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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scott Kenny said:
But yes, I'm also fully expecting the USAF NGAD to have a MTOW over 100klbs. USN is going to be catapult and arresting gear limited to roughly 84k MTOW and ~48k landing weights.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that require F-135 thrust-class engines? I understood that Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) is less thrust than Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP).
 
VTOLicious said:
Wouldn't that require F-135 thrust-class engines? I understood that Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) is less thrust than Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP).
Click to expand...
It is less poweful because the NGAD fighter will be 2 engines class, AETP is for F-35 one engine class fighter.
 
VTOLicious said:
Wouldn't that require F-135 thrust-class engines? I understood that Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) is less thrust than Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP).
Click to expand...
More than that, but even if they're just 35klbs thrust each that would put the thrust:weight ratio pretty close to 1 at 50% fuel.

And I thing that the USN will want the AETP engines in the FAXX. 90klbs thrust.
 
Scott Kenny said:
USAF Inc has been talking about an F-111 class drone for a long time. Up to and including the optionally manned part of the B-21 (until someone actually did the math on just how small a % of the MTOW you'd save on that size a plane). IMO the question is whether getting a drone to supercruise in formation with the other fighters will be relatively affordable or not.

But yes, I'm also fully expecting the USAF NGAD to have a MTOW over 100klbs. USN is going to be catapult and arresting gear limited to roughly 84k MTOW and ~48k landing weights.
Click to expand...

The CCAs are not going to be F-111 sized for certain. First of all, their primary mission is anti air, which doesn’t require an a UAV of that size. NGAD probably is that big because it has higher payload, a pilot, and is supersonic. CCA likely has none of those requirements. It probably needs 2-4 AAMs and high transonic speed, as it is required to keep up with an F-35s cruise speed as a hard minimum. Second, an F-111 sized USV is unaffordable if the cost ceiling is 1/4 of an F-35. You just cannot by an aircraft that large and expect it to achieve “affordable mass”.
 
Josh_TN said:
The CCAs are not going to be F-111 sized for certain. First of all, their primary mission is anti air, which doesn’t require an a UAV of that size. NGAD probably is that big because it has higher payload, a pilot, and is supersonic. CCA likely has none of those requirements. It probably needs 2-4 AAMs and high transonic speed, as it is required to keep up with an F-35s cruise speed as a hard minimum. Second, an F-111 sized USV is unaffordable if the cost ceiling is 1/4 of an F-35. You just cannot by an aircraft that large and expect it to achieve “affordable mass”.
Click to expand...
Range is what is driving NGAD size, as well as CCA size.

And what speed can the F-22/F-35 supercruise at with no external weapons? That defines the cruise speed of your CCAs as well, if the CCAs are supposed to keep up with the fighters for the entire mission.

That's likely not going to be the first generation of CCA. Might not even be in the second generation. But I'm willing to bet that a CCA that translates to "NGAD but unmanned" is listed in the "goal" column of the requirements documents.
 
CCAs are not being paired with F-22. Full Stop, Sound Horn. For F-35 usage, the goal is a similar/equal cruise speed, ideally with a capacity to accelerate enough to get a bit in front. Supersonic does not seem to be a program goal, though they have not published any of the requirements. Range wise they seem to have very much relaxed the threshold in favor of higher transonic performance.

I do not think there will ever an unmanned F-111 size vehicle, personally. Almost every tabletop exercise instead points to far more numerous, less capable platforms as being a more effective counter to the PLA-AF strengths. XQ-58 ish but with higher performance seems to be the sweet spot. Model 4037 might be closer if less well developed.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
CCAs are not being paired with F-22. Full Stop, Sound Horn.
Click to expand...
Fine, though I honestly doubt that statement. But we'll go with it for now.

Josh_TN said:
For F-35 usage, the goal is a similar/equal cruise speed, ideally with a capacity to accelerate enough to get a bit in front. Supersonic does not seem to be a program goal, though they have not published any of the requirements. Range wise they seem to have very much relaxed the threshold in favor of higher transonic performance.
Click to expand...
How fast do F-35s supercruise? M1.4 ish? (related question of which is the designed "best range" cruise speed, of course)


Josh_TN said:
I do not think there will ever an unmanned F-111 size vehicle, personally. Almost every tabletop exercise instead points to far more numerous, less capable platforms as being a more effective counter to the PLA-AF strengths. XQ-58 ish but with higher performance seems to be the sweet spot. Model 4037 might be closer if less well developed.
Click to expand...
The Mitchell exercise had them using the hell out of 3000nmi range CCAs. Yes, those were subsonic, but one of the planes was carrying 6x SiAW, some 7500lbs, internally.
 
The F-35 is not Supercruise enabled sadly though I belive that the engine could have been made to Supercruise had the requiement for it had been there Scott Kenny.
 
FighterJock said:
The F-35 is not Supercruise enabled sadly though I belive that the engine could have been made to Supercruise had the requiement for it had been there Scott Kenny.
Click to expand...
Yeah only supersonic dash are possible as far as i know and it can then only do m. 1.2 for 150 Miles in an unkown loadout.
 
The F-35 Mach 1.2 top speed is the same as the F-22 cruising speed. The replacement for the F-35 should have supercruise as one of the requirements right from the start, and a much higher top speed around Mach 2.
 
FighterJock said:
The F-35 Mach 1.2 top speed is the same as the F-22 cruising speed. The replacement for the F-35 should have supercruise as one of the requirements right from the start, and a much higher top speed around Mach 2.
Click to expand...
Where did you hear the F-35s top speed is Mach 1.2? (Most sources give Mach 1.6.)
 
Read it online sferrin, I cannot remember exactly where now. It must have been an attempt to get some official figures out at that time it was several years ago now, so you may well be right with the Mach 1.6 figure.
 
FighterJock said:
Read it online sferrin, I cannot remember exactly where now. It must have been an attempt to get some official figures out at that time it was several years ago now, so you may well be right with the Mach 1.6 figure.
Click to expand...

Mach 1.2 is the supercruise speed for F-35. Technically anything above Mach 1 on military thrust is supercruise, but people like to use F-22’s relatively high bar as the metric for “real super cruise”. That said, the F-35 is not optimized for high Mach speed performance.

A lot of fourth gen jets are technically supercruise capable but some of them cheat by either not carrying external load or going supersonic via afterburner but “coasting along” on military thrust. Technically speaking they are more of a marketing gimmick and don’t impart the same tactical advantage “real” supercruise does.
 
siegecrossbow said:
Mach 1.2 is the supercruise speed for F-35. Technically anything above Mach 1 on military thrust is supercruise, but people like to use F-22’s relatively high bar as the metric for “real super cruise”. That said, the F-35 is not optimized for high Mach speed performance.
Click to expand...
Was ist not lockheeds fault as they claimed a 5. Gen fighter needs super cruise on the level of F-22?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Fine, though I honestly doubt that statement. But we'll go with it for now.


How fast do F-35s supercruise? M1.4 ish? (related question of which is the designed "best range" cruise speed, of course)



The Mitchell exercise had them using the hell out of 3000nmi range CCAs. Yes, those were subsonic, but one of the planes was carrying 6x SiAW, some 7500lbs, internally.
Click to expand...

Lockmart claims Mach 1.2; some say that still requires a little burner. At a minimum, that is full military power, which is still costing range. There is a huge penalty in cost, weight, and volume for supersonic and I do not see the CCAs crossing that barrier.

That exercise seemed to use the short ranged 2xAAM aircraft a lot more.

ETA: also the above table top exercise not withstanding, the CCA program is a spinoff of NGAD, which had counter air as its primary/only goal. I do not think a 6 SiAW payload will be a design goal for several increments.
 
Last edited:
As for supercruise, I think the USAF definition is Mach 1.5 and that even for an F-22, it is more efficient to reheat through the sound barrier than push your way via dry thrust. I believe F-35 max speed is ~M1.6 with a sorta supercruise at 1.2 with minimal or no reheat (depending on who you ask).
 
Josh_TN said:
As for supercruise, I think the USAF definition is Mach 1.5 and that even for an F-22, it is more efficient to reheat through the sound barrier than push your way via dry thrust. I believe F-35 max speed is ~M1.6 with a sorta supercruise at 1.2 with minimal or no reheat (depending on who you ask).
Click to expand...
And probaly what it carrys. Some jadms or just amraams have a big weight difference.
 
Josh_TN said:
Lockmart claims Mach 1.2
Click to expand...

I don't think so. The F-35 does not supercruise. And by supercruise, I mean sustain supersonic speed >M1.0 without afterburners.

What LM claims and has been demonstrated is the F-35A will remain supersonic for some time if you accelerate to M1.2 and cut the burners. But this is not supercruise, since it will slow down.
 
eagle said:
What LM claims and has been demonstrated is the F-35A will remain supersonic for some time if you accelerate to M1.2 and cut the burners. But this is not supercruise, since it will slow down.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find every aircraft will slow down if you turn the 'burners off. It's the whole suddenly putting out significantly less thrust thing.

What you're looking for is the ability to remain supersonic in dry thrust, which isn't the same.
 
Josh_TN said:
ETA: also the above table top exercise not withstanding, the CCA program is a spinoff of NGAD, which had counter air as its primary/only goal. I do not think a 6 SiAW payload will be a design goal for several increments.
Click to expand...
I mean, volumetrically, the AARGM-ER is not particularly larger than a clipped-wing AMRAAM. So an aircraft that can carry 6x AMRAAMs unstaggered could likely also carry 6x SiAW by volume.

But yes, the first several CCAs will very likely only carry AAMs. That's why it's a "Century Series" with lots of iterations in relatively short timespan.
 
AGM-88G is still about 3x the launch weight of AIM-120. If we are talking about a vehicle with a 3000-8000 lb thrust engine - and this is the region that the USAF is specifically interested in - then 6 x SiAW is probably at or above the empty weight of the entire UAV they are considering. IMO, the CCAs should stick to air to air, and let the B-21s, 4th gen fighter, and B-52s do the heavy lifting in the strike role (the later two with standoff weapons). 5th gen fighters can help too if air superiority is rapidly achieved.
 
I don't get the emphasis on anti-air for CCA. An expendable cruise-missile carrier seems far easier than an air superiority mission.
 
I think they are still playing with CONOPS and requirements. I see the primary mission as being a weapons carrier.

Remember, for a LO platform, aerial combat is a lot like submarine warfare...shooting generates a transient signature that you might not be able to afford. Maybe you let R2D2 take the shot...and the return fire.
 
The part I don't get is - at some point - if you have 5 vendors - just build something! Make one that does A2A and another that's a bomb truck.

The CONOPs and requirements are completely secondary to the technical challenge of the software and, as far as I know, nobody has demonstrated the CCA software. Getting something airborne now to shake out the software issues will be far more valuable than finding the perfect set of requirements.
 
Josh_TN said:
AGM-88G is still about 3x the launch weight of AIM-120. If we are talking about a vehicle with a 3000-8000 lb thrust engine - and this is the region that the USAF is specifically interested in - then 6 x SiAW is probably at or above the empty weight of the entire UAV they are considering.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the B52 can actually carry more weight in boom than its empty weight, but fair enough.

I think the USAF may be screwing themselves by focusing on an engine that small. But hey, it's a century series, we can go from J57 to J75 powered aircraft.

Josh_TN said:
IMO, the CCAs should stick to air to air, and let the B-21s, 4th gen fighter, and B-52s do the heavy lifting in the strike role (the later two with standoff weapons). 5th gen fighters can help too if air superiority is rapidly achieved.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I want a CCA to go into the A2AD bubbles and deal with the SAMs etc. I don't know why the USAF isn't looking at that, since they aren't buying enough JASSMs to do the job.


DrRansom said:
The part I don't get is - at some point - if you have 5 vendors - just build something! Make one that does A2A and another that's a bomb truck.

The CONOPs and requirements are completely secondary to the technical challenge of the software and, as far as I know, nobody has demonstrated the CCA software. Getting something airborne now to shake out the software issues will be far more valuable than finding the perfect set of requirements.
Click to expand...
Right now, the problem is the software. CCAs need control software that is about as interaction-heavy as dropping a JDAM, for all the single-seat aircraft to be able to use CCAs.

So until the software is pretty close to that (or at least at the level that your backseater could play quarterback while you fly and you let the F-15EXs do the initial work), there's not much point in building the airframes and having them sit for a decade till the control software is ready.


==============

I did have one hilarious idea for the CCA5 air launch:

The Longshot missile carrier is roughly the size of a JASSM, right? Imagine Rapid Dragon but with Longshots.
 
DrRansom said:
I don't get the emphasis on anti-air for CCA. An expendable cruise-missile carrier seems far easier than an air superiority mission.
Click to expand...

Why would one need an expendable platform for an expendable stand off munition? That seems like wearing a hat over your hat. There isn’t a shortage of cruise missile platforms, AFAIK.
 
DrRansom said:
I don't get the emphasis on anti-air for CCA. An expendable cruise-missile carrier seems far easier than an air superiority mission.
Click to expand...
air superiority wins war. and buying 800 air superiority fighter for 300 to 400mil each is unaffordable.
 
DWG said:
I think you'll find every aircraft will slow down if you turn the 'burners off. It's the whole suddenly putting out significantly less thrust thing.

What you're looking for is the ability to remain supersonic in dry thrust, which isn't the same.
Click to expand...

That's the point - it's not supercruise. The F-35 does not supercruise.
 
Scott Kenny said:
F-35As are down to about 80mil each, I'd bet you could get the NGAD for under 150mil.
Click to expand...

I think the limiting factors are production rate and pilot quantity even more than price. If you want another hundred or two aircraft per year to become available, you are not getting there this decade with the F-35 no matter how much you invest in the line, subcontractors, and training. CCA will be a much faster build using an off the shelf commercial engine. It also removes pilot training and likely a lot of maintenance - use them for training, and when they get to “high” hours on the airframe (probably an order of magnitude less hours than a manned a/c) just box it up and pre position it to the Pacific as an expendable. Rinse repeat until you have a large forward based force in theater.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think the limiting factors are production rate and pilot quantity even more than price. If you want another hundred or two aircraft per year to become available, you are not getting there this decade with the F-35 no matter how much you invest in the line, subcontractors, and training.
Click to expand...
I think the USAF still has no problem recruiting pilots. It's the ground crew that they're struggling with.


Josh_TN said:
CCA will be a much faster build using an off the shelf commercial engine. It also removes pilot training and likely a lot of maintenance - use them for training, and when they get to “high” hours on the airframe (probably an order of magnitude less hours than a manned a/c) just box it up and pre position it to the Pacific as an expendable. Rinse repeat until you have a large forward based force in theater.
Click to expand...
I mean, there's still maintenance you need to do per flight hour, but you can let normal planes sit and fly less than 50hrs a year without causing much trouble. So I'd imagine that CCAs will be at least as "low hour" in that sense.

That said, I totally agree with the "Box it up and ship to the Pacific as expendable" concept.
 
Well I imagine a UAV just has less systems to go wrong from a maintenance point of view. And I bet a commercial engine outlasts the aircraft by thousands of hours. And depending on how complex your UCAV is (I’m a fan of smaller and simpler), maybe there’s no radar to go wrong either. And if it’s really hard to repair: tear off the the wings and engine and anything else fairly easily removed and just trash the thing. If it a Williams 44 engine, that’s probably almost half the cost anyway. Don’t do maintenance; do rapid manufacturing.
 
quellish said:
Fewer that could kill the pilot, sure
Click to expand...
And no cockpit indicators/displays to crap out, no OBOGS to asphyxiate the pilot, no ejection seat needing maintenance, etc ad nauseam.

I think better than half the cockpit gripes on the 727s I worked on were instrument faults, not sensor faults. And on a drone, you only have to check that sensor. Control station you have it command a second drone for a few minutes, if the same issue pops up there it's the station not the drone.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I think the USAF still has no problem recruiting pilots. It's the ground crew that they're struggling with.
Click to expand...

USAF is around 2000 pilots short as of 2023. The training pipeline is coming a little short of targets (by a couple hundred people) mainly because the T-38 force is too broke to fly the necessary training sorties. But the real killer is retention. Airlines pay better and get you home on a regular schedule.

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/a... Air Force's goal,for the last several years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom