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

Status
Not open for further replies.
RJMAZ said:
It will definitely be 9G rated.
Click to expand...
Why would I want to pull 9g's when I could simply ask my unmanned wingman or another flocking or swarming platform to do that? Platforms even smaller than me, and there for easier, cheaper, and lighter to engineer such a capability into.

Physics are still your enemy at Mach 3. I don't think you appreciate what you are asking for.

For my off-the-wall prediction, future USAF manned tactical aircraft will become less capable, not more. Everything is going netcentric. F-35 may ironically be the pinnacle of manned fighter aircraft for the Air Force. Less will be more.
 
_Del_ said:
Why would I want to pull 9g's when I could simply ask my unmanned wingman or another flocking or swarming platform to do that?
Click to expand...
That would require a mach 2 supercruise capable loyal wingman drone that could also penetrate 1,000nm. That would probably cost as much as the F-35.

A flock of subsonic platforms wouldn't arrive in time.

NGAD would have to survive all on its own as the tip of the spear. Potentially the F-22 could inflight refuel just before the NGAD starts its high speed penetration run. The F-22 can supercruise in directly behind NGAD. The F-22 will receive all the targeting information from NGAD and do a quick mop up before it hits bingo. The F-35 can be coming in subsonic carrying supersonic Stand-in attack weapons. And NGAD provides the location of any ground targets to the F-35.
 
He also said that studies and experiments so far indicate that pilots of crewed fighters will likely be able to control many more CCAs than originally thought.
Click to expand...
Oh, hey, looks like we're closer to my "one manned plane per entire strike package" intended destination than anyone thought!



Josh_TN said:
As for demonstrator record breaking, while the discussion has taught me a lot about trade offs in engine design, I think the assumption that speed records were broken seems misguided: there are any number of very minor performance records the quote might have referred to. And in any case the demonstrator might no longer be especially representative of the program’s end product.
Click to expand...
I'm starting to suspect that the records broken by the demonstrators were engineering type, like quickest delivery of flight rated hardware or something like that.



RJMAZ said:
It will definitely be 9G rated. The problem is to maintain the same turning radius as the speed increases you need to pull more G. The SR-71 took a full country to turn around when at top speed.
Click to expand...
The SR-71 is also limited to 3.5 gees while subsonic and 1.25 gees while at mach 3... So I'm not expecting a plane to be pulling 9 gees while supersonic.
 
The fact that the Incr1 CCAs are all completely subsonic I think clearly indicates that high speed is not where this is going. And I can think of two good reasons: cost and IR detection. If the U.S. can orbit a constellation of LEO and MEO satellites capable of detecting hypersonic gliders, then so can the PRC in a relatively close time frame. A highly supersonic F-111 platform is going to be a cooler but also much larger target, and any steady use of afterburners to achieve speed is also going to be quite noticeable. Even F-22 levels of supercruise may be problematic, but in any case I think the F-22 represents the practical ceiling of performance one can achieve without easy IR detection.

Flip the script: how long would a Mach 2-3 NGAD last if it ran headlong into a crowd of a dozen CCAs with a networked IRST capability? And the dozen UCAVs would be a lot less expensive. Again, the USAF can expect the PLA to be right behind it in aircraft development cycles.
 
Josh_TN said:
The fact that the Incr1 CCAs are all completely subsonic I think clearly indicates that high speed is not where this is going. And I can think of two good reasons: cost and IR detection. If the U.S. can orbit a constellation of LEO and MEO satellites capable of detecting hypersonic gliders, then so can the PRC in a relatively close time frame. A highly supersonic F-111 platform is going to be a cooler but also much larger target, and any steady use of afterburners to achieve speed is also going to be quite noticeable. Even F-22 levels of supercruise may be problematic, but in any case I think the F-22 represents the practical ceiling of performance one can achieve without easy IR detection.

Flip the script: how long would a Mach 2-3 NGAD last if it ran headlong into a crowd of a dozen CCAs with a networked IRST capability? And the dozen UCAVs would be a lot less expensive. Again, the USAF can expect the PLA to be right behind it in aircraft development cycles.
Click to expand...
It is impossible to do air dominance mission with out supersonic capability, how can you? , intercept, dogfight ,escape, identify , pursuit plane with out supersonic dash ? How can you catch and make visual identification like they do with the bear Bomber or similar on air policy mission with poor subsonic CCA ? Surley sooner the stealth advantage will be compromise by new detector and sensor, and for the IR detection each motor , engine , turbine make heat so you must fly high , fast and staying on the combat zone the less time possible to survive. CCA make IR source too, a little or a big IR picture make no difference when you are detected, enemy see you.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
The fact that the Incr1 CCAs are all completely subsonic I think clearly indicates that high speed is not where this is going. And I can think of two good reasons: cost and IR detection. If the U.S. can orbit a constellation of LEO and MEO satellites capable of detecting hypersonic gliders, then so can the PRC in a relatively close time frame. A highly supersonic F-111 platform is going to be a cooler but also much larger target, and any steady use of afterburners to achieve speed is also going to be quite noticeable. Even F-22 levels of supercruise may be problematic, but in any case I think the F-22 represents the practical ceiling of performance one can achieve without easy IR detection.
Click to expand...
It's difficult to dogfight without enough excess power that the airframe can go supersonic. Or to dodge missiles.

I think that the Increment 1 CCAs are subsonic for no other reason than because that's cheap, and the following increments of CCAs will have performance much closer to that of the NGAD. (Similar range/speed)


Josh_TN said:
Flip the script: how long would a Mach 2-3 NGAD last if it ran headlong into a crowd of a dozen CCAs with a networked IRST capability? And the dozen UCAVs would be a lot less expensive. Again, the USAF can expect the PLA to be right behind it in aircraft development cycles.
Click to expand...
Well, the Blackbird shows that it's very difficult to intercept a high-flying, high Mach-2+ airframe. So do the recon MiG-25/31s.

So even if they detect the plane (which is very likely, yes), it's still unlikely to be shot down.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's difficult to dogfight without enough excess power that the airframe can go supersonic. Or to dodge missiles.
Click to expand...
I think there are enough examples of subsonic dogfighters that that statement doesn't really hold up.

Scott Kenny said:
I think that the Increment 1 CCAs are subsonic for no other reason than because that's cheap, and the following increments of CCAs will have performance much closer to that of the NGAD. (Similar range/speed)
Click to expand...
All indications are that Incement Two will follow the path of increment One. As already posted LM seems pretty convinced they shouldn't gold plate their Increment Two proposal and the USAF has been clear that cost will be the ultimate governor. Supersonic means cost, deeper magazines means cost, more capable sensors means cost.
Scott Kenny said:
Well, the Blackbird shows that it's very difficult to intercept a high-flying, high Mach-2+ airframe. So do the recon MiG-25/31s.

So even if they detect the plane (which is very likely, yes), it's still unlikely to be shot down.
Click to expand...
None of those airframes fly in an environment where modern AAMs are now being used. Even in Ukraine the MiG-31s are launching killjoys from a long way off. They certainly wouldn't be operating within range of modern SAMs nor within the potential envelopes of Meteor or advanced Chinese AAMs. I'd also put my money on the SM-6 defeating any attempt by those three looking to evade.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I think that the Increment 1 CCAs are subsonic for no other reason than because that's cheap, and the following increments of CCAs will have performance much closer to that of the NGAD. (Similar range/speed)
Click to expand...

I mentioned this in another thread, but it's entirely possible that PCA could be supercruising while CCAs could be subsonic. In recent wargames, BLUEFOR players overwhelmingly preferred cheap and expendable CCAs in a Taiwan scenario, distributed without runways in an ACE format within the 1IC, working in conjuction with exquisite 5th-gen assets like F-22 and F-35.

Imagine an exquisite VLO PCA with Mach 2+ supercruise and 1,000+ NM range screaming in from Okinawa or from Guam with mid-air refueling, meeting up with cheap CCAs in the area.

In the wargames, participants didn't opt for a single exquisite CCA even once, but they did employ F-22 to its fullest extent.

On the other hand, this CONOPS might not be relevant in every theater, so an exquisite PCA might require an exquisite CCA... and we know the airforce has been making noises about wanting a much cheaper PCA... but until major production contracts are signed, we can keep our minds open. Hi-PCA Lo-CCA is possible.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/us-uav-and-ucav-technology.1885/post-718507
 
joshjosh said:
I mentioned this in another thread, but it's entirely possible that PCA could be supercruising while CCAs could be subsonic. In recent wargames, BLUEFOR players overwhelmingly preferred cheap and expendable CCAs in a Taiwan scenario, distributed without runways in an ACE format within the 1IC, working in conjuction with exquisite 5th-gen assets like F-22 and F-35.

Imagine an exquisite VLO PCA with Mach 2+ supercruise and 1,000+ NM range screaming in from Okinawa or from Guam with mid-air refueling, meeting up with cheap CCAs in the area.

In the wargames, participants didn't opt for a single exquisite CCA even once, but they did employ F-22 to its fullest extent.
Click to expand...
That is the model I also think will play out. Future exercises will flesh these out but I expect CCA orbits aligned with unmanned tankers pushed forward and the CCAs are picked up along the way or directed to locations via the BMS and held there until required.
 
dark sidius said:
It is impossible to do air dominance mission with out supersonic capability, how can you? , intercept, dogfight ,escape, identify , pursuit plane with out supersonic dash ? How can you catch and make visual identification like they do with the bear Bomber or similar on air policy mission with poor subsonic CCA ? Surley sooner the stealth advantage will be compromise by new detector and sensor, and for the IR detection each motor , engine , turbine make heat so you must fly high , fast and staying on the combat zone the less time possible to survive. CCA make IR source too, a little or a big IR picture make no difference when you are detected, enemy see you.
Click to expand...

I did not state completely subsonic; I said that the current supercruise of F-22 was likely the ceiling of any NGAD aircraft. I think the people here predicting Mach 3 performance are quite incorrect, though supersonic is almost certain - if subsonic were workable one could simply adopt B-21. But I think it is clear that would not be a good A2A fire platform, even if its sensors and other systems could help with such missions.
 
Ozair said:
I think there are enough examples of subsonic dogfighters that that statement doesn't really hold up.
Click to expand...
Almost all those subsonic dogfighters have good specific excess power for their time. Not sure if you're including the A-10, which wins a dogfight in the first circle (or gets blown out of the sky), because of how fast it can pull a 180 at relatively low gees (small turning radius), despite the abysmal power-to-weight ratio.


joshjosh said:
I mentioned this in another thread, but it's entirely possible that PCA could be supercruising while CCAs could be subsonic. In recent wargames, BLUEFOR players overwhelmingly preferred cheap and expendable CCAs in a Taiwan scenario, distributed without runways in an ACE format within the 1IC, working in conjuction with exquisite 5th-gen assets like F-22 and F-35.

Imagine an exquisite VLO PCA with Mach 2+ supercruise and 1,000+ NM range screaming in from Okinawa or from Guam with mid-air refueling, meeting up with cheap CCAs in the area.

In the wargames, participants didn't opt for a single exquisite CCA even once, but they did employ F-22 to its fullest extent.
Click to expand...
I saw that report too, but I still think that only works with runway-independent CCAs.

Otherwise you need long range just to have a base outside of Chinese A2AD. Which then suggests needing a cruise speed comparable to the NGAD which is using the same bases.



joshjosh said:
On the other hand, this CONOPS might not be relevant in every theater, so an exquisite PCA might require an exquisite CCA... and we know the airforce has been making noises about wanting a much cheaper PCA... but until major production contracts are signed, we can keep our minds open. Hi-PCA Lo-CCA is possible.
Click to expand...
I'm generally expecting Hi-PCA Lo-CCA, but the Navy CCAs will definitely be spicier than the USAF CCAs due to them using the same "airfields" as the FAXX.

I'm also suspecting that the USAF CCAs will end up about as expensive as F-16Cs when compared to F-15Cs. Same rough proportion, anyway.


Josh_TN said:
I did not state completely subsonic; my indicated that current supercruise of F-22 was likely the ceiling of any NGAD aircraft. I think the people here predicting Mach 3 performance are quite incorrect, though supersonic is almost certain - if subsonic were workable one could simply adopt B-21. But I think it is clear that would not be a good A2A fire platform, even if its sensors and other systems could help with such missions.
Click to expand...
I'm kinda thinking that the supercruise speed may be higher than the F-22, but the whole airframe would be optimized to cruise that fast. Max range at Mach 2 or whatever the magic speed is. Not as fast as a Blackbird, but greater range supersonic than subsonic.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm generally expecting Hi-PCA Lo-CCA, but the Navy CCAs will definitely be spicier than the USAF CCAs due to them using the same "airfields" as the FAXX.
Click to expand...

The Navy is not yet all in on CCAs. Instead they are going with putting all their capabilities in the manned aircraft. The Navy’s relationship with carrier borne UAVs is still very immature.
 
quellish said:
The Navy is not yet all in on CCAs. Instead they are going with putting all their capabilities in the manned aircraft. The Navy’s relationship with carrier borne UAVs is still very immature.
Click to expand...
I think that the Navy is on the better way than USAF in air dominance , Kendall become the big lover of CCA I hope it will change with the new admininstration, CCA is a waste of money , they are reusable cruise missile , they are no realy stealth or fast , it would be better and cheaper to build low cost expendable missile in a big quantity.
 
Ozair said:
I think there are enough examples of subsonic dogfighters that that statement doesn't really hold up.


All indications are that Incement Two will follow the path of increment One. As already posted LM seems pretty convinced they shouldn't gold plate their Increment Two proposal and the USAF has been clear that cost will be the ultimate governor. Supersonic means cost, deeper magazines means cost, more capable sensors means cost.

None of those airframes fly in an environment where modern AAMs are now being used. Even in Ukraine the MiG-31s are launching killjoys from a long way off. They certainly wouldn't be operating within range of modern SAMs nor within the potential envelopes of Meteor or advanced Chinese AAMs. I'd also put my money on the SM-6 defeating any attempt by those three looking to evade.
Click to expand...
Subsonic dogfight , and how you do to intercept a plane flying mach 1 at 15000 m at 150 kms of distance with a subsonic speed ? Because before shooting a missile you must make a visual identification ? How you do with your speed of mach 0.9 ?
 
dark sidius said:
Subsonic dogfight , and how you do to intercept a plane flying mach 1 at 15000 m at 150 kms of distance with a subsonic speed ?
Click to expand...
Are you referring to a tail chase?

dark sidius said:
Because before shooting a missile you must make a visual identification ?
Click to expand...
Why do you need a visual identification? In a platform such as the F-35 the parameters being collected by the sensors are more than capable of threat identification before visual range. 6th will only improve on that.
 
Ozair said:
Are you referring to a tail chase?


Why do you need a visual identification? In a platform such as the F-35 the parameters being collected by the sensors are more than capable of threat identification before visual range. 6th will only improve on that.
Click to expand...
You need to intercept and escort , you can't do that with subsonic CCA, the time to go on combat zone, if you take 3 hours to arrive on the zone a lot of threat will have move to another place, and how you fight if your ennemy have a big fleet of 5/6 th gen supersonic fleet like the J-20 or J-35 you realy think you will win the battle with your no stealth subsonic CCA ?
 
quellish said:
The Navy is not yet all in on CCAs. Instead they are going with putting all their capabilities in the manned aircraft. The Navy’s relationship with carrier borne UAVs is still very immature.
Click to expand...
True, but I expect that they will come around, just because it means you can fly a riskier profile without risking the pilot(s).
 
dark sidius said:
You need to intercept and escort , you can't do that with subsonic CCA, the time to go on combat zone, if you take 3 hours to arrive on the zone a lot of threat will have move to another place, and how you fight if your ennemy have a big fleet of 5/6 th gen supersonic fleet like the J-20 or J-35 you realy think you will win the battle with your no stealth subsonic CCA ?
Click to expand...

Subsonic is perfectly workable for offense, when the opponent is forced to come to it. Even defensely, a favorable starting position would solve the problem. Moreover i doubt CCAs remain subsonic: USAF just wants something in the air to experiment with as soon as possible.

I also question whether 5th gen can super cruise for extended times; I would think it cuts down on range.

The CCA does not need to be really stealthy; it just needs to be able to get within BVR envelope of a target. More over CCA will probably be used in large numbers with other unmanned systems to thin out opponent AAMs. Image a group of four CCAs carrying a pair each of AAMs and MALD-N type decoys under direct control. That’s a swarm of a dozen targets, four of which can shoot back, and any kill of an opponent front line fighter pays for cost of the whole formation. A minimum that’s 1-2 dozen AAMs the enemy does not have, which is going to mission kill a fair number of fighters.
 
Last edited:
We in the unclassified world have no idea of the standoff capabilities (powered JSOW, various versions of MALD other long range munitions and the future of such systems) can do. The fear is that congressional oversight doesn't have a clue either..IMHO the whole concept of CCA is so uninspiring given (C-130s were launching these things during the Vietnam war) it needs a close look. (no confidence that will happen ie industrial welfare)
 
Last edited:
Well Vietnam tells us that they did good, were valuable but cost a lot. This is IMOHO why the USAF is putting the emphasis on cost instead of gimmicks.
CCA have to be cheap. Not just cheap by cutting sustainment cost but dirt cheap and autonomous (on broad assessment of it). That´s why I am always annoyed to see P. Luckey displaying his pricy toys on prime time TV. If Anduril have to set their prices for him to pay a 100ft speed boat, expensive cars and whatever out of a 200 units contract, I know that their would be tempted having their design made in Pakistan, the airframe built in China and the software tuned from a Dyson 360...

I am joking but as real money will come from the governing system software, what the CCA is made from, relatively to another competing design, is not really of prime importance. Unless there is a breakthrough in Tech like Stealth at an equivalent cost, Supersonic Cruise, Runway independent operations etc.. (and guess what the services are running after...).
The CCA is only a wedge in the door frame, a mean to step a foot in the opening.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
Subsonic is perfectly workable for offense, when the opponent is forced to come to it. Even defensely, a favorable starting position would solve the problem. Moreover i doubt CCAs remain subsonic: USAF just wants something in the air to experiment with as soon as possible.

I also question whether 5th gen can super cruise for extended times; I would think it cuts down on range.

The CCA does not need to be really stealthy; it just needs to be able to get within BVR envelope of a target. More over CCA will probably be used in large numbers with other unmanned systems to thin out opponent AAMs. Image a group of four CCAs carrying a pair each of AAMs and MALD-N type decoys under direct control. That’s a swarm of a dozen targets, four of which can shoot back, and any kill of an opponent front line fighter pays for cost of the whole formation. A minimum that’s 1-2 dozen AAMs the enemy does not have, which is going to mission kill a fair number of fighters.
Click to expand...
CCA is a non sense I hope new administration kill it, invest in F-35 block 4 , NGAD fighter , B-21, Kendall fall in love of the CCA like a child in front of a new toy, " woaw a R2D2 plane " but it is realy not the solution in the time of space weapon, 5/6 th gen Chinese fighter and hypersonic vehicle and missile.
 
TomcatViP said:
Well Vietnam tells us that they did good, were valuable but cost a lot
Click to expand...
They were cheap. The technology just wasn't quite mature enough to overcome the inertia. Especially the navigation. It's demoralizing to lose your unmanned spy or EW aircraft over China because the nav failed and it ran out of fuel off-course and deployed the chutes.
They also didn't try arming them until the late 70's, so it's not an apples to apple comparison of the RPV -to- CCA.
 
_Del_ said:
They were cheap. The technology just wasn't quite mature enough to overcome the inertia. Especially the navigation. It's demoralizing to lose your unmanned spy or EW aircraft over China because the nav failed and it ran out of fuel off-course and deployed the chutes.
They also didn't try arming them until the late 70's, so it's not an apples to apple comparison of the RPV -to- CCA.
Click to expand...
Not sure you are right here. They cost a lot because they did request a lot of manpower and supporting assets for a narrow set of missions. For example, it was often less expensive and more reliable to send a recce Voodoo than a 147 for a post strike as Tankers and CSAR were already up.

Also, Ryan arming the 147 series was early 1960´s if my mem stands right ;)
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
For example, it was often less expensive and more reliable to send a recce Voodoo than a 147 for a post strike as Tankers and CSAR were already up.
Click to expand...
The use-case has always been for areas you did not want to send additional manned aircraft. Like the over flights of China and Laos or heavily defended areas of the North. Or as EW support for a strike package. Or ELINT as Ferrets.
Easy to spend money on in wartime, fell down the priority list with the budget cuts post-Vietnam.

Also, Ryan arming the 147 series was early 1960´s if my mem stands right ;)
Click to expand...
No, it was early 70's, but the US steadfastly refused to consider arming them in service, despite numerous proposals from Ryan. Eventually the Israelis were the first to arm them. In the late 70's, almost a decade after Ryan trailed the ability for TAC.
 
_Del_ said:
The use-case has always been for areas you did not want to send additional manned aircraft.
Click to expand...

Firebees were used as live bait against SA-2 and SA-3 batteries to get ELINT on their radars.
 
_Del_ said:
No, it was early 70's, but the US steadfastly refused to consider arming them in service, despite numerous proposals from Ryan. Eventually the Israelis were the first to arm them. In the late 70's, almost a decade after Ryan trailed the ability for TAC.
Click to expand...

That is true. I Stand corrected.

For those that need also, at least, a memory refresh, see here.
 
NMaude said:
Firebees were used as live bait against SA-2 and SA-3 batteries to get ELINT on their radars.
Click to expand...
Right. They didn't want to use manned aircraft as a ferret up North or "downtown".
 
dark sidius said:
CCA is a non sense I hope new administration kill it, invest in F-35 block 4 , NGAD fighter , B-21, Kendall fall in love of the CCA like a child in front of a new toy, " woaw a R2D2 plane " but it is realy not the solution in the time of space weapon, 5/6 th gen Chinese fighter and hypersonic vehicle and missile.
Click to expand...

Fighter aircraft still spend the major of their time subsonic and CCAs are not permanently wedded to subsonic.
 
I think people need to start considering the fact that most every platform is going to be detectable in the medium term. The Space Force already has access to more cheap lift to LEO than it could use. SDA plans to launch 200 plus satellites every two years starting next year and that will only go up. NRO has already placed 80 recon satellites in orbit since May in four launches with two more expected before Christmas, and those satellites were contracted just in 2021. Detection technology cycles are literally already down to several years, and global radar satellite networks are coming this decade (the USAF GMTI program looks to put test satellites up in several years). A large fast aircraft likely is going to be visible from orbit by the time it enters service, possibly in multiple wavelengths. Putting all your eggs in one expensive basket is likely not a viable solution. I think this is also one of the reasons the USAF has not shown enthusiasm for dramatically accelerating B-21 production - they are concerned its stealth has a shelf life, even at subsonic speeds.
 
Worth asking the question that if detection technologies will negate stealth in the mid term, and folks with no special knowledge of either side know that it will, how did the NGAD advance to source selection? Why are we buying stealthy B-21's through this decade and most of next decade?
 
So where will we next go then Josh_TN? A return to speed? Especially Hypersonic speeds above Mach 10 that was considered the holly grail of military aircraft and indeed missiles a decade ago.
 
bring_it_on said:
Worth asking the question that if detection technologies will negate stealth in the mid term, and folks with no special knowledge of either side know that it will, how did the NGAD advance to source selection? Why are we buying stealthy B-21's through this decade and most of next decade?
Click to expand...

NGADs requirements date from circa 2018 I think. So the environment has changed, and in particular the advances of the PLAs space efforts: two hundred remote sensing satellites were orbited by the PRC in 2022-2023 and a half dozen medium lifters are due to have their first launch in the next two years. The U.S. has dominance in this field, but the PRC will have sufficient lift such that it can just dedicate its space industry only to military applications to close the gap.

Stealth will not be useless but it will have more limitations. Decentralizing your air capabilities onto more, less expensive aircraft is a reasonable hedge.
 
FighterJock said:
So where will we next go then Josh_TN? A return to speed? Especially Hypersonic speeds above Mach 10 that was considered the holly grail of military aircraft and indeed missiles a decade ago.
Click to expand...

As with all complex problems, a mix of solutions: super high performance aircraft, super low signature aircraft, ECM, etc. IMO the overall the solution will involve fewer manned platforms , more attrition, and disaggregating capability over all platforms. More cheaper stuff. Radically expensive star destroyers is likely not the answer. If you want extreme speed it’s best to make it unmanned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom