nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Sixth Generation Fighter Development

While the strict definition of a sixth generation fighter varies between sources, there is little argument that the race is on for a new generation of air dominance combat aircraft.

1200px-F-47-artist-rendition_(cropped)[1].jpg

While the US NGAD programme has now solidified into the Boeing F-47, the Tempest, the TAI Kaan, and SU-75 are, arguably, lesser known quantities.

1920px-IMG-TAI-TFX[1].jpg

What's going on in China is equally interesting, with new videos emerging of the likes of the J-36, with its three engine, tandem cockpit configuration leaving many scratching their heads as to whether it is a fighter or a strike aircraft or an interesting hybrid.

109479_chengduj362_727651[1].jpg

Lockheed Martin has been reported to be planning a 'NASCAR' upgrade to the F-35 to give it 80% of the F-47's performance for 20% of the price.

With so much happening in this field, it would be good to have a discussion thread to share opinions, analysis and sources, as well as indulge in a bit of wild speculation.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123514455#Comment_123514455

Interesting article and it makes some compelling conclusions.

A big problem for France if the premise that the Rafale was overmatched, rather than tactically crippled in the Indo/Pak conflict, is that the French are tied to the airframe until 2040 at the earliest IMO.

France can rattle Dassault and indeed Airbus to try and force a way past the current office politics delays, but that still won't see an airframe in service before 2037 or so.

Whereas there is a development path planned for Rafale out to F5 version, with F3 & F3R being the current version and F4 entering service currently.

The F3 & F4 have a large degree of automated systems, prioritised situational awareness and whilst not enjoying the F35s level of sensor fusion are amongst the best and most ergonomic cockpits in service. Now I'll caveat that "the best" with this. We don't really know how good the current Chinese cockpit & human interface is but, we must assume that it is at least "as good as".

Where Rafale does have issues, in it's non-stealth design. Which is a limitation, that cannot be overcome and only slightly mitigated. Via new RAM coatings, perhaps reprofiling of inlet ducts but not much else to aid passive stealth can be done.

On the sensor and active EW front. The RBE2 radar is a very capable set with a glaring weakness for a modern set in that it lacks a Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) mode. Meaning that it's far easier for opposing EW systems to detect and interfere with.

I don't know if Thomson -CSF can retrofit LPI via processing card or software? But adding LPI and then plugging the antenna into spectra as an offensive emitter could be a very worthwhile upgrade that would restore technical edge and allow self escorted missions to resume.

The SPECTRA EW suite is one of the most capable self defence jammer systems in service anywhere and should be adaptable to new threats. The issue with that? Becomes ensuring Rafale users share that threat data back to Dassault

I gave an opinion on the India V Pak thread when the initial Rafale shootdowns were reported that, if they were shot down and indeed shot down within India that it pointed towards IAF tactical failure. In that they used Rafale as a launch platform for Scalp, flying at low level and without EW support or SEAD/DEAD. Suicidal tactic against a modern Air Defence network IMHO.

The strike package easily picked up by PAK AWACS, the data passed to PL15 armed fighters at high altitude. The launch energy advantage versus the lack of altitude to perform effective escape manoeuvre left Rafale little hope of evasion.

India are stonewalling a Dassault team in country trying to build after action reports and that IMHO speaks to a realisation, that was touched on by Indian Generals that after day 1 of Sindoor, they realised a mistake in their tactics and reduced sorties until day 3 when they claim to have addressed the shortcomings.

Interesting analysis of the latest pics of the Chinese J-36 odd ball.

https://www.twz.com/air/this-could-be-our-best-view-yet-of-chinas-j-36-very-heavy-stealth-tactical-jet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123525102#Comment_123525102

It's nice to see Tyler and co at TWZ agree with my own thoughts as to what the J36 would likely be. I posted the below regarding the airframe on this thread in April👀😜

I think the Chinese 6th Gen "fighter" will be the J50 with the J36 as a strike platform or perhaps even a stealth stand off launch platform to allow China penetrate within 400km of AWACS & A2A tankers to take them out with long range AAMs. I think the J50 will be the Chinese fighter they see pitted against the F47 & F-XX

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123386506#Comment_123386506

In other 6th Gen news, the US DOD has moved $500mln in funding away from the F-XX navy programme and over to the F47.

https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/3-year-delay-the-f-a-xx-fighter-is-starting-to-scare-the-u-s-navy/

The seeming urgency surrounding getting F47 into service for a potential Pacific war v China, whilst ignoring the Navy being the tip of the spear in that theatre? Is at 1st glance a little skewed.

I would argue though that the likely thinking behind it is as follows. The USMC & USN has F35B & C in service. They have also brought the AIM-174 into service on the F18E/F as a 400km + missile. I'd think that the USN is likely looking at a Killchain of F35s operating forward and in LO mode, passing location data back to the F18s who will then launch AIM-174 from high altitude & high speed towards the targeted aircraft.

Similarly with the "Murder Hornet" AMRAAM configuration. The USN are likely looking at offboard sensors providing target track to the shooter aircraft.

Those networked shooter set ups utilising legacy aircraft as missile trucks will likely only increase in use with the introduction of AIM-260, LREW & AIM-160 (esp the later given likely numbers carried).

(Edit: added murder Hornet link)

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123528183#Comment_123528183

The level of interoperability of systems that the US has developed is impressive. Air Force aircraft grabbing Army missiles, Army radars grabbing Navy missiles, and so on. But the Navy money is going a lot into shipbuilding, and more specifically, shipbuilding capacity.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123530900#Comment_123530900

100% agree, the US effort to ensure it's own Killchain effort isn't affected by inter service incompability is both impressive and vital to effective ops.

Let's be honest, whilst the recent Pak effort might have grabbed a headline as 1st "real world" demonstration of networked kill chain. That the US has been leading the way in distributed targeting and shoot systems for 30 years and has massive advantages in this particular domain.

The US has the ability to leverage that experience, against both it's advanced training and exercise doctrine and allied forces acting as "near peer".

Couple that huge experience always being refreshed and trained out at all operational levels and US DoD efforts to overcome the perceived deficits in magazine depth. The US has inherent advantage still but, it is being eroded.

The renewal of USN interest in patriot, the ability of NASAMs to utilise multiple various missiles including repurposed AAMs and the ongoing effort to bring relatively cheap, small but highly capable weapons like AIM-160 in particular into service, all speaks to both skill in operational use and recognition of the need for magazine depth.

On a related note regarding AIM-160, given it's AMRAAM class capability in a hit-ile of ⅓ the size. I can't help but wonder what a version modified for ground launch on a booster akin to the CAMM/Aster30 & IRIS-T DLX style system might achieve. Perhaps Patriot GEM-T capability at a fraction of the price?

US DoD is cutting 2026 F35A order by half, along with reducing F35B & C buys too.

https://theaviationist.com/2025/06/11/dod-cuts-f-35-deliveries/

It won't hurt output at Lockheed's plant and will allow foreign orders to be moved up the production queue and filled faster.

It does raise questions IMO as to whether DoD is doing this to cut budget and save money? Or if it's an effort to reallocate funds to F47 production and reaching operational capability quicker.

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/us-air-force-f35-orders-cut-50pct-sixth-generation

We may have a slightly better look at the F47 planform and general appearance thanks to a Pratt & Whitney promo video for the XA103 engine

https://twitter.com/VLO225/status/1937614001955045428

https://youtu.be/vCHun6rxQm0

It does look that the X36 may well be the starting point that has been developed into the twin engined and advanced F47.

https://www.twz.com/air/reflections-of-the-f-47-looking-back-at-the-x-36

Interesting exhaust ducts, doesn't look like thrust vectoring, more IR shielding or masking of some sort.

Can't do much for thrust output, though.

In tangentially related 6th Gen news.
The USAF has sought to retire the A-10 fleet and cancel their E7 programme aswell as drastically reduce FA-XX funding all in an effort to redirect funds to the B21 & F47 programmes.
The "number" for the F47 buy has been floated too, at 185 jet minimum, which is pretty much a 1:1 replacement of the F22.
What is surprising, given the importance of the CAG?
Is the pausing of the FA-XX effort.

Also noticeable if one has a dig around the funding requests is that is AIM260 production is beginning to see quite a ramp. So the new long range AAMs of a size that can fit in F22, F35 and F47 weapons bays are finally entering initial service.
As an aside, consider the possibility/lethality of a B21 carrying a huge volume of AIM260 or LREW operating undetected within range of enemy aircraft and airbases.

The US shifting ever more aggressively to a network centric killchain is very noticeanle.
How the USAF in particular moves to support incredibly capable airframes and weapons, whilst retiring E3, cancelling the E7 and replacing JSATRS with the E11, which works brilliantly as a comms node but has no ground radar capability nor MTI.

The US is placing a huge amount of faith in detection and control capabilities of space based sensors, without much demonstration of the capabity achievable and certainly no demo of real time capability.
Relying upon E2 Hawkeyes for their fighter control and battlespace management is a hugely risky strategy IMHO.
Its also, surely the nail in the coffin for the RAF and the E7?

Pressing towards a war in the Pacific whilst undertaking a simultaneous shift in doctrinal approach to sensor management and battlefield control?
Is probably the craziest bit of peacetime military rejigging I have ever seen.

https://www.twz.com/air/pentagon-all-in-on-air-forces-f-47-puts-navys-f-a-xx-on-ice

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2025/06/27/us-air-force-to-retire-all-a-10s-cancel-e-7-under-2026-spending-plan/

https://twitter.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1938004539329626251

It dues seem curious that the Pacific focus should result in the loss of support for the FA-XX programme. One would have thought that the carrier based capability would be a top priority for the US in the near future for Force projection.

Unless the F-47 is going to have a carrier variant.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123588903#Comment_123588903

I just can't see the F47 being carrier deployed. Yes, if the FA-XX ever proceeds to production it will share engines and sub systems with the F47 but, as it stands?

The F47 is going to be a big fighter. Personal opinion is that it's max load weight will exceed the F22s 37800kg, it's length will be over 20mtrs and whilst span will be 12/13mtrs, without huge engineering and redesign effort to add wing folding and other required CATOBAR gear? I just cannot see a naval variant being feasible.

Even taking the example of the F35, the C variant is a very different beast to the A in engineering terms.

Regarding what US thinking may be on how they fight in the short term in the Pacific? I posted previously that I think they might try and exploit the sensor/stealth capability of the F35C. Operate the C in LO configuration as far forward as possible. Have that feeding sensor and targeting data back to F18s operating AIM174 and AIM260 to leverage those weapon's range whilst keeping them far enough back from the merge that they are relatively safe if only by dint of distance.

I don't know how long such a tactic can be effective though. Given China has now flown the J15T variant for its own carriers with the PL17 missile. The PL17 couple that with the J35 entering naval service soon and the missile performance of the PL15 & later PL17 & PL21(400km+ range) missiles. That gives China a trio of very long range AAMs that could well offset the USN forward sensor tactic and expose F18s to counter fire.

On top of that, the Chinese would also be operating lots of J10, J11, J16 and all those with the J20 (and soon J35) on top.

I'm not an expert, just a very interested amateur in terms of aviation & mil history albeit 1 whose followed the areas for 35yrs now. The imbalance in terms of current Chinese numbers, build capacity & magazine depth? Are IMHO beyond the ability of just US tech to offset. Indeed the production advantage the US enjoyed for much of its history is also long gone now.

But, is it sustainable against large volumes of nearly as good, especially when paired with a training regime that has sought to exploit the knowledge of retired western pilots to leverage any weakness or advantage?

The Chinese aren't making the Soviet error of building lots of "good enough". Their current airframes, in particular J10, J20 & J35 are very close to the US in terms of capability. Their Flanker based stuff is also very good, but I do see huge issue with their RCS versus effective radar and missiles. Yes US tech and training is still IMO better but they are no longer 2 generations + ahead and that brings risk.

Agreed, it is likely that there will be modular carry over from the F-47 to any FA-XX programme, butt hat an entirely new airframe will be required. Engines, avionics, weapons, sensors, and even loads outs/pods/modules should all carry over seeing as how they are being developed to a very similar philosophy. Probably harking back to the F-4 and its various adaptations to be air to air, air to ground and sea borne versions, though again separate air frames.

WRT to China, agreed, they have already, via the Pakistan instance, shown a good level of platform integration that along with highly competent airframes means that they are likely to be formidable from the start. But is US experience and know-how likely to mean that the numbers game is kept at bay, or at least for the first few encounters? Hard to say.

I'm not abreast of how successful their western airforce recruitment plan was after it was exposed previously, but it does signal that they lacked confidence in tactics as well as strategy.

Time will tell.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123592811#Comment_123592811

Important to remember that the F4 was originally designed as a Carrier aircraft, that it's carrier gear was baked into its design. That said, USAF and other land based operators deleted the hydraulic system for wing folding to save weight. Although all of them still had wing folding hinge and ability

I don't know that I'd frame the Chinese training effort as being a result of a lack of in their tactics or strategy. Rather they had no real war fighting experience nor experience of countering US/NATO style air ops. They saw the havoc that such capability wrought in Gulf War 1 & 2. They IMO came to the conclusion that the best way to counter Air Dominance, was to understand how the West trains their planners and pilots to implement it.

China has been utilising retired pilots since at least the late 90s. Combat experience and operational experience are priceless, the Chinese haven't really had any in the shape of intensive Air Ops. All their conflicts post Korea have, apart from cross straits clashes, been primarily ground based. So they have had to find ways to buy in that experience and operationalise it.

The real measure of any potential success is yet to be seen. It will come in 1 of 2 ways IMO, either bringing any US/Sino war to a close on favourable terms. Or, displacing the US hold on fighter sales across the Middle East in particular.

Boeing's defence plants in St Louis and Mascoutah are facing strike action as the Union involved in their collective bargaining has rejected the latest Boeing pay offer.

Aside from the danger of any delays to a programme the DoD has placed at the heart of USAF plans and future capabilities. It will be very telling to see just what the US Govt and in particular, Trump and the Dept of Labor (sic) reaction to potential strike is.

https://www.goiam.org/news/iam-district-837-members-in-st-louis-vote-to-reject-boeing-defense-contract/

https://apnews.com/article/boeing-defense-machinists-union-contract-strike-60670fdfd1bbed54eb3e91ed682cc2c8

Boeing is a big Trump donor, and obviously wants them to renovate his second hand Qatari plane before 2028 (which won't happen), so I don't think he'll say much about it at all.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123677140#Comment_123677140

Not the angle I was looking at it from. More that Trump, and the nascent fascism in the US take a dim view of the working class efforts to unionise and has already rolled back some collective bargaining rights on the federal level.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/28/politics/executive-order-collective-bargaining-national-security

The project 2025 led Trump MK2 would only love to have the opportunity to engage in some union breaking in private industry. The opportunity to use a flagship defence programme to do so? Won't be overlooked either.

https://betterinaunion.org/project-2025

Some really interesting photos appearing on Chinese social media & AVGeek accounts over the past couple of days.

https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1952414068670611810?s=19

A purported 3rd Chinese 6th Gen jet. Important to note that there is quite a bit of discussion as to whether the new airframe is manned or unmanned, or even optionally so. It could well be an example of their MUM-T loyal wingman concept.

https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/china-sixth-generation-stealth-jet-j50-ngad-race/

There's also quite a bit of discussion as to at least a few of the photos being faked.

Now, even the argument over whether some of the photos are fake misses a huge salient point…

This is the 3rd publicly spotted 6th Gen the Chinese have allowed to be spotted. It may well be that the Chinese are moving to a competitive model for choosing their next generation of combat aircraft, alá the JSF & ATF competition and the US 6th Gen effort.

https://twitter.com/johannbg/status/1952637917282644009?s=19

Again though, that misses what I think is a very important point. The US has made clear that it is focusing it's immediate development and production efforts on the F47. That the FA-XX is sidelined until the F47 is stood up in production and service as it doesn't believe US has the industrial or technical capacity to pursue 2 simultaneous 6th Gen programmes aswell as the B21 programme.

https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/the-air-force-just-won-the-6th-gen-fighter-war-the-navy-lost/

Whereas the Chinese have revealed 3 6th gens, (well 2 and a maybe)are still all in on the H20. Their 5th gen production is expanding, with the J20A & J20S for domestic use and the J35 & J35A for domestic and export use. Those developments have had no impact on their 4.5gen development and upgrade projects either.

The industrial capacity that allows China to have concurrent development of J36, J50 & JXX and production of J10, J11, J15T, J16, J20 & J35 along with H20, Y20 and multiple other aircraft programmes such as Trainers and utility is incredible.

Compare it to US programmes like the T7, KC46 and even the F35. The US is encountering delays, capacity issues and massive cost over runs as a matter of course. Yes, China can ignore the whims of their public and even their private industry stakeholders to force through the wishes of the CCP but, it's surely a worrying sight for the US across the Pacific?

The US's industrial capacity and wealth made it the arsenal of democracy for the entirety of the 20th Century. That capacity has been eclipsed by the Chinese, and the qualitative edge that previously offset the numbers? Has IMHO been massively eroded too.

There's perhaps more logic behind Milley's prediction of war with China by 2027 than I'd previously thought. It's not the Chinese rushing towards that date, rather it may well be what Milley's pentagon perceived as the inflection point in MIC capacities of both.

Not least, it’s also the year which the Chinese premier set out as a target date for his military forces to be capable of capturing Taiwan. The unofficial US position is that China can’t wait beyond 2030 if they are going to try, the US is going to be in a much better position by then. They also believe that the decision will be made about 18 months before it happens, so you can backtrack that a bit on the next presidential election if you want and if you think it will be a factor in Chinese thinking. (Not that there will be overt signals that early, just that that’s when the decision will be made)

I would have thought the official US position was now that China could stroll onto Taiwan at whatever time they wished, and that the US would do absolutely nothing.

Or maybe the White House would hold a summit with China, possibly in Hawaii, and carve up Taiwan between them in their absence.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123710152#Comment_123710152

Certainly seems that way. The notion of Trump having a summit with Putin to carve up Ukraine? Whilst Russia is being hammered militarily and economically is abhorrent.

TreatingWar Criminals like Putin and BiBi as conquering victors sets quite an interesting precedent for China doesn't it.

There can be no appeasement, it won't bring peace just a prolonged and slower war before the crescendo.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123710152#Comment_123710152

Whatever about the current US administration's position on Ukraine, it has been very consistent on its position of China as the pacing threat, both in terms of words and actions. To be fair, it's been pretty consistent across the previous three administrations as well.

If you've not seen Perun's deep dive into the latest US defense budget and what it's tailored towards, worth a watch. There's a reason the thumbnail shows ships, not tanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF3OkIbWnBE

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123711035#Comment_123711035

The US pivot to the Pacific is understandable. It's competition between economic giants for the control of the next 100 years.
I don't subscribe to Mahan as the grand theory of power as it once thought of but, it is crystal clear that if/when the US and China do clash?
That not only will it be primarily a naval clash but also that it will define the next era of "post war" international relations and their paradigm.

The competition for resources amongst an increasingly multipolar world means that conflict is closer for much of the world than it has been for 80yrs.

Indeed even just consistent recognition of allies, enemies and competitors is becoming increasingly difficult. The difficulty in aligning geopolitical aims with economic realities is becoming increasingly stark. Indeed the latter point is one of those areas where I feel Trump's trade policy is going to really hurt the US. Free trade and especially such trade amongst allies is a cornerstone of diplomacy, of amity and of building interconnected and resilient economies.

The US has IMO rightly identified launch tubes and magazine depth as vitally important to beating China. The US has done huge work into developing methods to rearm VLS at sea but it's still experimental. Developing naval bases in Australia, Japan and elsewhere west of Hawaii are vital to ensure rapid turnaround of ships.

It does however highlight a flaw in my view of US 6th Gen implementation. The USN & USMC is the tip of the spear in the Pacific. The FA-XX is a critical need, imposing Air Superiority at extended distance from CSG is the only practical means of ensuring a cordon sanataire of 400km +.

Whilst many will point to DF21 as the primary threat to the CSG. I'd argue that the ability of Chinese 5th gen to penetrate AWACS and AEGIS to a point where a PL15/17/21 can take out the E2 and a large strike package of J15T/J16 can launch multiple ASMs at the CSG as just as risky.

The Fleet defence problem the Tomcat was designed for, but facing a far more capable adversary than Backfires or Blinders.

The lack of a dedicated supercruise capable 5th or 6th Gen carrier fighter opens a risk that the USAF at least both doesn't need to face and counters with existing F22s.

Perhaps the USN is looking to prioritize unmanned options to augment its current portfolio, rather than pursue a lengthy and costly new plane? A cheaper, and more attritable system, would be a viable way to offset potential numbers deficiencies. Forward screening with ucavs, or being used a gun trucks in contestable spaces, being fed data from rear echelons, to degrade Chinese capabilities.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123711174#Comment_123711174

The mutterings from the USN is that they view FA-XX as vital. They aren't happy about being left waiting and a lot of political capital is being spent on keeping a more robust level of development funding in place.

Your points as to what the USN may do without a deployed 6th Gen are pretty much what I believe they will likely do. Out of necessity rather than choice on their part IMO though.

I posted a few weeks ago that the US effort at building killchains is their primary strength.

Regarding what US thinking may be on how they fight in the short term in the Pacific? I posted previously that I think they might try and exploit the sensor/stealth capability of the F35C. Operate the C in LO configuration as far forward as possible. Have that feeding sensor and targeting data back to F18s operating AIM174 and AIM260 to leverage those weapon's range whilst keeping them far enough back from the merge that they are relatively safe if only by dint of distance.

The US' demonstrated capability in sensors, datalinks and sensor fusion offers them immediate benefits. How well those benefits hold up in peer/near peer conflict against an enemy that has spent it's time formulating methods and means to disrupt and defeat those advantages? Will be what decides any conflict between them IMO.

I do think that the USN will seek to exploit forward deployed F35C feeding data back to F18s armed with AIM-174, 260 and as many AMRAAMs as they can squeeze on to them.

I think I posted an excerpt from the budget submissions earlier in the thread regarding the US ramp up of AIM-260 production, they are building magazine depth at pace. Similarly a just announced mass buy of the AMRAAM in D config will fill both US and Allied magazines both AAM and NASAMs.

The issue I keep coming back to though, is that China are already operating similar capabilities and tactics. The OP Sindoor shoot downs, albeit almost wholly because of poor Indian planning, demonstrate China have a robust Killchain too.

The USN orbiting a pair of F35C 600km forward of a CSG gives an incredible sensor capability, easily 400km Vs 4th gen. The nub of that for me though? Is how much does that reach reduce against a J20 or J35?

It then becomes a matter of who sees who 1st? If the Chinese can disrupt that forward based sensor and then close to the posited range of their own weapons? The AWACS and the fleet are vulnerable on a scale the USN hasn't faced since the 80s and to a far more technically capable adversary IMO.

I think there is a dark void at the center of US airpower, in the space of UCAVs. They demonstrated over a decade ago that they had systems capable of autonomous operations, with the ability to make adaptive decisions. With the shift towards a distributive force projection strategy in the Pacific, it seems an obvious space to employ them, especially with the smaller carriers they have.

I'd still be skeptical of the capabilities of Chinese platforms and data systems, given their nascent state and lack of real world employment. The US has also been quite focused on (re)learning how to operate without the panoply of satellites, given they likelyhood of them being targeted. I'm not sure China has made the same efforts.

The mutterings from the USN is that they view FA-XX as vital. They aren't happy about being left waiting and a lot of political capital is being spent on keeping a more robust level of development funding in place.

They are not alone. The Army's had to cut a number of programs for similar reasons, notably M10 and M88A3, and has also dropped a large number of armoured formations. There just isn't enough to go around, and to be fair, the Air Force has the ability to flex to any theater in addition to the Pacific.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123711669#Comment_123711669

I agree with your assessment. The US has certainly spent a huge amount of time and money developing drone tech. The only one of the current crop of CCA's I know anything more than the pr blurb about is the Australian effort with Boeing. I've been watching that with interest as it moves to live fire testing.

I do know that Anduril & General Atomics have both moved to LRIP phase of their loyal wingman CCAs. Both seem stealthy but what stands out to me on both is the lack of magazine depth. Cheap and attritible but limited to 2 missiles a flight.

The US may well have a significant capability (indeed even likely) that hasn't been made public.
The shift towards autonomy, distributed systems and drones isn't a US only phenomenon though and China have also been making and marketing drones for the same uses. Wing Loon for example has been quite successful internationally.
Similarly they are also running their own CCA programmes and 1 of the purported roles of the 2 seat J20S is as a drone controller. It's the only current 2 seater 5th Gen.

The US CCA and Aircraft are likely a generation or 2 ahead of the Chinese currently.
That is less and less a critical advantage though. We are at a point where folk nitpick over Gen 5 v 6 and what "makes" one so.
The may feel that they don't need a 2 seat 5th gen for drones as they have a more robust Comms and datalink system that will allow secure remote control, or indeed better autonomous AI.

Chinese systems in their leading edge stuff, J20 & J35 are probably 90-95% of the US capability and being built at a rapid rate.
That manufacturing capacity should IMHO be a serious concern. The US is currently unable to match it. A war footing would certainly increase US output but? It would for China too.

On the Satellite front, the US have the most developed and resilient Comms and back ups in the world. They know how to disrupt others and defend their own. With the ability of the US, China and increasingly private industry to launch LEO constellations, the impact of ASAT ops on Comms would likely be far easier mitigated than when Forces relied on geosynchronous Satellites. A big issue still for recon satellites and other systems though.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123711748#Comment_123711748

On the army cuts Manic, while I know budget and resources were the primary factor. Is there also a degree of retrenchment? That the refinement of the BCT and adoption of more long range fires via HIMARS and PrSM are the preferred path? Or the path forced upon the army by budgetary constraints?

There is an argument that the Army is going down the Cult of the Lightfighter... Almost all the Army's current senior leaders seem to have come out of the light infantry world.A serious dollar value does need to be spent on force protection and drones regardless, however.

How can the USN be grumbling already? They haven't even completed integration of F-35C yet, and the Super Hornet and EA-18G EW plane are still going to be delivered new until 2028!