USAF/USN 6th Gen Fighters - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS News & Analysis [2008- 2025]

Status
Not open for further replies.
www.airandspaceforces.com

Kendall Reveals Secret X-Plane Program Paved the Way for NGAD

An "X-plane" program flew in the mid-2010s ahead of the NGAD fighter program, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall revealed.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

I am wondering if calling it a multi-platform aircraft would not fit better the narrative than NGAD & CCA. Basically the fighter IA will fly the segregated vectors until long range communication will take the relay.
That scenario fits the cost announcement with 2 or 3 CCA costing nearly as much as a fighter.
 
Last edited:
Is this not the DARPA program we've known about for years?
Edit: OK, I read the article and that's exactly what it was about. The only thing new in it is the fact that they tested the demonstrators as CCA controllers as well. So, which CCAs did they control in the tests? ;)
 
TomcatViP said:

US Air Force to set up experimental squadron to refine Collaborative Combat Aircraft force structure

The US Air Force (USAF) is to set up an experimental squadron in 2024 to experiment with force structure in advance of the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA)...
www.janes.com
Click to expand...
Eventually, I see the CCAs as outnumbering the manned aircraft by about 11 to 1. Manned plane has 2x EW CCAs, 4x bomb trucks, 3x dogfighters, and 2x post-strike recon birds.

Basically one entire strike package with only one manned aircraft involved.



Forest Green said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1725155496120782885
View: https://twitter.com/beverstine/status/1725155496120782885?s=20
Click to expand...
Did twatter change their setup recently? It's demanding that I create an account to see what's been posted.
 
greenmartian2017 said:
Just today I saw this youtube video that talks about this new disclosure...

Your reactions/comments welcomed.
Click to expand...

Yes, the DARPA Air Dominance Experimental X-plane effort has been discussed here extensively for many years. This isn’t a new disclosure
 
Sundog said:
Is this not the DARPA program we've known about for years?
Edit: OK, I read the article and that's exactly what it was about. The only thing new in it is the fact that they tested the demonstrators as CCA controllers as well. So, which CCAs did they control in the tests? ;)
Click to expand...
There are plenty of existing airframes that could (and indeed have) been used as surrogates for this kind of stuff. They don’t need to be UAVs - just some kind of platform that can receive the necessary data - whether that’s mission tasking, sensor data or a weapons release.
 
If the NGAD is supposed to be a leader for a flight of CCAs, wouldn't that make 2-man crew the obvious choice?
 
DrRansom said:
If the NGAD is supposed to be a leader for a flight of CCAs, wouldn't that make 2-man crew the obvious choice?
Click to expand...
I believe so, yes.

USN will absolutely go for a 2-man crew (they're using F-18Fs as Tomcat replacements), question is whether the USAF will. Notice that they were stupid and did not fund 2-seat F-22s or F-35s, so there aren't many WSOs to call from, and all the USAF WSOs are bombadiers from F-15Es.
 
RavenOne said:
Is it me or is there another platform in N-G teaser, in this one posted a week ago, the platform looks different from original video
Click to expand...
It looks the same to me, but seen in a different angle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scott Kenny said:
I believe so, yes.

USN will absolutely go for a 2-man crew (they're using F-18Fs as Tomcat replacements), question is whether the USAF will. Notice that they were stupid and did not fund 2-seat F-22s or F-35s, so there aren't many WSOs to call from, and all the USAF WSOs are bombadiers from F-15Es.
Click to expand...

The F-model is not the F-14 replacement—those missions are majority performed by E-models, which are more numerous and have better endurance. The two seater has basically no advantages in air to air with the Block 2 cockpit, there is no need to have a second seat. The F-model only has real advantages in very niche air to ground missions either, for >90% of CAS and strike missions the E is just as capable. Which is why the Navy stopped buying F-models many years ago. The only two seat Rhino airframes bought by the Navy in recent times are Growlers.

This is also why there wasn't any serious consideration of a two seat JSF or ATF (past the mid 80s, at least). Modern cockpit automation is so vastly superior there isn't much of any reason to take up expensive design space for a human that doesn't provide terribly much benefit. The Navy was a bit late to the game compared to the Air Force, earlier buys of Rhinos were much heavier on the F-model before shifting to the E-models, especially after Block 2.

It is also quite an assumption that CCAs will require multi seat aircraft to operate. These aircraft are intended to be much more autonomous than prior UAS, and rather than give specific commands to individual or groups of CCAs they will likely be integrated much more organically into the manned aircraft. Preferably, pilots will only have to provide generic commands to any CCAs regarding formations and a few discrete options regarding emissions control for one example. But weapons release for example may only be controlled by the pilot indirectly—when the pilot commands a weapon be released, that weapon could come from any aircraft under their direction, either their own or a CCA, depending on any range of factors. We already see this type of automation with Aegis and CEC, as well as IBCS now, where both systems are totally capable of managing a complex engagement without any operator intervention. It isn't a stretch that this capability could be put into a fighter sized package at this point.
 
