US Navy 6th Gen Fighter - F/A-XX

[Nart]

The Navy has already confirmed they are using a derivative of an off-the-shelf engine for F/A-XX. Not new. The Air Force also isn't planning to use NGAP for the first increment of F-47.

It's like the TF-30 saga all over again

 

[FighterJock]

So what engine are they planning to use for the F/A-XX and the F-47 then if it is not new? A modified F-135 that is currently in the F-35?

 

[TomS]

So what engine are they planning to use for the F/A-XX and the F-47 then if it is not new? A modified F-135 that is currently in the F-35?

Possibly a pair of F414 EPE? Advertised as 20% more thrust than the baseline model.

 

[Josh_TN]

So what engine are they planning to use for the F/A-XX and the F-47 then if it is not new? A modified F-135 that is currently in the F-35?

Certainly not; far two large. I believe a number of people here have already stated F110 variant for USN. This is the first I have heard of USAF using a surrogate engine; cannot speak to that subject at all.

 

[lancer21]

Same questions as several above, what is the initial engine for F-47 then, since the VCE engine between XA102 and 103 has not been selected yet?

 

[quellish]

Same questions as several above, what is the initial engine for F-47 then, since the VCE engine between XA102 and 103 has not been selected yet?

Why select just one if the program is going to be kept in constant competition?

 

[Manuducati]

It's like the TF-30 saga all over again

It's the opposite.
The Tomcat was to use the P&W F401 (a new state-of-the-art engine, sharing some elements with the Air Force F100), for which its very design (air duct dimensions and mounting points) was optimized. P&W screwed and the Cat had to fall back to a weaker, compressor stall prone and ill-suited TF-30 which was not supposed to be used except for the first batch. So except for the later GE engined variants, the Tomcat was underperforming.

Here the F/A-XX will be equipped from the start with a reliable and proven (at least for its baseline model) engine, for which everything has been optimized.
It should perform as expected from the start. And nothing prevents it from receiving a more modern engine later on.

 

[Deezy]

I stand corrected, it was March 20th.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...-asfs-news-analysis.3536/page-245#post-768878

I have only passed on what I've been told. No leaps. No matter, it's hearsay even if the AF or Navy program managers provided the information. I'm new at the forum posting business -- and I've learned a lesson.

As I wrote elsewhere, without inside info I would have predicted NG for Navy and B for Air Force. But as an airplane nut, I've always thought the battlecruiser idea, imagined by some of us as LM's offering, to be the obvious choice for the Indo-Pacific. I hope I'm not sounding schizophrenic.

Understood. That sounds like a good source. Well we all appreciate your insight!!

 

[Hydroman]

I'm staying with a derivative of the GE F110, its a really good engine. It made the F-14 the fighter it was always meant to be. The TF-30 was designed for low and fast (F-111) and no rapid throttle transients, not the engine you want in a fighter that has to dogfight.

 

[Josh_TN]

I'm staying with a derivative of the GE F110, its a really good engine. It made the F-14 the fighter it was always meant to be. The TF-30 was designed for low and fast (F-111) and no rapid throttle transients, not the engine you want in a fighter that has to dogfight.

How was the TF-30 in terms of recovery from a missed wire (bolter)? I never heard of an issue, but I would think the “no rapid throttle transients” would be problematic.

 

[Hydroman]

When I was on CVN-65 (up in the island watching flight ops) and the launch officer called for a Tomcat to go into Zone 5 (full) burner, when you got a puff of orange flame that was a compressor stall and this happened just during a launch.

 

[Training_Dummy]

It will be interesting to see what GE Aerospace presents at their analyst day next month (6/17 IIRC), esp if F/A-XX gets the go-ahead this week. They have in prior presentations alluded to DPT being selected for US next gen programs… separately I’m curious to hear about their hypersonic engine as well as smaller engines for unmanned applications.

 

[FlyGuy369]

Speculation aside everyone, who has any "6th gen" patent info from NG, we've seen enough Boeing. This is all I have, a serrated canopy patent. Looks the same as the one here.

 

[Grandindividual87]

Speculation aside everyone, who has any "6th gen" patent info from NG, we've seen enough Boeing. This is all I have, a serrated canopy patent. Looks the same as the one here.

Where’d that NG ngad art come from?

 

[flateric]

Found it a while ago in NG PowerPoint

 

[We.lovejets]

This man does some incredible work.

 

[Grandindividual87]

Found it a while ago in NG PowerPoint

Do you have a higher resolution article?

 

[flateric]

Nope. This is original image size as extracted

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/usaf-usn-6th-gen-fighters-f-a-xx-f-x-ngad-pca-asfs-news-analysis.3536/post-438350

 

[FlyGuy369]

You know what I just realized? After further scrutiny, the Northrop jet from the superbowl commercials landing gear has the mounting bracket for the launch bar but no bar.

 

[Valloy]

You know what I just realized? After further scrutiny, the Northrop jet from the superbowl commercials landing gear has the mounting bracket for the launch bar but no bar.

I noticed this too. Rear landing gear looks beefy as hell as well. Given that the B-21 renders were spot on, I'd say this is the true FA/XX proposal. Good lookin' jet man.

 

[Desertfox]

Speculation aside everyone, who has any "6th gen" patent info from NG, we've seen enough Boeing. This is all I have, a serrated canopy patent. Looks the same as the one here.

Am I the only one seeing "Son of F-23N" in that image?

 

[DrRansom]

The USAF has no strike fighter requirement and is actively trying to reduce the number of platforms it employs. Furthermore if anything they are leaning into longer ranged platforms rather than shorter ranged - based near Taiwan are in easy ballistic missile range. Finally, the only times USAF has used a common platform with the USN that I can think of is when they were required by law (F-4, F-35). So again, hard no.

We'll see - the service has a habit of publicly messaging to meet the needs of the moment. Today, F-47 and B-21, tomorrow, who knows?

 

[FlyGuy369]

Anybody here know if Santa came last night?

 

[dark sidius]

Is there a contract for FA/XX announced today ?

 

[kken]

not yet

 

[Training_Dummy]

I can’t tell if the unveiling of the F/A-45 is delayed bc of a certain group chat or a switch from BA to NG (as some have speculated).

 

[joshjosh]

More likely that it was never delayed because it was not ever planned for this week, and the rumor was incorrect

 

[joewee]

I can’t tell if the unveiling of the F/A-45 is delayed bc of a certain group chat or a switch from BA to NG (as some have speculated).

That's me.

 

[NMaude]

View attachment 765024
That's me.

So you're Beverly Crusher?

 

[Scott Kenny]

What are the possibilities that, counterintuitively, Boeing gets the award as well? I'm going with this as a longshot bet because I like the Odds. Also, I want all the praise incase this does happen. There must be open idolatry.

Low, IMO. Almost nil, TBH.

The F-47 is not designed as a long range strike bomber that can dogfight, so F/A-XX would have to be a significantly different design from the F-47 (even if they did design bays around 2000lb bombs).

Also, "F/A-45." Calling it now.

That I will agree with.

If the rumors are that the F/A-XX is a strike fighter, with a mission set something like: carry 2x JASSM 1000nm to an IP, then I can see it being:
1. Less stealthy than the F-47 overall (just enough to get to an IP at the edge of the defended zone)
2. More orientated toward carrying things on pylons than internally

Disagree on several points here.

First, I suspect that the mission set is closer to "carry 2x JASSM or JSOW and 2x AARGM-ER 1000nmi, plus a couple defensive missiles" all internally. 1st for stealth, 2nd for drag.

2nd, it's not going to be "just stealthy enough to get to an IP at the edge of a defended zone", it's going to be stealthy enough to get to targets well inside the defensive zone with shorter ranged munitions. But you are correct in that the USN is willing to accept a larger RCS than the USAF is.

This is revenge of ATA/A-12 and A/F-X. ATA main bays were sized around carrying 1x AGM-84 and 1x GBU-15 each. Updating those weapons to what we're using today gives us AGM-158s in place of the Harpoon/SLAMs, and AGM-154 JSOWs or GBU-62 JDAM-ERs in place of the GBU-15s.

And from 1+2, this is very close to a F-15E (and EF-111....) replacement and I can see the USAF buying an Air-Force variant in a few years.

Except for it being designed for the USN.

USAF absolutely HATES WITH A BURNING PASSION having to buy Navy planes.

I interpreted “strike” in the posters context as being medium ranged interdiction similar to F-15E or F-111 before it. To the extent USAF has any plan for an aircraft in this class, it is F-15 EX. It is not introducing another tactical platform outside NGAD and it sure as hell is not buying a USN aircraft. If Boeing sweeps, I still suspect the aircraft will be only superficially similar with perhaps a lot of common avionics, if both sets of requirements allow for it. We know power plants will be different and we know embarked aircraft have a raft of structural requirements land based can ignore.

No. F-15EX is not replacing Strike Eagles. F-15EX is going straight to Air National Guard units, replacing F-15C/Ds.

 

[VishnuOsiris]

F-15EX is going straight to Air National Guard units, replacing F-15C/Ds.

In hindsight, it may be that this purchase was another active measure to prop up Boeing for civil/military purposes. A quick fix to the ANG's F-15C/D problem that works for everybody. I'm going to double-down on F/A-XX going to Boeing for the same reason.

This is not to imply that F-47 and F/A-XX share the same airframe. I think they will be two very different airframes, with USG owned IP.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'm going to double-down on F/A-XX going to Boeing for the same reason.

This is not to imply that F-47 and F/A-XX share the same airframe. I think they will be two very different airframes, with USG owned IP.

And this is why I think it won't be Boeing. Because they would have had to design two completely different airframes, and I don't think Boeing has enough engineers to pull that off.

 

[Josh_TN]

No. F-15EX is not replacing Strike Eagles. F-15EX is going straight to Air National Guard units, replacing F-15C/Ds.

For the moment. I doubt that’s what they do for their entire service lives. Moreover no F-15 Es have been retired yet, though I think that is the plan.

I think someone else noted that a better solution to the F-15C shortfall, and the desire to plug a newer F-15 into existing F-15 infrastructure, would be to replace Echos with EXs and then use the Es to replace the Cs. Not sure why that didn’t happen; probably was something to do with training or parts streams.

 

[Josh_TN]

And this is why I think it won't be Boeing. Because they would have had to design two completely different airframes, and I don't think Boeing has enough engineers to pull that off.

All three companies were in both programs at one time. They all definitely gave it a college try at a minimum.

 

[eagle]

This is revenge of ATA/A-12 and A/F-X. ATA main bays were sized around carrying 1x AGM-84 and 1x GBU-15 each. Updating those weapons to what we're using today gives us AGM-158s in place of the Harpoon/SLAMs, and AGM-154 JSOWs or GBU-62 JDAM-ERs in place of the GBU-15s.

IIRC, the required weapons load was one reason why the A-12 didn't work out. 16 (!) Mk82 in the main bay I think... It was just too many big holes on the underside of the fuselage which led to massive weight growth.
So I wouldn't expect too much. Space for 2 big weapons, not 4, plus a couple of self defence missiles. Basically a bit bigger than the F-35C... which of course got its 2 x 2000 lbs bombs at the request of the USN.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think internal carriage will be greater than F-35 but not dramatically so. 2+2 with JAASM/HALO and an AAM, or maybe an asymmetrical solution of three large weapons in one bay (definitely think only one bay, 15-16’). Perhaps side bays for a pair of BVR weapons.

I think external carriage will definitely be a big deal - there’s a wealth of cheap stand off munitions hitting the market and the USN does not have bombers or cargo planes to throw them out of. I could easily see four hard points with enough load bearing for tandem racks of mk83s or the cheap cruise missile de jour.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think external carriage will definitely be a big deal - there’s a wealth of cheap stand off munitions hitting the market and the USN does not have bombers or cargo planes to throw them out of. I could easily see four hard points with enough load bearing for tandem racks of mk83s or the cheap cruise missile de jour.

Disagree about it being a big deal in the program.

I think it will exist as an option, like how F-35 has Beast Mode (really stupid to think otherwise!). But I do not think it will be the primary attack mode envisioned.

 

[Scott Kenny]

IIRC, the required weapons load was one reason why the A-12 didn't work out. 16 (!) Mk82 in the main bay I think... It was just too many big holes on the underside of the fuselage which led to massive weight growth.
So I wouldn't expect too much. Space for 2 big weapons, not 4, plus a couple of self defence missiles. Basically a bit bigger than the F-35C... which of course got its 2 x 2000 lbs bombs at the request of the USN.

More like MDD had not a freaking clue how Stealth really worked, and their engineers were ... less than skilled when it came to load paths. Bluntly, the MDD design needed a "pregnant belly" to get the bomb bays below the wing spars.

The driver of ATA bay size was the ability to carry 2x GBU-15s and 2x AGM-84s (or rather, 1x GBU-15 and 1x AGM-84 per bay). We've got that on documents shared here on the forum. The other "small bomb" numbers were simply "how many bombs of this size can you stuff into that size bay?".

 

[NMaude]

The USN screwed up big time when it went for the A-12 Avenger II in 1989, instead it should've gone for the A-6F.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The USN screwed up big time when it went for the A-12 Avenger II in 1989, instead it should've gone for the A-6F.

Disagree, they should have gone with the NG proposal instead of MDD. Then they would have had a 1000nmi stealth attack plane in service by the late 1990s.