The Air Force still hasn’t set the requirements for the second increment of its Collaborative Combat Aircraft program, service acquisition executive Andrew Hunter said, leaving decisions about the project—such as payloads and whether it will be more or less sophisticated than Increment 1—to the incoming Trump administration.
Hunter also said during an event at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that the ongoing review of the Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter includes a “combined analysis” of the Next-Generation Air-refueling System, or NGAS, as the two are closely linked. Like the CCA program, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has deferred any decisions about the future of NGAD to the next administration.
Progress on Increment 2 of CCA, “loyal wingman” drones meant to fly alongside manned platforms, has already been stalled, as Congress has not passed a fiscal 2025 defense budget with funds to start the next phase of the program, Hunter said.
In the meantime, the Air Force is still wrestling with “working through different options. Is it more capable? Is it more affordable? Where on the spectrum will Increment 2 land? Those are questions to be explored,” Hunter said.
“We do have some ideas of how we would see Increment 2 fitting into the broader Air Force force design, and that will help shape that dialog with industry,” he said, without elaborating on those ideas.
“We’ll work closely with industry in doing that work, because I think different companies may well have different concepts,” he added. “Some will prove to be more advantageous and more innovative than others, and then we can start to hone in on exactly what does Increment 2 look like. So … still a lot to be determined in that process.”
Service officials had said they expected to provide industry with their preferred ideas for Increment 2 by the end of this year, but Hunter’s comments indicate that’s not going to happen.
Increment 1 of the CCA program—intended to provide a relatively low-cost, autonomous escort for fighters—is being built by Anduril Industries and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems. Increment 2 was initially seen as a more advanced platform, with a high degree of stealth and capability, but more recently, service leaders have said it could be a less sophisticated aircraft built in large quantities. The Air Force has been wargaming various future force mixes to see what characteristics provide the greatest combat payoff.
In wargames conducted last year, large numbers of cheap—but not necessarily disposable—CCAs seemed to answer more theater commander needs than smaller numbers of very stealthy ones.
Hunter emphasized that the CCA program is ongoing and iterative, and that good ideas will get the attention they deserve.
“Those vendors who didn’t succeed in Increment 1 were able to take a lot of the work that they had done, a lot of the design teams, and … put them directly against Increment 2,” Hunter added. “So this is not a high stakes ‘win or lose for 30 years’ for industry. If they don’t succeed in one competition, the next competition is right around the corner.”
Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman reportedly submitted Increment 1 concepts that were substantially stealthier and more complex than Anduril and General Atomics’ selected proposals. Some industry officials whose proposals didn’t win have confessed to misreading the Air Force’s desires and have said they plan to offer less costly and sophisticated concepts for Increment 2.
Hunter said the Air Force has strived throughout the three-year life of the CCA program to “sustain competition over time among multiple competitors,” and this is “a feature of having these different increments.”
At this point, there’s “nothing to say” about a potential Increment 3, which senior USAF officials have previously speculated could be a program conducted in partnership with an international partner. Increment 3 is “a little bit out there in the future,” Hunter said.
Hunter also said the CCA will have a very different sustainment model than USAF’s traditional approach, echoing previous comments from Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin.
Traditionally, most of the flying in the Air Force is done for training, but because the CCA’s “crew” will be a computer, that’s not necessary, he said.
“It will not be the case that every CCA has to routinely fly for training purposes, as you would see with a crewed platform. So I think … the sustainment approach to CCA will be simpler.” He added that “they will not be 30-year, 50-year assets” and won’t be designed that way.
“My expectation is, sustainment costs for CCA are likely to be lower than a crewed platform, and I would expect by a reasonable margin, but … [programmers] have to really dig into that. They’re very good at doing this sort of analysis and understand those implications,” he said.
NGAD and NGAS
Hunter also said there’s “no outcome yet” on the analysis of whether or how the Next-Generation Air Dominance program should be restructured.
There’s been “a lot of very good analysis being done in a very rigorous fashion there,” he said, especially in terms of how the NGAD will be complemented by the Next-Generation Air-refueling System (NGAS). The review has been “a combined analysis” of the two projects, he said.
“It makes sense to look at them at the same time and to have complementary, if not even combined, analysis of those things,” he said.
“The key part of that analysis will come when the FY 26 POM (Program Objective Memoranda) is finalized, and that will happen next year,” Hunter noted, adding there’s “not much more to say about that.”
He allowed that an analysis of alternatives for NGAS is “very mature and is definitely reaching the final stages,” and this has revealed insights about the future tanker fleet.