DrRansom said:
If the NGAD is supposed to be a leader for a flight of CCAs, wouldn't that make 2-man crew the obvious choice?
Click to expand...
If everything is really automated, then why do you need an extra crewman dedicated to this?
 
Automation is always cool on paper, when all events are within parameters. Human mind "might" still be IMHO better at adapting to the unexpected.
Task optimization? The pilot concentrating on his own aircraft management and immediate threats while the WSO is monitoring other assets and the bigger picture?
What about the psychological side of not being alone in the cockpit, especially during long flights, especially with the new emphasis on longer range missions?
 
totallyaverage said:
It is also quite an assumption that CCAs will require multi seat aircraft to operate. These aircraft are intended to be much more autonomous than prior UAS, and rather than give specific commands to individual or groups of CCAs they will likely be integrated much more organically into the manned aircraft. Preferably, pilots will only have to provide generic commands to any CCAs regarding formations and a few discrete options regarding emissions control for one example. But weapons release for example may only be controlled by the pilot indirectly—when the pilot commands a weapon be released, that weapon could come from any aircraft under their direction, either their own or a CCA, depending on any range of factors. We already see this type of automation with Aegis and CEC, as well as IBCS now, where both systems are totally capable of managing a complex engagement without any operator intervention. It isn't a stretch that this capability could be put into a fighter sized package at this point.
Click to expand...
But it hasn't been, at least not in any public discussions.

Testing of MUMT with Apache Es and MQ1Cs has shown that the current generation of drones require far too much pilot/operator input for someone to fly an aircraft and fly the drone at the same time.

So unless the current CCA designs are at a point where they require as much operator interaction as a JDAM, you're going to need a back seater to quarterback the drones while a pilot keeps the quarterback safe.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I believe so, yes.

USN will absolutely go for a 2-man crew (they're using F-18Fs as Tomcat replacements), question is whether the USAF will. Notice that they were stupid and did not fund 2-seat F-22s or F-35s, so there aren't many WSOs to call from, and all the USAF WSOs are bombadiers from F-15Es.
Click to expand...
Second space for a dog perhaps. Don't blame me, I didn't make this one up: cockpit automation will advance so far that every plane will have as its crew a human and a dog. The human's job will be to feed the dog and the dog's job will be to bite the human if they try to do anything.
 
The first concept is heavily based on this EXPEDITE concept from the late 2010s it seems, but it's a subsonic CAS aircraft, with far too short range to be useful in the Pacific, although it would be cool if the actual X-plane indeed looked like this
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.png
    Untitled.png
    267.9 KB · Views: 317
  • 212555-6c089e7e4865f066207e08d4ea1c5aa3.jpg
    212555-6c089e7e4865f066207e08d4ea1c5aa3.jpg
    41.3 KB · Views: 219
Moose said:
Could also be a technology demonstrator which is demonstrating something which isn't effected by the number of turbines.
Click to expand...
It'd be a very small demonstrator, then. Look at cockpit size compared to airframe overall.

If real, that's the size of the Boeing Bird of Prey...



Rhinocrates said:
Second space for a dog perhaps. Don't blame me, I didn't make this one up: cockpit automation will advance so far that every plane will have as its crew a human and a dog. The human's job will be to feed the dog and the dog's job will be to bite the human if they try to do anything.
Click to expand...
:D

Eventually. We're not there yet.
 
X-39 said:
The first concept is heavily based on this EXPEDITE concept from the late 2010s it seems, but it's a subsonic CAS aircraft, with far too short range to be useful in the Pacific, although it would be cool if the actual X-plane indeed looked like this
Click to expand...
Any more information out there about EXPEDITE?
 
flateric said:
I
O RLY? 'Heavily based on?'
Click to expand...
No. Okay, I concede. I'm too much of a fanboy. But these two don't look too dissimilar with that star/rhombus shaped canopy, minus tails and inlets when you weight them against other past concepts, in my opinion. Either way, both suffer from way too much cockpit and not enough real estate left for other components, are small, and single-engined.
 
X-39 said:
No. Okay, I concede. I'm too much of a fanboy. But these two don't look too dissimilar with that star/rhombus shaped canopy, minus tails and inlets when you weight them against other past concepts, in my opinion. Either way, both suffer from way too much cockpit and not enough real estate left for other components, are small, and single-engined.
Click to expand...
They are nothing more than LMSWs Watanabe concept arts used for MDO paper research and SW advertisment I think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom