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

Status
Not open for further replies.
bring_it_on said:
Roughly 1,500 nmi with a 'supercruise' requirement would put the NGAD platform at something like 2x the performance of the F-22A when equipped with 2 x 600-gallon tanks. Even with more efficient adaptive engines, you are probably looking at an internal fuel load that's +>50% vs F-22A..perhaps closer to 30,000 lbs?..perhaps something like 50+% more fuel for 100% more range...
Click to expand...
When you are supercruising, you will not have the improved SFC of the adaptive engines. They will be operating in the low bypass mode during supercruise. The three stream high bypass SFC improvements are only available during subsonic cruise.
 
B2Blain said:
More evidence that Kendall and possibly AF leadership do not know what they are doing. What's the purpose of Increment 1? Is it a munitions carrier to extend the reach and increase the magazine depth of 5th Gen fighters and NGAD? Or are they just spending money to find out what they want to what they build next in Increment 2 or what will one day be the unmanned companion for NGAD?

Kendall says Increment 2 needs to be better than Increment 1 but will not be exquisite, whatever that means. So more than $20-30 million? Or is Increment 1 really more like like $40 million as has been itimated by JJ Gertler when he said it would be half the price of an F-35. What is Increment 1 lacking in terms of stealth, performance, payload, or mission systems to perform whatever mission it is supposed to perform? Will $10 million more make a difference? How much does an Exquisite CCA cost anyway?

While Rome burns the Chinese are modernizing their Air Force and iterating faster than the US, we are taking a pause because we are not sure. The same indecisiveness that is still present in the, Navy manifesting itself currently in FFG-62, is now infecting the Air Force.

For seemingly valid reasons, requirements drove the AF to develop a $300 million PCA fighter. At the 11th hour you need to take a pause because you are not sure. Dave Deptula discussed NGAD and CCAs on the Defense and Aerospace today and reiterated his previous call for evaluating these competing systems through their cost per effect. An NGAD fighter the cost of an F-35 or cheaper, or a CCAs at whatever price point must be evaluated against the alternatives. The lack of information regarding cost, capabilities, and CONOPS of Increment 1 by the primes and the AF might be a case of holding things close to the vest on a truly revolutionary weapon system? Or it might indicate lack a maturity in the technology and thoughts on how to employ it?

This does not seem to be the case with NGAD. It was fast tracked to become operational by 2030. Deptula is right. Increase production of the F-35 to more than 70 year and stop wasting time and money and proceed with NGAD.
Click to expand...
Totaly agree , it look like Kendall don't know what He want, like you say it is not at the eleven hour than you take a pause.
 
F119Doctor said:
When you are supercruising, you will not have the improved SFC of the adaptive engines. They will be operating in the low bypass mode during supercruise. The three stream high bypass SFC improvements are only available during subsonic cruise.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the estimated performance improvements cited by the AF. NGAP would net something like 38% improvement on NGAD platform when it came to sup/sub radius (I assume similar profile to F-22A) and about 23% improvement when it came to pure sub radius. These are obviously relative to , I assume, using currently available technology instead of the ‘developmental’ ACE.
 

Attachments

  • AETP_Transition.png
    AETP_Transition.png
    269.3 KB · Views: 99
Last edited:
I read somewhere that the F-35 block 4 will have more fuel with modify internal tanks ?
 
Blitzo said:
The more salient question that should be asked is not about the PLAAFs manned aircraft engaging USAF CCAs, but what are the underlying assumptions of each sides' respective MUMT/CCA air combat system of systems.

Some of the USAF NGAD discussion that has continued/proceeded with recent PLA next gen aircraft developments in the last few weeks have focused on the wrong bits -- instead of focusing on the aircraft like J-36 itself, thinking about what kind of system of systems it is intended to operate in and what its CCA/UCAV elements may look like, are more important.
IMHO that in turn can partially inform the higher level operational/strategic contexts regarding USAF NGAD and CCA planning.
Click to expand...
Care to share what you know about the MUMT/CCA aspects of J-36 or the other newly unveiled CCP aircraft? I haven't seen any press releases or documents from the PLAAF discussing what they are after, without which we can't really say much.
 
NASA said:
Care to share what you know about the MUMT/CCA aspects of J-36 or the other newly unveiled CCP aircraft? I haven't seen any press releases or documents from the PLAAF discussing what they are after, without which we can't really say much.
Click to expand...
There are a few papers written by CAC/SAC engineers including the lead engineer of CAC describing their vision of next generation air combat, they are posted over on SDF. I would retrieve them for you guys but my account over on SDF haven't been mod approved yet
 
Scott Kenny said:
Right now, the USAF has an untested CONOPS for CCAs.

Increment 1 is to test the CONOPS in the real world. And to see if there's a drone mission that they're missing that really needs to be inside the CCA group. And to see if there's systems that need to be on every drone, like say not just an EOTS for ground navigation but a good IRST.

Increment 2 would then apply the modifications to the CONOPS and verify that they work. And add whatever extra missions and hardware came up in Increment 1.

For example, right now it's looking like Increment 1 is simply some "spear-carriers", drones carrying a couple of AMRAAMs for the manned plane to control. After some flying and wargames, it'd be good to have a TACIT BLUE-type ISR drone.
(guessing here) Then Increment 2 adds a stealthy ISR-and-comms-relay drone with EOTS, a GMTI radar, and the BACN comms node. Now Increment 2 is new "spear-carriers" with a good IRST, and this recon drone. After some flying and live wargames, it'd be good to have an EW drone, and the spear-carrier CCAs would be a lot better with a radar as well as the IRST.
(still guessing) So Increment 3 adds EW drones (recoverable MALD-Js, basically, which may-or-may-not be carried by another plane to their launch point). The Increment 3 "spear-carrier" CCAs now have a good IRST and radar (and carry 4x AMRAAMs each), plus there's recon drones and jammer drones. After some flying and live fire wargames, it'd be nice to have a bomber drone that's a step above a cruise missile that we can reuse if it doesn't get shot down, to get into the outer edges of an A2AD zone and then attack something inside a tougher A2AD bubble.
(still more guessing) So Increment 4 adds a fairly large drone (it needed to carry more than 4x 2000lb bombs or ~24x 500lb bombs the same range as the NGAD, for example). It's got EOTS and a radar that's good for ground-search, because that's needed to drop bombs in all weather. It does not have bays for AAMs. Keep the Increment 3 "spear carrier" CCAs, the Increment 2 "TACIT BLUE" CCAs, and the Increment 3 Growler/MALD-Js (whichever size they end up).

At the end of Increment 4 and going into Increment 5, we have enough CCAs in support that you could make one Manned NGAD the lead for an entire strike package.

And somewhere between Increment 4 and 5, someone is going to say, "how much to make the spear carrier CCAs capable dogfighters?"
Click to expand...
I don't know if this all has been said. But it seems to me they should have figured all this out with existing platforms like the XQ-58 or MQ-20. Or if technology is not mature, as has been indicated by reports regarding Increment 1, then the AF should fund testbeds not a program of 100-150 production aircraft in order to figure it out.

Here are some issues that they need to resolve.

1. Can an affordable non attritable CCA operate sufficiently in front of its controlling manned fighter to afford the manned fighter advantages in survivability while being able to employ its effects with some level of success?
2. Are passive EO sensor good enough to allow a CCA to effectively engage another aircraft with A2A missiles before being shot down? Or will it mostly be reliant on manned systems on the network for that?
 
NASA said:
Care to share what you know about the MUMT/CCA aspects of J-36 or the other newly unveiled CCP aircraft? I haven't seen any press releases or documents from the PLAAF discussing what they are after, without which we can't really say much.
Click to expand...

And you're never going to get press releases or documents from the PLAAF discussing what they are after. They have yet to even acknowledge the existence of J-36 for example.

However there have been various non-classified/non-sensitive papers from defense/aerospace associated individuals in the PRC talking about MUMT/UCAVs/CCAs as well as a few papers from high ranking aerospace individuals about next gen combat air systems that convey they are quite aware of the importance of CCAs/UCAVs.


Most importantly however, is the credible rumour grapevine that gave us the same information about J-36 in the months/year and a half leading up to its reveal --as well most of the other major big ticket PLA projects that emerged over the last decade or more -- have emphasized how J-36 is intended to operate as a system of systems with UCAV/CCA complements. That isn't to say the J-36 itself is not a capable aircraft, but that operating at fuller, truer capability means it is associated with UCAVs/CCAs.


Sometimes observing US military and PLA procurement leads to a case of inappropriate mirroring, but in this case I think it may be useful for people to actually try and mirror US military pursuits of UCAVs/CCAs and project it to assume the PLA are probably pursuing it in a very similar manner (which shouldn't be too controversial given how many next gen air combat systems are emphasizing UCAVs/CCAs).
 
Josh_TN said:
The assumption seems to be that the PLAAF will detect CCA and engage it at will without repercussions. That seems a little presumptuous, if only because BVR range cuts both ways and J-20s only have four BVR weapons. It seems to me if you can shoot at CCA, it can shoot at you, and by firing you have highlighted your position. Unlike a manned aircraft, CCA is under no obligation to evade if closing with the target and firing at the last second gives a good probability of a kill.

I will take it one step further : if CCAs have missile detection gear and ejectable countermeasures, I would have to think an AI pilot would have some advantages in terms of coordination of countermeasure ejections with its maneuvers over a manned aircraft, despite its kinematic disadvantages. It would know everything about the angle and proximity of the incoming and select the optimal maneuver and CM ejection pattern to time with the incoming, even if it’s a one turn aircraft. That might well be enough to make it a target you have to double tap - and that would get expensive in AAMs.
Click to expand...
Fitting these CCAs with all of the sensors needed to compete with those of first-rate fighters is going to be an expensive prospect on its own. In that sense I don't think you can hope for them to have all of the information about the threat and incoming missiles, since the opponent in the question also has VLO and LO aircraft, and they're doing everything in their power to reach parity in radars/sensors. In the worst-case scenario the CCA doesn't know what's incoming for certain until the AAM's radar seeker goes active.

Without NGAD, F/A-XX, and other manned aircraft to complement and work with these CCAs I don't see how this can work out well. For all the F-35's strengths it has its limitations too and can't be the only manned component.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Fitting these CCAs with all of the sensors needed to compete with those of first-rate fighters is going to be an expensive prospect on its own.
Click to expand...

They don't all need radar, they need to be networked. The ones that do have radar don't need the fanciest or most powerful radars. They will be closer than than the expensive fancy platforms.
Even if all they do is flush game, you still end up ahead in the math because your manned platform doesn't get whacked.
 
B2Blain said:
Or if technology is not mature, as has been indicated by reports regarding Increment 1, then the AF should fund testbeds not a program of 100-150 production aircraft in order to figure it out.
Click to expand...

CCA remains a R&D program for some time.. They will buy the amount they need to keep the design and production teams working, and what they need to begin experimentation, demonstrations and development of concept of operations.

Colonial-Marine said:
Without NGAD, F/A-XX, and other manned aircraft to complement and work with these CCAs I don't see how this can work out well. For all the F-35's strengths it has its limitations too and can't be the only manned component.
Click to expand...
CCA needs NGAD platform for it to be highly effective in its originally intended mission (Air Dominance). I think this would be an important factor in deciding what type of NGAD platform to pursue (the current one or something cheaper).
 
NMaude said:
I wonder what the CCA programme's current TRL is?
Click to expand...
You can't apply a TRL to an entire program that is looking to do multiple things over time and in increments. The basic air-vehicles chosen are pretty mature and are mostly leveraging proven systems. The autonomy side of the program is probably not very public but that's really the secret sauce of this entire effort.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Fitting these CCAs with all of the sensors needed to compete with those of first-rate fighters is going to be an expensive prospect on its own. In that sense I don't think you can hope for them to have all of the information about the threat and incoming missiles, since the opponent in the question also has VLO and LO aircraft, and they're doing everything in their power to reach parity in radars/sensors. In the worst-case scenario the CCA doesn't know what's incoming for certain until the AAM's radar seeker goes active.

Without NGAD, F/A-XX, and other manned aircraft to complement and work with these CCAs I don't see how this can work out well. For all the F-35's strengths it has its limitations too and can't be the only manned component.
Click to expand...

There are certainly missile warning systems on fighters available now, and I suspect for CCAs to work at all they will need something like DAS just to avoid collisions and track near opponents.

Long range detection will likely have to be passive ESM or IRST, if only because there is likely no SWAPC for any kind of active long range search. But I do not think the CCAs will be the only UAV sensor platforms.
 
B2Blain said:
I don't know if this all has been said. But it seems to me they should have figured all this out with existing platforms like the XQ-58 or MQ-20. Or if technology is not mature, as has been indicated by reports regarding Increment 1, then the AF should fund testbeds not a program of 100-150 production aircraft in order to figure it out.
Click to expand...
I suspect that some of the need for a large production run is to see that the planned production methods scale well.

And IIRC the XQ-58 is one of the Increment 1 airframes.

Also, remember that part of this is testing networked etc stuff, which means they may need 100x flying network nodes to do some of their testing. Oh, look, we need to do some production scaling and we need a large number of flying network nodes for a separate test. Cool, let's just stick the network nodes into the airframes we need to build for other reasons.


B2Blain said:
Here are some issues that they need to resolve.

1. Can an affordable non attritable CCA operate sufficiently in front of its controlling manned fighter to afford the manned fighter advantages in survivability while being able to employ its effects with some level of success?
2. Are passive EO sensor good enough to allow a CCA to effectively engage another aircraft with A2A missiles before being shot down? Or will it mostly be reliant on manned systems on the network for that?
Click to expand...
Yes, those are probably on the list to be worked on.

I think the CCAs are going to need a fairly comprehensive set of MAWS/RWRs and other defensive systems.
 
B2Blain said:
1. Can an affordable non attritable CCA operate sufficiently in front of its controlling manned fighter to afford the manned fighter advantages in survivability while being able to employ its effects with some level of success?
2. Are passive EO sensor good enough to allow a CCA to effectively engage another aircraft with A2A missiles before being shot down? Or will it mostly be reliant on manned systems on the network for that?
Click to expand...

These are great points. DoD feels the same way, which is why they tested and validated both of these things several years ago.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I still think the CCAs are going to end up with smaller AESAs in them. Just not the full size unit like in an F-35 or NGAD with a 1m array.
Click to expand...

There are various solutions for that as well. Phantom Strike by RTX has been touted as being compatible with CCA applications. With heterogeneity being a focus, you don't really need the sensor, EW, Radar and missile on one platform so I assume there would be specialization with the 'shooter' element possibly simply carrying some a lower sensor footprint for cost and complexity reasons. If NGAD platform / F-35 can tap into a vast string of spatially dispersed sensor and shooter platforms it can build the sort of EW, IR and RF picket that's needed to find some of the harder to find targets like 5th and 5+ generation aircraft.
 
Sundog said:
If anyone thinks that's a Mach 6 platform, they're wrong. There are other reasons for the wing sweep. It reminds me of when the USAF first showed pics of the F-117 to intel people from a spysat perspective and due to the faceting and wing sweep they all thought it was a hypersonic aircraft. Rightly so, because a hypersonic aircraft would have those features, but they must have concealed it's size, as it was much too small to be a hypersonic vehicle.
Click to expand...
Check out this hypersonic waverider.

maxresdefault.jpg
 
Scott Kenny said:
I suspect that some of the need for a large production run is to see that the planned production methods scale well.

And IIRC the XQ-58 is one of the Increment 1 airframes.

Also, remember that part of this is testing networked etc stuff, which means they may need 100x flying network nodes to do some of their testing. Oh, look, we need to do some production scaling and we need a large number of flying network nodes for a separate test. Cool, let's just stick the network nodes into the airframes we need to build for other reasons.



Yes, those are probably on the list to be worked on.

I think the CCAs are going to need a fairly comprehensive set of MAWS/RWRs and other defensive systems.
Click to expand...

I suspect the only sensor that gets deleted is radar, or if one is added it is a very non traditional one given the airframe restrictions. Also for moment the goal is counter air, so no need for an EOTS like system. But there will need to be 360 detection and tracking in EO/IR frequencies to replace the mk1, and you would want that system to also handle missile warning as well…and at that point you might as well add countermeasures, a DRFM jammer of some kind, maybe even disposable towed decoys. I suspect just how much defensive gear is practical is one of the questions they want to answer with the first generation.

ESM seems like another priority, since if you are not a VLO aircraft you would at least want a penalty for your opponent using radar. An F-35 level system would unworkable, but on the other hand a smaller more centralized system (doubt you are fitting anything in those little wings) on several different aircraft with a datalink should allow for DToA geolocation, especially if there are other ESM UAVs operating in support of CCA. The manned aircraft can also provide its sensor picture.

ETA: with modern AESA antennas, the difference between the ESM, jammer, and radar system might be software only anyway. Power output will limit the usefulness of some modes (radar likely a pointless exercise except for range confirmation at short distances) but you could perhaps leverage a lot of functionality out of a small array of emitters.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
I suspect the only sensor that gets deleted is radar, or if one is added it is a very non traditional one given the airframe restrictions. Also for moment the goal is counter air, so no need for an EOTS like system. But there will need to be 360 detection and tracking in EO/IR frequencies to replace the mk1, and you would want that system to also handle missile warning as well…and at that point you might as well add countermeasures, a DRFM jammer of some kind, maybe even disposable towed decoys. I suspect just how much defensive gear is practical is one of the questions they want to answer with the first generation.
Click to expand...

Might as well add a human and call it a manned fighter? ;)

In my opinion there's tremendous advantage in keeping this as low cost as they can get. Build something that has the range, and has a useful weapons carriage capacity given your intended CONOPS. Add low cost, low SwAP passive sensors and comms and call it a day. Other manned aircraft, and larger UCAV's with more sophisticated sensors plug into the system to elevate its performance. Start thinking like a fourth or fifth generation fighter mission system architecture (active and passive sensors, defensive suite, and other SA aids) and you end up with basically an unmanned fighter which this thing is not intended to be.

The conundrum the AF could however find itself with that apporoach is that it is probably really 'expensive' to have something really 'cheap'. Expensive in terms of inventing and funding new production techniques and going all in on next generation of comms and autonomy. I think those things make or break the 'CCA' model in the long term and that's where the competition with China and others having a similar approach to air superiority and other missions, is going to be fought.

That said, we have at least one low-SwAPc EW suite being developed for CCA's from the ground up.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1871155990625747194
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1871155990625747194
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
Might as well add a human and call it a manned fighter? ;)

In my opinion there's tremendous advantage in keeping this as low cost as they can get. Build something that has the range, and has a useful weapons carriage capacity given your intended CONOPS. Add low cost, low SwAP passive sensors and comms and call it a day. Other manned aircraft, and larger UCAV's with more sophisticated sensors plug into the system to elevate its performance. Start thinking like a fourth or fifth generation fighter mission system architecture (active and passive sensors, defensive suite, and other SA aids) and you end up with basically an unmanned fighter which this thing is not intended to be.

The conundrum the AF could however find itself with that apporoach is that it is probably really 'expensive' to have something really 'cheap'. Expensive in terms of inventing and funding new production techniques and going all in on next generation of comms and autonomy. I think those things make or break the 'CCA' model in the long term and that's where the competition with China and others having a similar approach to air superiority and other missions, is going to be fought.

That said, we have at least one low-SwAPc EW suite being developed for CCA's from the ground up.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1871155990625747194
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1871155990625747194
Click to expand...

I generally agree, but I think including a 360 EO/IR system will be necessary just for collision avoidance with friendlies and close maneuvers around enemies, should engagements come to that. At that point, it seems like developing some evasive maneuvers into the AI agent and giving it at least some countermeasures is worth while. Quite possibly that’s all the effort that should be placed into defenses. But then again, if you deployed a MALD-J like capability to allow it to mimic other aircraft, how much more effort is it to have a defensive DMRF capability? If it already has ESM receivers, is it that much more expensive to have it transmit as well?

I do not know the answers to these questions and I think it might require some large scale operational testing on an instrumented range to find the answers.

ETA: I also think that the biggest money savings comes from cost of ownership, not flyaway costs. So while I am of the cheaper is better school of thought in general, it may be that modest investments in per unit costs can create disproportionate advantages while still having much lower overall cost compared to manned aircraft. The next era of air combat is going to be driven by information and its denial, and there is probably going to be a bit of a steep entrance fee in avionics to play. For instance a MADL type datalink is more or less mandatory no matter how much you disaggregate your sensors.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
I generally agree, but I think including a 360 EO/IR system will be necessary just for collision avoidance with friendlies and close maneuvers around enemies, should engagements come to that
Click to expand...
Why would I delegate that task/power/weight to frequencies that are the quickest to attenuate?
 
Josh_TN said:
ETA: I also think that the biggest money savings comes from cost of ownership, not flyaway costs.
Click to expand...

There are direct and indirect costs associated with a sophisticated 'fighter-like' mission system architecture. Think of SWaP, think of all those components that need to be maintained and kept updated and supported. Then there's the Indirect cost then comes from building an air vehicle (with sufficient space weight, power, cooling and propulsion) that can support such mission systems. So you kind have both components baked in from the very onset and leads to a spiral across development, procurement and support costs. We assume that cost on manned fighters because we value the human onboard and because we want to build the most effective systems we can..For the basic "2-AMRAAM" carrier CCA mission or even something that carries more, you are probably going to have a comms system and low cost EO/IR sensors. You really should not be looking to field anything more unless it can exist within the SwAPc constraints of this basic setup. Simplicity and cost are paramount to get to that 'affordable mass' which defines CCA (otherwise its jsut another UCAV project and we have UCAV's costing tens to hundred million dollars alreay). Everything else will be externally provided or have specializes CCA's and UCAV's tied to the sensing mission.

Josh_TN said:
But then again, if you deployed a MALD-J like capability to allow it to mimic other aircraft, how much more effort is it to have a defensive DMRF capability? If it already has ESM receivers, is it that much more expensive to have it transmit as well?
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that we'll see EW payloads on CCA's. But not all CCA's. And not those that are acting as an adjunct magazine for NGAD or F-35 for example. Most of these need to be pretty basic to keep costs low and volumes high i.e. just enough capability to make the adversary honor the threat with other manned and unmanned components doing the work when it comes to helping call plays or find targets. Otherwise we will start with a program to field 2000 of these and then stop at 500 because of spiraling cost.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    3.1 MB · Views: 48
Last edited:
_Del_ said:
Why would I delegate that task/power/weight to frequencies that are the quickest to attenuate?
Click to expand...

EO/IR? Because the aircraft still needs to take off and land and be in proximity to other aircraft?

As I understand it, the current WVR experiments involve the manned aircraft providing its exact position to the AI in place of the test vipers having any sensors for that kind of tracking. Presumably some type of system is required for operating near other aircraft, friends or foe.
 
Josh_TN said:
As I understand it, the current WVR experiments involve the manned aircraft providing its exact position to the AI in place of the test vipers having any sensors for that kind of tracking. Presumably some type of system is required for operating near other aircraft, friends or foe.
Click to expand...

EchoFlight | Echodyne

Learn about EchoFlight, Echodyne's state-of-the-art radar solution that delivers precision airspace deconfliction for uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs).
www.echodyne.com www.echodyne.com
 
bring_it_on said:
There are direct and indirect costs associated with a sophisticated 'fighter-like' mission system architecture. Think of SWaP, think of all those components that need to be maintained and kept updated and supported. Then there's the Indirect cost then comes from building an air vehicle (with sufficient space weight, power, cooling and propulsion) that can support such mission systems. So you kind have both components baked in from the very onset and leads to a spiral across development, procurement and support costs. We assume that cost on manned fighters because we value the human onboard and because we want to build the most effective systems we can..For the basic "2-AMRAAM" carrier CCA mission or even something that carries more, you are probably going to have a comms system and low cost EO/IR sensors. You really should not be looking to field anything more unless it can exist within the SwAPc constraints of this basic setup. Simplicity and cost are paramount to get to that 'affordable mass' which defines CCA (otherwise its jsut another UCAV project and we have UCAV's costing tens to hundred million dollars alreay). Everything else will be externally provided or have specializes CCA's and UCAV's tied to the sensing mission.



I have no doubt that we'll see EW payloads on CCA's. But not all CCA's. And not those that are acting as an adjunct magazine for NGAD or F-35 for example. Most of these need to be pretty basic to keep costs low and volumes high i.e. just enough capability to make the adversary honor the threat with other manned and unmanned components doing the work when it comes to helping call plays or find targets. Otherwise we will start with a program to field 2000 of these and then stop at 500 because of spiraling cost.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing, at least for Incr1. I still think some CM ejectors are cost effective in that scenario; they have almost no power and cooling footprint and the weight and volume is pretty minimal. But I also think that there might be a lot of potential advantages to carrying a low SWAPC ECM system as well that justify the trade offs. Something like the aforementioned Ghost Mantis or BriteStorm could leverage the fact that your CCAs are probably going to be much more numerous than your manned aircraft and you can introduce ECM from a wider variety of positions and angles. LO CCAs and VLO manned aircraft would heavily cut down on the power requirements of effective countermeasures.

Again, I think finding the sweet spot of capability vs cost will take some large scale real world testing, and I subscribe to the less is better sentiment as a default.
 
GTX said:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRWtACRt8F0
Click to expand...

This video, and many other commentaries, seem to assume that the CCA is the sole autonomous aircraft effort for NGAD. I personally find that hard to believe given some of the previous USAF statements and tests. My impression is that CCA is just the top of the UAV NGAD food chain and as such the more challenging, high visibility aspect of the program (perhaps some sensor/relay aircraft are similar sized but likely operate in a less challenging Mission Control profile). I still think there will be at least one level down of recoverable UAVs of a simpler and cheaper nature, as well as at least one common platform of expendables.
 
GTX said:
I don't see how you come to that conclusion
Click to expand...

It solely references the CCA effort and questions if it can achieve sufficient mass.

ETA: I think it might be worth adding a verbal caveat that CCA might not represent the whole of the unmanned NGAD platform, or necessarily even the extent of the UCAV component.
 
Josh_TN said:
It solely references the CCA effort and questions if it can achieve sufficient mass.
Click to expand...

CCA is highlighted because the effort has successfully transitioned to something a lot larger in terms of funding and contracts. You can see the dramatic increase in funding and contracts over the last couple of years and the even steeper funding increase in the coming years. While there are most likely other unmanned efforts under NGAD, they don't appear to be at the same level in terms of commitment.
 
GTX said:
I don't see how you come to that conclusion
Click to expand...
Because of the separate existence of programs like OBWS, OBSS, LCAAPS, LCAATS, etc, even though those programs are all sort of inbred in the same family tree?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom