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

[Kirkhill]

RN's Jet Powered Carrier-Launched CCA Drone

Delivery imminent with sea trials before the end of the year for a price of 13 to 16 MUSD

Royal Navy Pursues Jet-Powered Carrier-Launched Drone to Fly Alongside F-35

The UK has sought industry input on an unmanned aerial system for operations from the Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.

thedefensepost.com

This may be a cross over. The USN is looking for a a fighter that can be launched and recovered on a helideck.

US Navy on the hunt for strike drones that can launch from any warship

The Navy is looking for armed drones that can be launched from austere locations or from surface warships other than aircraft carriers.

www.defensenews.com

Perhaps the "Tailsitters" day has come.

Tail-sitter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Developers of Ukraine-Tested V-Bat Reveal Jet-Powered X-Bat VTOL Fighter Drone | Defense Express

Shield AI has unveiled the jet-powered X-Bat, a true unmanned fighter that requires no runway and is already being prepared for its first flight

en.defence-ua.com

 

[GR66]

Oh the shy is falling, like 30 airframes don’t have radars whatever will the USAF do

I don't think anyone is really concerned about the issue, but more amused by the optics of it in light of the current climate.

 

[Furniture]

I don't think anyone is really concerned about the issue, but more amused by the optics of it in light of the current climate.

It also kinda of undercuts the f-35 annual build numbers. Nobody is buying a 5th Gen fighter to carry around some extra weights for the base gym...

If 30 aircraft are delivered without a key system to make them operational, should they really count as "delivered"?

 

[dapaterson]

It also kinda of undercuts the f-35 annual build numbers. Nobody is buying a 5th Gen fighter to carry around some extra weights for the base gym...

If 30 aircraft are delivered without a key system to make them operational, should they really count as "delivered"?

There's a potential cyclone of answers to that philosophical question.

 

[Kirkhill]

Lockheed Martin's venture into the CCA field - Vectis
From the Skunk Works and very short on details.

WDS 2026: U.S. Reveals Vectis as Next-Generation Collaborative Combat Aircraft

Vectis highlights how Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon envision uncrewed aircraft operating as collaborative combat partners.

armyrecognition.com

 

[KevinB]

It also kinda of undercuts the f-35 annual build numbers. Nobody is buying a 5th Gen fighter to carry around some extra weights for the base gym...

If 30 aircraft are delivered without a key system to make them operational, should they really count as "delivered"?

That is a US DoD decision.
It was DoD/USAF not LocMart that made the decision to field the APG-85 radar without a solid build schedule.
It is also the USAF who has cut testing numbers thus delaying integration of certain upgrades.

Keep in mind the rest of the aircraft is fully functional -- the APG-85 bracket could be removed and APG-81 mounting brackets installed and then mount the -81's if there was an immediate need for aircraft.

The fact that the USAF accepted them, I would argue means they know the issue is theirs at the root.

Part of the goal/selling point was the open architecture for F-35, and the USAF isn't exactly doing well at selling/explaining why it is having snags.

 

[dapaterson]

Part of the goal/selling point was the open architecture for F-35, and the USAF isn't exactly doing well at selling/explaining why it is having snags.

Because LockMart?

 

[KevinB]

Because LockMart?

I'd like point out that Sik was not owned by LocMart back when you guys bought that bill of good referred to as the Cyclone...
So the bad man who touched you was not wearing a LocMart shirt

It is pretty clear a lot of the newer MIC entities like to try to portray the established ones in a bad light, but like it or not you don't have much of a choice to deal with LM, RTX, GD, NG and Boeing for most items, plus BAE as the non US based large defense contractor.

 

[dapaterson]

I'd like point out that Sik was not owned by LocMart back when you guys bought that bill of good referred to as the Cyclone...
So the bad man who touched you was not wearing a LocMart shirt

It is pretty clear a lot of the newer MIC entities like to try to portray the established ones in a bad light, but like it or not you don't have much of a choice to deal with LM, RTX, GD, NG and Boeing for most items, plus BAE as the non US based large defense contractor.

Twin Otter with a cupola. Checkmate.

 

[ytz]

It also kinda of undercuts the f-35 annual build numbers. Nobody is buying a 5th Gen fighter to carry around some extra weights for the base gym...

If 30 aircraft are delivered without a key system to make them operational, should they really count as "delivered"?

It's fine. They code them as "Partially Mission Capable" (PMC). And use them for training that doesn't require the radar. Basically flying, ACM, some datalinked ops, etc can all be trained without the primary radar. Since the three US services combined have over 600 F-35s, less than 5% having this deficiency is a problem. But not that big a problem either.

 

[daftandbarmy]

There's a potential cyclone of answers to that philosophical question.

'Schrödinger's CAF' enters the chat...

 

[Nvlgzr]

That is a US DoD decision.
It was DoD/USAF not LocMart that made the decision to field the APG-85 radar without a solid build schedule.
It is also the USAF who has cut testing numbers thus delaying integration of certain upgrades.

Keep in mind the rest of the aircraft is fully functional -- the APG-85 bracket could be removed and APG-81 mounting brackets installed and then mount the -81's if there was an immediate need for aircraft.

The fact that the USAF accepted them, I would argue means they know the issue is theirs at the root.

Part of the goal/selling point was the open architecture for F-35, and the USAF isn't exactly doing well at selling/explaining why it is having snags.

Current F-35 Configuration Complicates Fielding Of APG-85 Radar - Avionics International

Radar mountings in the nose of the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter are different for the current AN/APG-81 by Northrop Grumman and the future AN/APG-85 radar, also by Northrop Grumman–a difference which has helped […]

www.aviationtoday.com

It seams more complicated than swapping mounting brackets. Sounds as if differences in bulkhead too and power/cooling requirements.

 

[KevinB]

Current F-35 Configuration Complicates Fielding Of APG-85 Radar - Avionics International

Radar mountings in the nose of the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter are different for the current AN/APG-81 by Northrop Grumman and the future AN/APG-85 radar, also by Northrop Grumman–a difference which has helped […]

www.aviationtoday.com

It seams more complicated than swapping mounting brackets. Sounds as if differences in bulkhead too and power/cooling requirements.

Power/cooling requirements increased for the 85. TRL-3 birds have that.

I gather there is also an effort between NG and LocMart to make a common interface mounting system- even outside of the USAF program.

Any bird designed for the -85 should not have physical issues getting a -81 installed even with the different bulkhead/ as the space is slightly larger than the earlier models. The issue will be testing - as the aviation community tends to take integration seriously due to flight safety and combat performance.

Again I tend to think this is a minor issue. Partially because as @ytz points out there are roles it can fulfill without a radar for small numbers of the fleet and also simply because the USAF will throw money at the problem and a solution will be found either in rapid fielding of the -85 or a common interface to allow the -81 or -85 to be fitted, potentially both.

 

[YZT580]

Power/cooling requirements increased for the 85. TRL-3 birds have that.

I gather there is also an effort between NG and LocMart to make a common interface mounting system- even outside of the USAF program.

Any bird designed for the -85 should not have physical issues getting a -81 installed even with the different bulkhead/ as the space is slightly larger than the earlier models. The issue will be testing - as the aviation community tends to take integration seriously due to flight safety and combat performance.

Again I tend to think this is a minor issue. Partially because as @ytz points out there are roles it can fulfill without a radar for small numbers of the fleet and also simply because the USAF will throw money at the problem and a solution will be found either in rapid fielding of the -85 or a common interface to allow the -81 or -85 to be fitted, potentially both.

Kevin, after the tanker development debacle I admire your faith. Nothing to do with electronic integration is a minor complication. Ask your mechanic about the complexity built into your car. Unless it is pre-wired adding a trailer hitch and harness to your basic Ford can cost you upwards of a grand if it is even possible. On some models it is not. I suspect even an open architecture system as the F35 is many hundreds of times more complicated and it was designed for change.

 

[KevinB]

Kevin, after the tanker development debacle I admire your faith.

Oh I had zero faith in the KC-46, Boeing was working at their own pace on that. Partially as the USAF had chosen the LocMart/Airbus offering and Congress forced the Boeing option , I think Boeing knew that there was no

Nothing to do with electronic integration is a minor complication.

Not trying to overly grow simplify this, but it’s a radar replacing a radar. The additional power and cooling requirements for the -85 are incorporated into the aircraft already. It is relatively simple to not use all the power and or cooling if you don’t need to.

Ask your mechanic about the complexity built into your car. Unless it is pre-wired adding a trailer hitch and harness to your basic Ford can cost you upwards of a grand if it is even possible. On some models it is not. I suspect even an open architecture system as the F35 is many hundreds of times more complicated and it was designed for change.

The pre-tech refresh three variance were set up for the –81, and export TRF-3 airframes still are. It was designed as a plug-in play module, and then they found out that it wasn’t so plug n play. However the hard part has been done already for the -85 airframes. It’s more like using a trailer light adapter to an already installed trailer receptacle.

Not saying this is something anyone can crank out in their garage, but realistically it’s a bracket and converter box type thing. The significant part will be testing and validation.

 

[KevinB]

The KC-46 debacle is a thread to itself honestly. It’s a clear case of pork barreling, as the LocMart/Airbus offering was virtually a copy paste of the RCAF MRTT, except LocMart doing the conversions. The 767 isn’t a common airframe to the USAF/DoD so it served no point - and there could have been a common NATO AAR aircraft.

Sigh.

 

[dapaterson]

The KC-46 debacle is a thread to itself honestly. It’s a clear case of pork barreling, as the LocMart/Airbus offering was virtually a copy paste of the RCAF MRTT, except LocMart doing the conversions. The 767 isn’t a common airframe to the USAF/DoD so it served no point - and there could have been a common NATO AAR aircraft.

Sigh.

Airbus is ceasing production of the A330-200 (MRTT start point), so future orders will be the MRTT+ (A330-900).

 

[KevinB]

Airbus is ceasing production of the A330-200 (MRTT start point), so future orders will be the MRTT+ (A330-900).

Yes, but if the USAF had ordered the KC-47, Airbus would have been locked in to the -200 airframe for many more years, or eating the ECP cost and platform upgrade (replacement).