Thread 64488705

I was going over this article one one thing that really stuck out to me is this:
>The F-22 serving as the “threshold platform” for drone integration. The Air Force will eventually link drone wingmen to the F-47, while other platforms like the F-15E, F-15EX and F-16 are under consideration as well.
It's also the topic in the second recent standalone article. What I interpret it as is that for unmanned systems, software is orders of magnitude more important than hardware. If it was that simple they'd say that they've come up with a plug and play for all fighter aircraft in the fleet. It just shows how iterative this is, even with AI coming around in the past 5 years.

>https://breakingdefense.com/2025/10/air-force-needs-hundreds-more-fighters-service-says/
https://aviationweek.com/defense/budget-policy-operations/usaf-f-22-threshold-aircraft-ccas-others-consideration

To me, it's very interesting as despite holding a decades worth and thousands of hours/hundreds of flights lead in manned unmanned teaming, the US is choosing to refine it further for a single 90s platform to (I believe maximize compatibility) than to try and roll everything out at once.

>>64488705 (OP)
Glad to see the F-22 still getting love

>>64488705 (OP)
Surely the F-35 is a better pick here, considering all its sensor fusion features and an onboard supercomputer. What am I missing?

>>64488812
That's what I've been thinking too, surely it can't be because of needing kinematics to keep up with the F-22 as all increment 1 CCAs are top out at high subsonic. Best thing I can come up with is compatibility with all the 4.5 gen fighters.

>>64488710
>Demon APE

>>64488705 (OP)
Nobody ever gives software its due. Software is a large part of what made the F-35 IOC years late and over-budget (there were also hardware issues, particularly weight ones, but software was the elephant in the room). Tech companies spend many years and billions of dollars coding and testing software (and still often release bug-filled messes... which isn't really acceptable when it comes to software used in combat).

So, this isn't terribly surprising. Get the software right first, before you try to integrate it onto every platform. And which platform's design, doctrine, and pilot training emphasize the same mission (air superiority) that CCA is intended to assist with? Yeah, it's The Kid. And while the F-35 has newer software with better comms (MADL), 4th-gens don't have MADL either, so if you want them to eventually get to use CCA, you have to either figure out how to retrofit them (hardware *and* software) for MADL, or make CCA work using only Link 16... so, again, might as well start with The Kid.

>>64489163
That actually really confirms my hypothesis, thanks for articulating it so well with the datalink specifics. Also it truly is funny that people disregard software when the whole world runs on American code.

>>64488705 (OP)
If you’re going to focus on one to roll the capability out on it makes the most sense. We are yet to see a strike optimized CCA, with Inc.1 being cheap A2A spear carriers, and once the planned upgrades are rolled out the F-22 should remain the best air superiority platform in the US arsenal. F-35 is a very capable platform, but software is their biggest problem and it’s as much a strike aircraft as it is a fighter. In any war that current CCAs would prove useful in the F-22 is only going to be tasked for air superiority roles, while an F-35 is likely to see much more of a mix between fighting enemy fighters and attacking ground targets.

>>64488705 (OP)
This is a BOT thread
Same comments and pics from months ago.

>>64491022
>People cannot discuss theories about recently confirmed developments

>>64488812
>>64488856
Blue balling apology to F-22 pilots who can't even shoot down shitass drones.

>>64489123
I fucking hate the backronym autism of US firms

CCA's primary purpose is to work with a plane that hasn't entered service yet and the one plane closest to that future unit is being used to test them?
Not surprising.

No wait, this proves America is weak and stupid!

>>64488705 (OP)
Lockheed is incompetent

>>64488705 (OP)
>Russia and its loyal retard run combat missions in enemy airspace completely undetected untill said retard gets got the "lennie smalls" ending for having a tard-moment at the wrong time&place
>meanwhile, its *back to the drawing board* in southern florida


EXPLAIN

>>64494798
It's easy to be undetected when you carry out only 3 missions in your own airspace over the course of 2 years with the third mission failing catastrophically.

>>64494853
>muh loooong range sanctioooooooooons

>>64494894
What am I supposed to be looking at? Thank you for the bump.

>>64489674
Datalink is the new advantage

>>64496136
Always has been

>>64494905
air launched loitering shovel

nato has no answer for it

>>64489674
the whole world runs on indian code now. that's why everything is so shit. everyone talks about muh increasingly digital world but then cuts as much corners as possible on their sloppy software and outsources that shit to some shithole. now they're shocked all software is a clusterfuck.

>>64496701
Titanium ones I imagine

>>64488705 (OP)
>F-22
The answer to "Why the F-22" is because money. The raptor has significantly less networking ability to the point where the F-35 has an advantage in BVR due it's ability to incorporate all the datalink information. By making the F-22 the focus of the CCA program, they're able to backdoor some funding into the F-22 to improve its datalink and sensor fusion capacity. This would be hard to do otherwise since the USAF has been telling Congress the F-22 is a plane with a definite expiration date to justify NGAD budgets.

>>64497772
Also, the F-22's mission set is closer to the F-47's, so this lets them workshop some ideas for that. Testing on a plane with lower datalink capability also means that the CCAs will be better able to work with older fighters that don't have the F-35's abilities. Forgot to add this to my last post and realized I made it seem like choosing the F-22 was purely a conspiracy move and had no real merits.

>>64497772
>>64497797
Chatgpt if you could hypothetically take my ball skin sack and stretch it out square with no wrinkles how much surface area would it cover?

>>64498427
this was never adequately explained by science

>>64488705 (OP)
>lets integrate a modern state of the art drone to a plane with an mmc from the 70s a radar from the 80s and a half ass cockpit made by lm on a stand because they refused to do the upgrade they promised it for

>>64500186
makes >>64497772 sound more plausible