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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ozair said:
The issue is at this point no CCA we have seen matches the performance, sensor capability and magazine depth of manned aircraft other than in range and that range comes from subsonic optimised airframes. It seems likely that to match that mix would require a platform that costs similar to a manned platform, until such point that volume production may bring that comparatively down.
Click to expand...

I am sure it would cost about the same, but why should it have all those capabilities? The two CCAs we know about are 10,000 lb MTOW subsonic AAM carriers which likely have far less sensor capacity (at least in terms of radar). If you gave one an augmented turbofan, you would lose range but gain speed. No need for any other expensive changes. Perhaps something like Hermes’ design could even make a pseudo ramjet workable.
 
Last edited:
snne said:
Thw whole point of low observability is to avoid getting locked on; to make it harder for the enemy to get a missile lock; and avoid getting detected (if possible) in the first place but the former always has the priority.
Click to expand...

Changing the angle from which you observe the target might have huge ramifications. Looking straight up at or down onto a B-2 has to be about the largest radar return possible (in certain wavelengths), even when compared to looking straight down the leading wing edge.
 
The problem is still the Pacific Ocean, and where the islands are relative to China. You need double the range of current aircraft in order to keep your tankers out of the A2AD zones. Full stop.

So yes, NGAD will end up a large airframe just because it needs to carry a huge amount of fuel. I'm guessing at least 40,000lbs of fuel onboard, and probably closer to 55klbs of fuel (based on F111B fuel consumption/capacity and 1800nmi range).

Ideally the weapons bays would be deep enough to hold 2000lb class weapons, so that the NGAD could be given a strike role later on, but I doubt that would happen.
 
Josh_TN said:
I am sure it would cost about the same, but why should it have all those capabilities? The two CCAs we know about are 10,000 lb MTOW subsonic AAM carriers which likely have far less sensor capacity (at least in terms of radar). If you gave one an augmented turbofan, you would lose range but gain speed. No need for any other expensive changes. Perhaps something like Hermes’ design could even make a pseudo ramjet workable.
Click to expand...
If you reduce manned NGAD capabilities then you have to compensate with improved CCA capabilities. No good having a manned NGAD that is massively outranged by the CCA and the CCA sensors are not capable enough to complete the FFTT portion of the targeting cycle on its own.

I think supersonic speed involves more than just slapping on an afterburner but CCAs matching manned fighter capabilities remains a lot more than just speed.
 
Sorry for the ignorant question, but has there been an NGAD flyoff? Do we know which company got the contract? Or if there hasn't been one, is there an expected date?
 
Elysium said:
Sorry for the ignorant question, but has there been an NGAD flyoff? Do we know which company got the contract? Or if there hasn't been one, is there an expected date?
Click to expand...

We have no clear idea where the project stands. Probably there are not actual flying prototypes, as opposed to technology demonstrators. Certainly there has not been a contract award, or a projected date for an award, considering the discussion up-thread about changing requirements for NGAD.
 
There is an interesting article in the current issue of Combat Aircraft about the future prospects of NGAD and whether it will survive or not. I would probably think that it will but with some redesigning.
 
Ozair said:
If you reduce manned NGAD capabilities then you have to compensate with improved CCA capabilities. No good having a manned NGAD that is massively outranged by the CCA and the CCA sensors are not capable enough to complete the FFTT portion of the targeting cycle on its own.

I think supersonic speed involves more than just slapping on an afterburner but CCAs matching manned fighter capabilities remains a lot more than just speed.
Click to expand...
You criticized the CCAs as being subsonic and I merely pointed out that is only Incr 1. We do not know what performance future UAVs will have. As for capability: quantity has a certain capability all its own and not every single CCA needs to have identical sensor fits if everything is networked.
 
Josh_TN said:
You criticized the CCAs as being subsonic and I merely pointed out that is only Incr 1. We do not know what performance future UAVs will have. As for capability: quantity has a certain capability all its own and not every single CCA needs to have identical sensor fits if everything is networked.
Click to expand...
While true, the more sensors above the basic needed to fly you add to a CCA the higher the cost of that CCA.

Something with the full F-35 sensor fit will cost pretty close to 30mil in sensors alone... And the USAF doesn't want to spend that much per whole CCA airframe!
 
Distributed Space Radar creates the possibility of, not Ground Controlled Intercept, but Space Controlled Intercept - which puts every mission at risk of fighter interception. In such a case, subsonic penetrating bombers are borderline obsolete.

As for range, either build a very large airplane or go STOL (and maybe swing-wing!) and operate out of Japanese airbases.
 
DrRansom said:
Distributed Space Radar creates the possibility of, not Ground Controlled Intercept, but Space Controlled Intercept - which puts every mission at risk of fighter interception. In such a case, subsonic penetrating bombers are borderline obsolete.
Click to expand...
Depends on whether the B-21s are detectable from above.

Yes, straight overhead is likely their single largest RCS angle. The question is how quickly does the RCS drop off as you come away from the top down view.

If B-21s are only detectable by a satellite directly overhead, PERFECTLY overhead, that's trivial to deal with. Someone gets a single detection once per orbit.



DrRansom said:
As for range, either build a very large airplane or go STOL (and maybe swing-wing!) and operate out of Japanese airbases.
Click to expand...
IIRC the assumption is that those will be hit by hypersonics and ballistics, if not nukes.
 
Josh_TN said:
You criticized the CCAs as being subsonic and I merely pointed out that is only Incr 1. We do not know what performance future UAVs will have. As for capability: quantity has a certain capability all its own and not every single CCA needs to have identical sensor fits if everything is networked.
Click to expand...
I think criticize isn't an accurate portrayal. I agree that we don't know what future platform capabilities will be but we also know what it costs to get the capability required when you add sensors, magazine depth and speed to the mix. Networking everything is fine if you assume that the platforms will have the ability to communicate. I would suggest there is enough experience with communications issues/jamming etc over Ukraine that expecting consistent communications is not good planning.
 
www.ga-asi.com

GA-ASI Displays Future of Uncrewed Airpower at AFA ASC 2024

Are you ready to see the future of uncrewed air power? General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) announces major displays during the Air Force Association’s (AFA) Air, Space & Cyber Conference
www.ga-asi.com

GA CCA full-scale mockup:
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3462.jpeg
    IMG_3462.jpeg
    1.4 MB · Views: 93
red admiral said:
I'm still trying to work out where the AMRAAMs go on Fury. Really seems like external on the wings rather than there being an internal bay sandwiched into the lower fuselage.
Click to expand...

Yes.

img_2206_1-jpg.697996
 
It is not clear to me that the GA submission has a weapon bay either, at least not one big enough for a full sized AAM. Model 437 explicitly does, though it is not part of Incr1.
 
Ozair said:
I think criticize isn't an accurate portrayal. I agree that we don't know what future platform capabilities will be but we also know what it costs to get the capability required when you add sensors, magazine depth and speed to the mix. Networking everything is fine if you assume that the platforms will have the ability to communicate. I would suggest there is enough experience with communications issues/jamming etc over Ukraine that expecting consistent communications is not good planning.
Click to expand...

I do not see any reason to increase magazine depth. Increasing performance certainly is desirable, though currently there seems to be a lack of off the shelf propulsion plants in the proper weight class for supersonic performance. A statement by Anduril specifically mentioned the lack of augmented turbofans in smaller thrust classes as a reason Fury was going to have to remain high subsonic for the foreseeable future.

As for sensors and networks, I think any aircraft, manned or unmanned, that falls out of network is going to be at a hopeless disadvantage anyway. And also think modern directional frequency agile datalinks are extremely resistant to ECM. I personally would be comfortable largely relying on such, though I would want every CCA to at least have an IRST and ESM. Putting radars on them seems problematic because of cost and SWAP-C; the radar would likely have so little detection range against a 5th gen target such that it was largely useless. I idly wonder if some kind of laser range finder/lidar would not be a lighter, less power hungry way of establishing target position after passive initial detection. But a large capable radar simply will not fit in the ~10,000 lb MTOW CCAs we are seeing. Better to offload that capability to the manned platform (initially F-35) or dedicated UAV sensor platforms (perhaps even “RQ-180” has some capability in this regard).
 
I feel like we're going back to the era of the Century Series with this rapid iteration impulse but with the added twist of making everything "unmanned and LO'd"...
 
dark sidius said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

Kendall Wants to Stay as Air Force Secretary Under New President

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said he wants to keep serving after the 2024 presidental election to work on his modernization efforts.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Interesting
Click to expand...

There is a good quote at the bottom of that report:

“So what should Increment 2 be? Do not assume and it may not be just an evolution of Increment 1. It could be an entirely different set of missions. Could be [an] entirely different kind of an aircraft,” Andrew Hunter, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, said at the 2024 Defense News Conference earlier this month. “And so part of that initial work is, again, starting with a large vendor pool, what are the good ideas out there? We’ll have some ideas [about] what we think Increment 2 needs to do as part of a broader force, and that’s part of this broader look at air dominance and how we’re going to deliver that.”

The Air Force is still voicing a clear commitment to the broader NGAS and NGAD initiatives no matter how they might evolve going forward. Questions about how aerial refueling support will be provided in high-end conflicts are also now clearly emerging as a central factor in the service’s planning for the future.

“We have a strong sense of urgency here. Our analysis must be adequate to support major decisions and to help us align our requirements, our acquisition strategies, and funding for these three programs,” Kendall said in his keynote, referring to NGAS, the NGAD combat jet, and CCA. “Stand by for answers in the next few months.”
Click to expand...

Seems they are trading the bulky internal fuel tanks of the transcontinental NGAD for something lighter that would refuel on a secured enough manner and have the mass of a large magazine of weapons carried by lighter CCAs. In other words: a disaggregated design that brings similar capacity out of a variety of platforms (not a flying puzzle but an agnostic one that can pair with whatever is there available).

The lighter, less complex components also fit the desire to evolve rapidly, module after module.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
There is a good quote at the bottom of that report:



Seems they are trading the bulky internal tanks of the transcontinental NGAD for something lighter that would refuel on a secure enough manner and have the mass weapons carried by lighter CCAs. In other words: a disaggregated design that brings similar capacity out of a variety of platforms (not a flying puzzle but an agnostic one that can pair with whatever is there available).

The lighter, less complex components also fits the desire to evolve rapidly, module after module.
Click to expand...
Good for them for learning from past mistakes.

This is going to be a controversial opinion, but; had the requirements for the JSF been defined better/ they didn't try to fit clashing needs of each service into a single aircraft, a Strike Eagle-esque F-35 with relaxed requirements could've been the NGAD they desperately need right now.

Yes, at the end the jet turned out to be pretty good for what it is, but the program itself is such a shameful waste of taxpayer money...
 
flateric said:

fury-2-amraams-scaled.jpg
Click to expand...
What's the point of a flying weapons magazine that isn't stealthy?



TomcatViP said:
There is a good quote at the bottom of that report:



Seems they are trading the bulky internal fuel tanks of the transcontinental NGAD for something lighter that would refuel on a secured enough manner and have the mass of a large magazine of weapons carried by lighter CCAs. In other words: a disaggregated design that brings similar capacity out of a variety of platforms (not a flying puzzle but an agnostic one that can pair with whatever is there available).

The lighter, less complex components also fit the desire to evolve rapidly, module after module.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree with that idea, unless Northrop has the capacity to make some KB21s as stealth tankers.

Half the point of the long range was to keep the tankers out of the A2AD bubble.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Half the point of the long range was to keep the tankers out of the A2AD bubble.
Click to expand...
I think more tankers with smaller targets on their backs simply offers (way) more flexibility that can at the same time cover for the disadvantages of a smaller and less complex NGAD.

This is IMHO absolutely the correct approach to take if you're fighting in the Pacific and trying to take on China (that is, unless you're ok with optimizing a variant of the B-21 as the NGAD and prepared get hurt more when you eventually lose them.)
 
Scott Kenny said:
What's the point of a flying weapons magazine that isn't stealthy?




I strongly disagree with that idea, unless Northrop has the capacity to make some KB21s as stealth tankers.

Half the point of the long range was to keep the tankers out of the A2AD bubble.
Click to expand...

A lot of what they are doing don't make sense and doesn't give you much confidence. It's like medicine and "the Science" with COVID. At some point you can't trust the expert when their credibility has been put into question by changing narratives, contradictions, and reversals on programs and policies.

Re: CCAs. You would think that they should carry their weapons internally and be at least as observable as their manned collaborators? If they are not then they will not only telegraph that a manned fighter is in the area but will become attritable whether they like it or not. I thought GA's XQ-67 could carry two AMRAAM sized weapons internally. But I might be wrong about that. TBH - that's a light load for $30 million combat aircraft. Is this really affordable mass?

Cost: $30 is a little pricey for something that can only carry two AMRAAMs internally. Yes, I realize that the sustainment cost will be less than a manned fighter. But the AF also only wants to have them in the front line for only 10 years before they are iterated and replaced by more advanced versions. At $30 million, I don't know if that math works out. As I have said previously, For the price of three CCAs you can purchase an F-35 that can carry six AMRAAMs as well as other weapons internally/externally with a full sensor suite that might be more survivable than a CCA. You will get additional range with an adaptive engine.

Re: Range, NGAS, and NGAD. A more efficient, cost effective, and operationally effective solution is design a planform that has long range and requires minimal tanking. What's the minimal range requirement for NGAD? Is it critical for the AF to operate NGAD from extremely long distances unrefueled - Guam, Australia, Wake, etc? If this is the case then the situation with regard to China is dire. The tyranny of distance will impose a huge cost on sortie rate if NGAD cannot operate closer to China.

I am not sure what the trade off are, but an unrefueled combat radius of 1,000 to 1,200 nm would open a number of bases and civilian airfields in Japan and Philippines. Those two island chains would also be much easier for the US to logistically support with fuel and munitions than small islands close to Taiwan.

AAR is still an option, but it will be challenging to support close to Taiwan, even with NGAS. The cost of Boeing's MQ-25 is around $150 million. It is proposing a larger land based tanker. How much more will that cost? Isn't it likely that NGAS will be a Silver Bullet fleet? It is likely that it's capacity will not be as large as a KC-46 so it will likely require AAR itself? And how close will it refuel assets to IADS? The greater range that can be built into NGAD further out from the A2/AD bubble the USAF can safely refuel its fighters.
 
B2Blain said:
Re: CCAs. You would think that they should carry their weapons internally and be at least as observable as their manned collaborators? If they are not then they will not only telegraph that a manned fighter is in the area but will become attritable whether they like it or not. I thought GA's XQ-67 could carry two AMRAAM sized weapons internally. But I might be wrong about that. TBH - that's a light load for $30 million combat aircraft. Is this really affordable mass?
Click to expand...
As you note, it's 1/3 the cost of an F-35, and if you can do some tricks with construction like making the entire skin in one piece you can probably get the cost lower with a decently large production run.


B2Blain said:
Cost: $30 is a little pricey for something that can only carry two AMRAAMs internally. Yes, I realize that the sustainment cost will be less than a manned fighter. But the AF also only wants to have them in the front line for only 10 years before they are iterated and replaced by more advanced versions. At $30 million, I don't know if that math works out.
Click to expand...
Remember that the CCAs are supposed to be stealthy, which means all the RAM and RAS are baked into the cost.

So they're going to be relatively expensive because of the stealth requirements.


B2Blain said:
Re: Range, NGAS, and NGAD. A more efficient, cost effective, and operationally effective solution is design a planform that has long range and requires minimal tanking. What's the minimal range requirement for NGAD? Is it critical for the AF to operate NGAD from extremely long distances unrefueled - Guam, Australia, Wake, etc? If this is the case then the situation with regard to China is dire. The tyranny of distance will impose a huge cost on sortie rate if NGAD cannot operate closer to China.

I am not sure what the trade off are, but an unrefueled combat radius of 1,000 to 1,200 nm would open a number of bases and civilian airfields in Japan and Philippines. Those two island chains would also be much easier for the US to logistically support with fuel and munitions than small islands close to Taiwan.
Click to expand...
I honestly assume that any airfield within 1000nmi of China would be hit with ballistic missiles and/or hypersonics.

Which means flying from Guam, PNG, Wake, Oz, etc.


B2Blain said:
AAR is still an option, but it will be challenging to support close to Taiwan, even with NGAS. The cost of Boeing's MQ-25 is around $150 million. It is proposing a larger land based tanker. How much more will that cost? Isn't it likely that NGAS will be a Silver Bullet fleet? It is likely that it's capacity will not be as large as a KC-46 so it will likely require AAR itself? And how close will it refuel assets to IADS? The greater range that can be built into NGAD further out from the A2/AD bubble the USAF can safely refuel its fighters.
Click to expand...
Given that the bigger MQ25 is only longer wings for 40% more fuel, I'm not expecting it to be more than about $175mil, and hopefully less due to economies of scale. 40% more fuel puts it to a fuel load of about 22,000lbs to transfer, roughly 1/4 that of a KC46.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom