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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Real life is different...

MUM-T troops in Afghanistan could scarcely command more than two drones at a time, provided the Longbow was sitting back and not engaged in action, and that was up to the gunner and pilot working together. One drone was doable if the Longbow was flying around but it could hardly do battle. No drones in combat because use of the robotic AH-6 required the full attention span of the gunner/pilot crew.

It's why the MUM-T drones were used explicitly as vanguards for detection of targets to be destroyed by the Longbows. Modern ones just use Grey Eagles that can fly in a circle and pipe the sensors back to the helicopter, because it turns out the Little Bird drone helicopter was a bad idea.
Right. That was a terrible implementation.

Since then we have had MQ-8 Fire Scouts and even the MQ-24 K-MAX. We also have various quadcopters that are capable of stationkeeping to their control handheld, while relaying FPV video at 4k resolution. As civilian available systems.

A combat fighter pilot has a much greater attention span debt than a combat helicopter pilot though. He can't simply stop and hide behind a hill while talking to a pair of drones. They need to be literally autonomous and able to conduct strike missions on their own, much like human pilots, and this will necessarily entail hitting things like civilians misidentified as combatants, or civilians identified as racially/ethnically Chinese (thus, "the enemy" and a valid target), or whatever targeting parameters the neural network discerns from a given dataset and its labels.

Drones today require essentially constant manned babysitting. Some can be trusted to fly in a straight line without getting lost. This is something a backseater would do in a better designed aircraft than JSF. It's something the pilot will need to juggle, along with everything else, in the JSF.
Like I said, I suspect that it will result in an Oh, Shit moment for the USAF and development of 2-seater versions of the F-35A and -C, with the Marines having to suck it up or rely on either the VFAXX or FA-18Fs or Growlers to manage the drones.

In practice I suspect the USAF will rely on, if it ever gets the idea of using UCAS in the first place, Air Battle Managers controlling UCAS like ordinary fighters and using them to replace the fighter-bomber job of the JSF. This would free JSFs up to do F-22's job of OCA/DCA. It would also put the least pressure on the poor single-seat fighter pilots.

That's important because the USAF is at a deficit of about 600 frontline tactical fighters aka ATF, which it hopes to make up with 1,700 JSFs and several hundred F-15/F-16, but right now it's looking like it will have a deficit of both JSFs and ATFs, and probably of F-15EX as well. Eliminating the bomb truck mission from JSF means it will be able to do ATF's job, albeit poorly. Because it's a stealth A-7, not a stealth F-15, thus it's probably not the best at maneuvering in BVR. So it goes...

If the robotic aircraft is smart enough to find targets on its own, destroy them, and return to base, it can probably be trusted to two or three per JSF, at best. If it isn't, then it's not worth much, because no JSF driver will be able to operate a drone and fly a jet at the same time, which is impossible. Which is why the robotic aircraft needs to be smart enough to kill things on its own and not be expected to wait for a man-in-the-loop decision to tell it to kill things.

That's kind of the point of a loyal wingman...

A CCA/loyal wingman isn't going to be a panacea, but it will certainly reduce the "virtual attrition" of JSF put into JDAMing/SDBing armor columns, and let them do more important things like killing enemy bombers and protecting own bombers.
The drones need to get to the point of needing as much pilot interaction as arming and dropping a JDAM. "Select weapon/drone, select target coordinates, wait for light to go green or whatever the "target locked" indicator is for the JDAMs, pull trigger."

If the drones are something that has the same rough range as the F-22/F-35/NGAD, the pilot can do a lot of the prep work on the ground. Pre-defining groups between "escort" and "strike", setting up the recon bird(s) to automatically fly the bomb damage assessment run about 25-50mi behind the strike package to give any secondary explosions time to settle, etc. Basically a bigger pre-flight.

Maybe they'll bring back the robotic teammate for B-21 at some point though.
That I doubt, the cockpit doesn't make as much of a % of the total load in a plane that size, and I don't think anyone is comfortable with the idea of a nuclear armed drone.

Could definitely see the B-21 acting as the quarterback for the smaller drones we have mooted for the CCA program. As is, the F-15EX is the likely quarterback for the job until the two-seat F-35s show up.

Though I need to add that right now, the proposed drones are a missile truck, an EW platform, and a recon unit. No bomb truck proposed so far, and I have no clue why.
 
Yeah, small wonder that a ship with a C3I setup, BLOS communications, and a CIC can control more aircraft than a single seat fighter-bomber.



You need a twin seater to use anything less than a fully autonomous strike aircraft. One man operates the drones and one man flies the plane. Highly advanced drones can be operated by timesharing and hot seating the controls. A good backseater might be able to juggle two or three robots. Less advanced ones need more babysitting by a pilot.

If you have a fully autonomous aircraft you don't need the manned component at all, though. The USAF simply made a mistake by making its entire future air force fleet nothing but single seat fighters. It will be paying for this well into the 2070's as JSF won't get a replacement before then.

Since it's all single seaters, there isn't much room for autonomous or robotic aircraft in the USAF, as it's too much of a threat to the pilot community. Which is why the USAF won't go for it.

The PLAAF and PLANAF OTOH are pretty invested in heavy twin seat twin engine fighters for drone control and weapons operation.

So is the USN.

The F-15E/EX fleet are two seaters, as is the B-21. IMO the B-21 is a natural platform to base CCAs off of until the manned NGAD becomes available. This would probably preclude it from bombing targets, but on the other hand it likely is A2A capable with extreme endurance and probably the best airborne sensor system available. Something like an air launched SM-6 would give it stand off range, in addition to the CCA weapons.

I don't think USAF is intending for its CCA force to be as hands on as you describe in any case. I suspect the remote operator will be able to select a ROE and behavior type - ie, wingman, decoy, offensive air sweep, stand in jammer, etc. For the moment it also seems like the operator will have to approve any weapons fire, though permission could perhaps be implicit with behavior selection or otherwise be provided ahead of time. Given sufficient automation, the operator wouldn't have to even be local - missiles like Tomahawk and LRASM have two way satellite coms that enable them to be retargeted or otherwise be given new instructions, as well as share their target information with a shore base. Relying on a satellite link would open a lot of vulnerabilities, but it could be a back up mode of operation if conditions allow.
 
Maybe one of you should create an

“endless and mostly useless speculation” thread and have this a more “news only” thread.
Also 'Merica should just surrender now, who knew the Imperial Japanese Navy would be able to teach us a thing or two.

Apparently America has no pilots, cant build or program drones, built the wrong aircraft, etc etc. Makes me ashamed to be in NATO with them.
 
The F-15E/EX fleet are two seaters, as is the B-21. IMO the B-21 is a natural platform to base CCAs off of until the manned NGAD becomes available.

The problem is that everyone, both in the PRC and US, are expecting a war in about 48 months, give or take half a year, more or less. CCAs only exist in the PRC because they've been converting old aircraft to UCAVs for the past decade, probably because they've been seriously preparing to fight another world war:


The US could've done this if it'd bothered to field QF-16s or something as combat platforms, back in 2015, when DARPA talked about it. If the USAF really gets its keister in gear it might be able to push out robotic A-10s in a couple years and put the Hog pilots into JSFs instead, which would give you something like 200-300 more tactical fighter drivers to warm seats.

But yeah the F-15E/-EX are going to be worked hard. I just don't think the USAF is bringing much to the table on the joint fight in a potential Taiwan showdown, aside from the B-2s and B-52s, which are always helpful, and the F-22s which might be helpful (they've demonstrated austere operations in Japan). It'll be retiring a huge number of useful combat aircraft between now and 2028, and on-boarding a bunch of light single-seat bombers instead, while the USN will muddle through with twin seaters as usual, but the twin seaters might end up being more useful.

I suspect it's going to be a inverse of Desert Storm: The USAF shows up, gets clowned on by the Navy, and then spends the next 20 years wallowing in despair. Meanwhile, the USN will get to NGAD first and the Air Force might get a landized version of the naval NGAD.
 
Last edited:
If you assume a conflict is inevitable in the next several years, then fighter development from either side hardly matters. It will be a ‘come as you are’ conflict. I personally don’t think such a move works well for the PRC and the US has no reason to overturn the apple cart. So I think peacetime fighter development carries on as normal.
 
Meanwhile, the USN will get to NGAD first and the Air Force might get a landized version of the naval NGAD.
If both services are going to end up using the same airframe, the USAF using the Navy design is the way to do it. USAF gets a tougher airframe that's a bit heavier than they want, but it's cheaper because the total buy isn't 200 airframes but more like 750 between AF and Navy needs. Assuming a 1:1 replacement of Super Hornets, anyways.
 
Only an act of Congress will make the USAF adopt a USN fighter. Given the very different needs of the two organizations I think the two separate programs go on as they are now.
 
Whoever looses the USAF NGAD may well win the US Navy's FA-XX program, so we may find ourselves with totally different fighters for the two services born out of different requirements.
 
Lemme guess - Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin.
 
Something like that Arjen, though I still wonder if Boeing is still in the running for the US Navy FA-XX contract. We have heard next to nothing about that program.
 
Whoever looses the USAF NGAD may well win the US Navy's FA-XX program, so we may find ourselves with totally different fighters for the two services born out of different requirements.
I hope that's the case. I've seen at least one politician pushing for a TFX part 2.
 
Oh Help! Let's see if they can remember what happened first time round with the F-111A/B the F-111B ended up far too heavy and did not meet the US Navy's requirements at that time, so I would think that who ever suggested that they go down that route again should take a long hard look at the history books. :mad:
 
(cough) F-4 Phantom II (cough) . . .
Also, the A-7 'SLUF' would like a word . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 
Last edited:
Oh Help! Let's see if they can remember what happened first time round with the F-111A/B the F-111B ended up far too heavy and did not meet the US Navy's requirements at that time, so I would think that who ever suggested that they go down that route again should take a long hard look at the history books. :mad:
The F-111B actually met the original USN requirements.
But the USN later decided they'd rather have an actual fighter.
That's the story afaik.
 
The F-111B actually met the original USN requirements.
But the USN later decided they'd rather have an actual fighter.
That's the story afaik.
And in fact, the loaded F-14D came close to the weight of the F-111B. The USN also switched because whenever it came down to an argument over what the USN wanted vs what the USAF wanted for the TFX, the USAF almost always won the argument. It was the USAF's choices that drove the weight up to begin with; such as the side by side seating and high flotation landing gear.
 
And in fact, the loaded F-14D came close to the weight of the F-111B. The USN also switched because whenever it came down to an argument over what the USN wanted vs what the USAF wanted for the TFX, the USAF almost always won the argument. It was the USAF's choices that drove the weight up to begin with; such as the side by side seating and high flotation landing gear.
The F-14D also had engines 50% more powerful than the utterly anemic TF-30s.
 
Last edited:
BREAKING NEWS!! SECRETIVE SIXTH GENERATION PROTOTYPE REVEALED

Taking advantage of breakthrough advances developed in the black world in the last 30 years, one of the main features of the new fighter is the ability to be entirely 3D printed almost instantaneously, potentially enabling the production of large volumes of fighters during a hypothetical conflict. A lifting body arrowhead shape was found to be the most effective design balancing cost, stealth, maneuverability, range and other attributes, while maximizing internal volume available for fuel and payload. The aircraft makes use of active flow control and fluidic thrust vectoring, limiting the number of control surfaces required to only four. Also, the lack of a visible nozzle indicates it employs a novel exhaust system that greatly reduces the IR signature of the engine(RIVET). The technologies inside this airframe are so advanced that it even, although in a limited way, employs antigravity tech, to maneuver while on the ground, removing the need for landing gear wheels.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqskhTNwYlQ&t=5s

(Everything I've written above is not intended to be taken seriously)
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2023-06-30 at 12-04-03 AFRL Digital Transformation.png
    Screenshot 2023-06-30 at 12-04-03 AFRL Digital Transformation.png
    348.3 KB · Views: 163
  • Screenshot 2023-06-30 at 12-04-21 AFRL Digital Transformation.png
    Screenshot 2023-06-30 at 12-04-21 AFRL Digital Transformation.png
    326.4 KB · Views: 162
What was the original Link Plumeria program since it has been around for 30 years quellish? I would have thought that the US Navy would try to think up a new name for the FA-XX instead.
 
Huh? Link Plumeria has been around for like 30 years.
Maybe it's the standard "let's hide the money here" R&D line item that emits a production program from time to time.
 
Paywalled article by Steve Trimble. TL;DR: FA/XX SAP codename is Link Plumeria, and it's the fourth biggest R&D line item behind the LGM-35, USAF NGAD, and OPIR.


Not exactly news, is it? The Drive had an article linking the two back in March, based on the investigative research technique of reading the FY24 budget request. But The Drive was a bit clearer, I think, that FA-XX and the Link Plumeria SAP are two separate budget lines within PE0603748N that previously held just the SAP:


Based on the other budget moves involving LP, it's obviously related to advanced aircraft developments, but it's been around too long to just be another name for FA-XX.

As to why FA-XX and LP are in the same PE now, I'd guess it's because it's easier to use the same cleared budget analysts than to create a new team just for FA-XX at this point.
 
If that is the case then why don't the US Navy leaders come up with a different name for the FA-XX? Something like the Senior suffix and make the FA-XX disappear into a cloak of secrecy.
 
If that is the case then why don't the US Navy leaders come up with a different name for the FA-XX? Something like the Senior suffix and make the FA-XX disappear into a cloak of secrecy.

Probably because they don't want the "fact of" the program to disappear, just the details.
 
Ah! right thanks TomS. So we won't know the performance aspects of the FA-XX for many years, and quite right too.
 
Does that mean the article is wrong or they’ve recycled? We’ve all been told the importance of recycling.

I have not seen the source information that is the basis of the article, so I cannot say wether it is incorrect or why. They mention some White House communication that links the two programs but I have not seen that document.
Program elements are not generally recycled. In this case LINK PLUMERIA was definitely not recycled or repurposed.

Perhaps though you meant the article(s) mentioned here were recycled?

LINK PLUMERIA has been active since at least the early 1990s, possibly earlier. Over the years the levels of funding have varied but have generally been low.

And, importantly, LINK PLUMERIA is not an aircraft program and never has been.


Maybe it's the standard "let's hide the money here" R&D line item that emits a production program from time to time.

The idea of a "slush fund" or black budget line item that actually funds some other activity is the thing of movies. When DoD asks for money for some purpose (and gets it), they have to spend that money for that purpose. If they want to use it for something else they have to get approval for a reprogramming action - moving money from one program to another. These reprogramming actions are public, even for classified programs.

For example, years ago the Navy was approved to reprogram funds from LINK PLUMERIA (and several other classified programs) into the X-47B demonstration. Their argument for doing so was that the X-47B was higher priority. In some cases a reprogramming may be done between related programs but this is not always the case (and was not the case in the example I just gave)

IF the Navy was using funds from LINK PLUMERIA for some other purpose without an approved reprogramming action there was a failure of the oversight and budgeting process. If they were caught it would result in a very nasty investigation and the Navy probably wouldn't get a new airplane, a new sub, etc.
 
(cough) F-4 Phantom II (cough) . . .
Also, the A-7 'SLUF' would like a word . . .

cheers,
Robin.
The A-7 was not a multirole aircraft. The F-4 was a jack of all trades. Not something you want in an NGAD.
 
The idea of a "slush fund" or black budget line item that actually funds some other activity is the thing of movies. When DoD asks for money for some purpose (and gets it), they have to spend that money for that purpose. If they want to use it for something else they have to get approval for a reprogramming action - moving money from one program to another. These reprogramming actions are public, even for classified programs.

For example, years ago the Navy was approved to reprogram funds from LINK PLUMERIA (and several other classified programs) into the X-47B demonstration. Their argument for doing so was that the X-47B was higher priority. In some cases a reprogramming may be done between related programs but this is not always the case (and was not the case in the example I just gave)

IF the Navy was using funds from LINK PLUMERIA for some other purpose without an approved reprogramming action there was a failure of the oversight and budgeting process. If they were caught it would result in a very nasty investigation and the Navy probably wouldn't get a new airplane, a new sub, etc.

I wasn't suggesting something nefarious. A 30-year-old program could conceivably be an ongoing funding mechanism for advanced aerospace vehicle research. When one of the research areas shows signs of success and needs to mature into a production program, it's spilt off into its own PE. That might account for varying funding levels within LP. Or it might not, but such an approach wouldn't be in contravention of the US Code or DoD funding regulations.
 
And, importantly, LINK PLUMERIA is not an aircraft program and never has been.

I've looked it up in the FYDP structure document and it points to Op-980C for additional info. That's the OPNAV Aviation Branch's Carrier section. So, I would agree that LINK PLUMERIA isn't a specific aircraft, if only because of its longevity, but it sure seems to be related to carrier aviation in some way.

PS: I'd bet that the AvWeek "linkage" is simply this:

1689271390815.png
 
Last edited:
So, I would agree that LINK PLUMERIA isn't a specific aircraft, if only because of its longevity, but it sure seems to be related to carrier aviation in some way.

Without going into the how's/why's, It is literally not an aircraft program. IE not a specific aircraft or (directly) aviation related.
 
The A-7 was not a multirole aircraft. The F-4 was a jack of all trades. Not something you want in an NGAD.
I was replying to Fighterjock's post above mine, in which he implied that when the Air Force and Navy adopted a common aircraft, the result was always poor. I was merely pointing out that in the case of the two aircraft i mentioned, they were successful.
However, I recognise that in both the cases I quoted, it was the Air Force adopting a Navy aircraft, whereas in the case of the F-111, it was the other way round . . .
As regards NGAD, it may have to happen (a common airframe), purely on budgetary grounds . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom