised as mature, but I am concerned about where this information may end up.

However if I were an enterprising individual I would look at some of the recent abrupt, unexpected changes in USAF leadership and draw some conclusions based on that. Like is some mindless ticket punching automaton was replaced with someone more experienced in acquisitions…
 
quellish said:
It has not.

Phase I and Phase II CCA have to integrate with existing aircraft and other systems to be viable. At one point the technology was advertised by a certain organization as mature when the fighter pilot had to manually control companion aircraft through an iPad while also flying his own aircraft in a simulated engagement.

That… didn’t… work.

I planned to post a complete, concise account of what the Air Force is trying to achieve vs what has actually been delivered and advertised as mature, but I am concerned about where this information may end up.

However if I were an enterprising individual I would look at some of the recent abrupt, unexpected changes in USAF leadership and draw some conclusions based on that. Like is some mindless ticket punching automaton was replaced with someone more experienced in acquisitions…
Click to expand...
Are we talking about vendors and a wider pool or are we talking about the integration work being done?

For the integration work no production ready Phase One CCA has been handed over so I think you are a little early to discount what is happening. Will it all be sunshine and lollypops, undoubtedly not but the CCA portion of NGAD is clearly showing incredible promise and over the next five years will see progression that I expect will dwarf much of what has happened in aviation over the last 50 years previously.
 
quellish said:
Software is one of the biggest problems with the program right now. Software and the politics/commercial interests around it.

Does anyone really think that Lockheed is going to willingly integrate with non-Lockheed CCA platforms, or are they going to push to make the CCAs as well? And use integration with an existing platform as leverage?
Click to expand...
Oh, they're not going to get a choice in the matter.




quellish said:
Boeing, Lockheed: “play ball? We’re the only game in town, baby!”

The Air Force wants to use the CCA program to grow new and innovative contractors. Do you really think Boeing and Lockheed are ok with that?
Click to expand...
"Not for long with that attitude. Hang on while I call DoJ and see what to do about this effective monopoly you have created for yourself here. Oops, Boeing just got split into 3 separate companies (minimum). Lockheed is getting split into about 20."
 
quellish said:
Boeing, Lockheed: “play ball? We’re the only game in town, baby!”

The Air Force wants to use the CCA program to grow new and innovative contractors. Do you really think Boeing and Lockheed are ok with that?
Click to expand...

I do not think they get a vote. NG and Kratos are already better placed for Incr2. Look at what the SDA has done with Incr 0/1/2 so far: it has at least seven satellite contractors I can identify. Play ball or be replaced.

ETA: if the concern is the controller aircraft, which initially is planned to be the F-35, then I think that stumbling block falls over soon too. I think USAF is ultimately looking for full automation or control via high altitude platforms and/or SDAs new global satellite network. If LM won’t play ball, I suspect NG will.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
NGAD is a long term project beyond 2030, possibly way beyond 2030 now. The B-21 is one of the most successful USAF development programs in recent memory and it still had its contract signed a decade ago with a design freeze in 2018. So ~2035 seems like a realistic estimate to me. If you believe a war comes before that, or you believe air to air warfare as we know it becomes unrecognizable by then, what is the solution? Quite possibly, not any manned platform at all, or at least not the one you envisioned a decade ago.
Click to expand...
That would be a reasonable course of action. There is only one problem. They are not acting like they are preparing for the short term. Kendall and the rest of the AF's leadership has given every excuse in the book, except that one.

If that were the case then they would slash NGAD funding for the platform, fully commit to F-22 modernization - including upgrading the Block 20 up to the current standard, preprogram NGAP funding to the AETP engine for the F-35A to extend its range, and designating the F-22 and F-35 as the short term controllers for the CCAs. F-22/F-35 CCA teaming would be used to validate manned/unmanned teaming in penetrating counter air missions in the short term - something that really hasn't been done before.

But they have never said that or hinted at it.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom