The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[GK .Dundas]

(Boris Badeov accent) What problems ?
Mother Russians has deep and significant historical ties to these Waters....Hokay, maybe as long ago as Tuesday last... But they are still ours.
Because we say so.

 

[armrdsoul77]

This guy gets a lesson in an F35 simulator. Very impressive.

 

[Kirkhill]

F35 Replacement -

Industry target - 300 MUSD each
DoD target - 30 MUSD each

“That’s not going to happen,”

Sixth-generation fighter at F-35 costs? 'That’s not going to happen,' industry predicts. - Breaking Defense

“That’s not going to happen,” one defense industry official told Breaking Defense, adding that there are “distinct differences” in design parameters, materials and fleet sizes that drive higher costs for a sixth-generation fighter versus older, more prolific jets like the F-35 and F-15.

breakingdefense.com

If the Air Force wants to field an optionally-crewed sixth-generation fighter jet at a price around that of an F-35 or F-15EX, the only plausible option is by taking out most of the aircraft’s key mission systems — things like radar, other sensors and datalinks — and putting them into the CCAs that will fly near the jet, said a second industry official.

That would allow the service to focus on optimizing the range, improved stealth and aerodynamic performance of the sixth-generation fighter, but would have a few major downsides, the official said.

‘Quiet quitting’ NGAD​

While aerospace companies are not permitted to confirm their involvement in the ultra-secretive NGAD program, Breaking Defense understands that Lockheed Martin and Boeing were vying for the NGAD contract before the Air Force hit pause on the program this summer. (Northrop Grumman CEO Kathy Warden acknowledged last year that Northrop no longer planned to compete for NGAD, though she has since said the company could reassess that decision depending how the Air Force rescopes the competition.)

Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with AeroDynamic Advisories, said the focus on the cost-element of Kendall’s comments is burying the more significant acknowledgement from the Air Force — that it no longer needs a “super fighter” like NGAD and is more interested in disaggregating capabilities and networking them together.

Which raises the question about whether it needs a manned fighter altogether if it can just put those capabilities into drones, said Aboulafia, who joked that the Air Force may be “quiet quitting” the NGAD program.

“The idea of backing away from a next-gen super fighter is just anathema to the service’s DNA,” Aboulafia said. “There’s no doubt about its utility in all military scenarios… it’s the formula that’s always worked. No drawback at all, except, oh Jesus, it costs $300 million. And we don’t want to spend that because you’ll never get the mass you need.”

 

[GR66]

On the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) front, General Atomics says it could up its drone production to one every two days "without lifting a finger" and increase that to one a day in 2-3 years.

F-35's acting as stealthy sensor nodes for multiple CCA's? In a defence of North America role how advanced would you need a CCA to actually be? With F-35's, MQ-9B's, NORAD modernization and an AEW aircraft on the horizon detection of incoming missiles would be easier. A fairly simple CCA missile carrier would be a more mobile anti-missile option than more traditional GBAD alternatives. They wouldn't even need to be stealthy as there won't be Russian/Chinese fighters escorting incoming cruise missiles. GBAD could then focus on the ballistic missile defence.

 

[Kirkhill]

On the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) front, General Atomics says it could up its drone production to one every two days "without lifting a finger" and increase that to one a day in 2-3 years.

F-35's acting as stealthy sensor nodes for multiple CCA's? In a defence of North America role how advanced would you need a CCA to actually be? With F-35's, MQ-9B's, NORAD modernization and an AEW aircraft on the horizon detection of incoming missiles would be easier. A fairly simple CCA missile carrier would be a more mobile anti-missile option than more traditional GBAD alternatives. They wouldn't even need to be stealthy as there won't be Russian/Chinese fighters escorting incoming cruise missiles. GBAD could then focus on the ballistic missile defence.

General Atomics is trying to keep up with Anduril's promises and Kratos's plussed-up target drones.

GA has got used to feeding from the defence trough where modest increases in capabilities justified massive increases in costs. MQ-9 Reapers cost 30 MUSD each. MQ-25 Stingrays cost 136 MUSD. MQ-4 Tritons cost 618 MUSD each. These aircraft were all developed on the premise that they would be cheap alternatives to manned aircraft. The price structure puts them into the same category as the manned aircraft - demanding the same maintenance regimes and permitting the same production inefficiencies and the same profit margins.

Anduril says they can do it better. That remains to be seen.

Meanwhile Kratos has a long history of supplying unmanned/uncrewed flying machines that replicate the flight profiles of both missiles and manned aircraft and

• UAS Acquisition Cost: $3 million or less for the first unit up to 99 units, and $2 million or less for 100-or-greater unit quantity purchases.

Air Force To Test Target Drone Turned Low-Cost Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle

The USAF is interested to see what it can get out of a very budget-oriented UCAV.

www.twz.com

Tomahawks with Link-16 comms have been acting as One Way UAS since at least 2015 with a unit price much closer to Kratos than General Atomics.

World Naval Developments - Sharpening the Tactical Picture

www.usni.org

Tomahawk (missile family) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

...

As you note, @GR66 , in the NORAD context there seems to be a role for trucks to transport missiles and bombs to targets.