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

aim174b said:
Raw kinematics have been deprioritized over time in favor of superior situational awareness through sensor fusion, and I think this trend will continue with next-gen manned aircraft (but maybe not so for CCAs).
Click to expand...

Not to mention the massive technology improvement of long-range AAMs to the point where most air-to-air engagements are BVR meaning super-manouvreability is no longer important.
 
NMaude said:
Not to mention the massive technology improvement of long-range AAMs to the point where most air-to-air engagements are BVR meaning super-manouvreability is no longer important.
Click to expand...
Good luck getting a radar lock on f35 at bvr ranges.
Not to mention 6th gen which are expected to be even stealtheir( though mostly in L and VhF band).
EW has also improved a lot too, so getting a lock on at longer ranges is hard even if missile posses the range.
 
Ozair said:
Potentially. Might also be the end of the fighter bases stand off jammer in USN service. If the CCA can penetrate further and is attritable then a less powerful.jammer can have the same effect.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure we are close to the end of life of stand-off jamming once LO aircraft are standard.

Though a useful jammer CCA may still be pretty big since the usual Growler mission load has it packing a couple of JSOWs and/or AARGM-ERs for pop-up threats.


aim174b said:
I'm not aware of a single US naval fighter that has a 9G requirement: F-35C and Super Hornet are both capped at 7.5, and AFAIK the Tomcat was too. Raw kinematics have been deprioritized over time in favor of superior situational awareness through sensor fusion, and I think this trend will continue with next-gen manned aircraft (but maybe not so for CCAs).
Click to expand...
And only having a 7.5g requirement helps with empty weight.



NMaude said:
Not to mention the massive technology improvement of long-range AAMs to the point where most air-to-air engagements are BVR meaning super-manouvreability is no longer important.
Click to expand...
Disagree, I don't think you're going to get a radar lock on an F-35 at BVR ranges. Nevermind how close you'd have to get to an F-22 to get a radar lock.
 
Scott Kenny said:
And only having a 7.5g requirement helps with empty weight.
Click to expand...

I suppose that, with BVR fights involving multiple sustained turns, it may be easier on the pilot and just as effective in eating enemy energy even with 1.5 gee less.

That said, I recall a statement that the PAK-FA was expected to have sustained supersonic manoeuvrability to help defeat at BVR (especially SAMs)... but I suppose this is more a matter of other aspects of kinematics such as T/W ratio (in the context of L/D), rather than absolute max gee?
 
Avimimus said:
That said, I recall a statement that the PAK-FA was expected to have sustained supersonic manoeuvrability to help defeat at BVR (especially SAMs)... but I suppose this is more a matter of other aspects of kinematics such as T/W ratio (in the context of L/D), rather than absolute max gee?
Click to expand...
I can only assume that was to defeat missiles that are no longer under thrust, since a missile still under thrust is capable of doing maneuvers greatly in excess of what a human could withstand.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I can only assume that was to defeat missiles that are no longer under thrust, since a missile still under thrust is capable of doing maneuvers greatly in excess of what a human could withstand.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Each change in direction that a target makes will shift the intercept point - which always gives an energy advantage to the defender. So, being able to maintain energy while periodically changing headings is useful for kinematic defense.

The situation may change with airbreathing missiles or missiles that restart their engines in the terminal phase - but right now that is almost always the case in BVR situations. But even in a situation where the effective range of the missile is much greater than the launch range (which will cause it to have plenty of energy), being able to change your direction periodically without losing energy will still lengthen intercept times and give more room for countermeasures and complicate guidance/intercepts.
 
TomcatViP said:
I think some people here think engineers are dumb like hell.
If the Power Generation Ram Turbine was impacting so much the performances of the carrier aircraft, this would have been offset to the plane engines...
Just that you are aware, it´s not just a RAM turbines mounted internally (something that do reduce drag already), it´s an electrically powered turbine that mix hot air generated by the pod electronics and mix it downstream with air sourced from the turbine.
What does a RAM turbine do? It converts kinetic pressure to rotation (hence cooling the air - See the first principle of Thermodynamics)
Then the air is heated with the cooling air system hot air and ejected rearward...

It´s then a Meredith like system that compensate partially the RAM air pressure loss with a hot air nozzle...

The electrical turbine, either sourced from a battery or the carrier airplane, guarantee that power generation is level, accelerating/decelerating the rotation (and hence charging doing so the battery).

Mechanically, there is nothing Dumb in that system. It´s a combination of the best of the 21st century available tech to power the pod, cool it and compensate (partially) for its drag...
Click to expand...

Here is an example of a commercial application, where hot air from the cooling system has been substituted by direct heat transfer through a stator.
See the kind of thrust that can be generated with such assembly and imagine that applied to our NGJ pod, that offer a way smaller wet surface than the glider this engine is meant to power...

90


newatlas.com

Whisper's "UltraQuiet" propulsion system to power acrobatic glider

Last time we checked in with Whisper Aero, we found this aviation-focused company deep into a side quest, building and demonstrating a leaf blower that moves 40% more air, using 40% less power, and making half the perceived noise of a range of standard blowers.
newatlas.com newatlas.com
 
Good catch.

But L3Harris pod apparently use the same technology but with a reverse flow routed from back to front:

cs-bcs-next-generation-jammer-ngj-wind-tunnel-testing_0.jpg

(here it seems the compressed hot air is pulsed at the front end to energize the boundary layer and hence reduces the drag - the flow pattern at the nozzle is similar to that of a sprinkler (notice the cold air intake just upstream of the nozzle))

Not all new solutions are better than old ones across the full spectrum of usage. Embedding the turbine inside the pod gave them better RCS management, what was the priority for F-35 carriage.
We can only suppose that the SH central pylon station´s constrained volume and mass wasn´t the better fit for that technology, the way it was applied. For example, as the pod must have a smaller radius, the inlets must protrude farther from the outer surface, generating more drag... Harris option is more complicated, probably offer an higher RCS, but manage better the volume and mass constraint.
 
Last edited:
https://aviationweek.com/podcasts/check-6/podcast-what-you-can-expect-fa-xx-decision

Good discussion and educated guessing by Steve Trimble and Brian Everstine.

1. Engine speculation regarding the F/A-XX engine. Thinks the winner is a derivative of a GE engine. Assumes 2 engines. F135 is too big. Brought up the F110. But what about the F414? He thinks Increment 1 F-47 will be a derivative. Same as the Navy? How does using 2 different engine impact engineering, schedule, and cost of the F-47. It worked on the F-15/16, but you would think the requirements for an adaptive engine would be different. I would be a little surprised that NGAP will not be ready. How will that impact Increment 1's range and performance if true?

2. Affordability - Navy thinks it can afford it because it is not gold plating the F/A-XX. Technology is not really exquisite and will not use adaptive engines.

3. Northrop seemingly confident.

4. Questioned the minuscule increase in range. Yeah, no kidding.

5. Question the role of the F/A-XX. Jack of all trades master of none issue. Which I am sympathetic to. Will the Navy be able to adequately do fleet defense?
 
I think fleet defense is not especially demanding nor a huge requirement. The biggest threat is the PLARF, not PLAN or PLAAF. interceptors are of limited utility.

The range does seem like a marginal improvement, but I think that’s the cost of internalizing your payload. You want to carry four mk84s? Well that’s gonna eat some fuel volume and MTOW weight.
 
other slightly provocative crystal ball observations from the check 6 pod: NG didn’t fly a demonstrator and NG hasn’t built a supersonic fighter in decades.
 
Training_Dummy said:
other slightly provocative crystal ball observations from the check 6 pod: NG didn’t fly a demonstrator and NG hasn’t built a supersonic fighter in decades.
Click to expand...
NG builds 40% (iirc) of each Super Hornet (coming from a Northrop design), 50% of each Growler (more electronic NG components), the center fuselage, radar and more for the F-35...
NG is a major subcontractor for most fighters in US inventory today.
But yes, nothing totally under their own name.

X-47B (not supersonic, of course) flight tests (including the carrier compatibility at sea) were way smoother than those of the F-35C.
B-21 program is on time and (mostly) on budget.
Plus what has flown since the YF-23 that we don't know of (several hints in this forum, including from former NG employees).

NG(C) has strong arguments in its favor.
 
Manuducati said:
NG builds 40% (iirc) of each Super Hornet (coming from a Northrop design), 50% of each Growler (more electronic NG components), the center fuselage, radar and more for the F-35...
NG is a major subcontractor for most fighters in US inventory today.
But yes, nothing totally under their own name.

X-47B (not supersonic, of course) flight tests (including the carrier compatibility at sea) were way smoother than those of the F-35C.
B-21 program is on time and (mostly) on budget.
Plus what has flown since the YF-23 that we don't know of (several hints in this forum, including from former NG employees).

NG(C) has strong arguments in its favor.
Click to expand...
I don't think your arguments sway the decision that much to NG. Building components/parts is one thing but the pain of fighter development is integration. B-21 gets around a lot of the integration issues by using essentially existing tech, comparatively little new tech was developed and integrated compared to say the F-35 and F-22 programs. B-21's time is also related to low tech risk on the platform. That more than others is something NG could point to with their F/A-XX, being able to take the existing TRL 7 and above tech into the F/A-XX.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think fleet defense is not especially demanding nor a huge requirement. The biggest threat is the PLARF, not PLAN or PLAAF. interceptors are of limited utility.

The range does seem like a marginal improvement, but I think that’s the cost of internalizing your payload. You want to carry four mk84s? Well that’s gonna eat some fuel volume and MTOW weight.
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if it can carry 4 Mk 84s internally.

Trimble brought up a good point of the F/A-XX being another multi role fighter like the F-35C and Super Hornet. Does the Navy need a fleet defender like the F-14? The Chinese do not have Backfire bombers, but they do have the H6, J36, and the H20 at some point. If it's technology is not as advanced as F-47 and it's range is only a marginal improvement, why not use the F-35C as a multi role fighter and supplement them with CCAs at some point in the future?

If the F/A-XX was designated as a fleet defender/air superiority platform could get the range and performance improvements out of the platform? In Norman Friedman's Fighters Over the Fleet he raised the dilemma for aircraft carriers of needing to use its air wing for fleet defense, which limited its striking power.

The CSG's mobility is one of its greatest advantages but the PLA's A2/AD strategy will likely force it to operate at 1,000 nm or greater from the Chinese mainland. Designing F/A-XX with a range of much less than that may be another in a long series of mistakes by the Navy. The carrier wing has a limited number of aircraft. There will be only a handful of MQ-25s. What's the operational concept that the CSG will employ to contribute to the establishment of sea control.

Buying another multi role aircraft which is a marginal improvement over the F-35C may get us more of the same. Or do they just really hate the F-35C?
 
Getting a strike fighter with more range that can reliably travel unescorted to hurt your opponent is a much better defense than any F-14. It opens up the range and area your opponent has to search.
 
B2Blain said:
https://aviationweek.com/podcasts/check-6/podcast-what-you-can-expect-fa-xx-decision

Good discussion and educated guessing by Steve Trimble and Brian Everstine.

1. Engine speculation regarding the F/A-XX engine. Thinks the winner is a derivative of a GE engine. Assumes 2 engines. F135 is too big. Brought up the F110. But what about the F414? He thinks Increment 1 F-47 will be a derivative. Same as the Navy? How does using 2 different engine impact engineering, schedule, and cost of the F-47. It worked on the F-15/16, but you would think the requirements for an adaptive engine would be different. I would be a little surprised that NGAP will not be ready. How will that impact Increment 1's range and performance if true?
Click to expand...
I do not believe that even if Boeing won the FAXX contract, they'd be using much of the F-47. Navy wants an 800nmi strike fighter, not "you should go home 2.0"

I think F414s, even maxed out in their development, aren't going to be enough power for an ~80,000lb aircraft expected to do fighter missions in addition to striker, while F110s are.


B2Blain said:
4. Questioned the minuscule increase in range. Yeah, no kidding.
Click to expand...
25% increase over F-35Cs is 800nmi combat radius.

Which would not be difficult to do for an 80klb aircraft that has ~28klbs of fuel on it.

Where am I getting ~80klbs? Carrier limits. Length and width are set by the elevator limits, and while they exist we can mostly ignore them for the moment. Max takeoff weight is limited by the steam catapults because we're going to have Nimitz classes in service till ~2050. Max landing weight is limited by what the arresting gear can stop, and IIRC the Ford-class Advanced Arresting Gear isn't capable of much higher weights, it's capable of safely stopping much lighter aircraft (as in UAVs/CCAs).

Weight wise, the MTOW of a Tomcat is ~78klbs, the KA-3 "Whale" was ~83klbs, and the F-111B was up to 88klbs. Since we're unlikely to have swing wings to help out low-speed handling, so something in the 75-85klbs range is not unreasonable to launch.

But the trick comes from the landing weight. Recovery weight of an F-14 was 55klbs, it's why they so rarely flew with 6x Phoenix missiles. They'd have minimal fuel left, Tomcat pilots said it was "make your trap on the first pass or hit the tanker". So that says what our "Empty weight plus weapons weight plus ~3000lbs of fuel" can be. I'm assuming a weapons load for the FAXX as roughly equal to the ATA (possibly with more AAMs): ~12,000lbs in ground-attack mode, ~9500lbs for 4xSM6 and at least 2xAMRAAM, and 5-6,000lbs for pure AMRAAMs.

55-3-12=40klbs empty.

And a reasonable rubric for MTOW is 2x Empty Weight (checks with pretty much every jet from Teens on up). That means 80,000lbs ish MTOW, which checks with catapult max.

80-12-40=28klbs of fuel onboard.





B2Blain said:
5. Question the role of the F/A-XX. Jack of all trades master of none issue. Which I am sympathetic to. Will the Navy be able to adequately do fleet defense?
Click to expand...
The primary threat to the Carrier today is not a Soviet-sized bomber attack with AShCMs. It's the AShBMs.

And you threaten AShBMs with strike aircraft, not with interceptors.

Not that an aircraft with 28,000lbs of fuel onboard won't be able to make a very nice BARCAP.
 
Would it be helpful if there was a weekly or daily post in this thread repeating some of the known facts about this program? Such as:

The F/A-XX is a strike fighter with a secondary air dominance role.
It replaces the F/A-18E, not the F-35C.
It will use derivatives of existing engines.
The Navy requires the F/A-XX to have range greater than 25% more than the F/A-18E with external tanks. The Navy has published the range requirement.
The F/A-XX will be supersonic.
The F/A-XX will, eventually, team with Navy unmanned aircraft.
Click to expand...

Because this thread is full of statements that are inconsistent with the known facts of the program and these statements keep being repeated.
 
quellish said:
The Navy requires the F/A-XX to have range greater than 25% more than the F/A-18E with external tanks
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for this? If so, will you provide your source here? We have all heard the statement from the navy about 25% more range, but have been speculating as to whether this is relative to a clean Superhornet, a clean F-35 C, etc.
 
joshjosh said:
Do you have a source for this? If so, will you provide your source here? We have all heard the statement from the navy about 25% more range, but have been speculating as to whether this is relative to a clean Superhornet, a clean F-35 C, etc.
Click to expand...
Scott Kenny said:
Really? Because the only range statement I've seen is "25% more than existing fighters." Not "25% greater than Super Bug."
Click to expand...
"NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland—The U.S. Navy is targeting a 25% increase in the operational range of its future F/A-XX strike fighter compared to its existing F/A-18 Super Hornet fleet, despite a decision to focus on existing propulsion technology for the aircraft."

U.S. Navy Targets 25% Range Increase With F/A-XX | Aviation Week Network

The U.S. Navy is targeting a 25% increase in the operational range of its future F/A-XX strike fighter compared to its existing F/A-18 Super Hornet fleet.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
 
quellish said:
Would it be helpful if there was a weekly or daily post in this thread repeating some of the known facts about this program? Such as:

  • The F/A-XX is a strike fighter with a secondary air dominance role.
  • It replaces the F/A-18E, not the F-35C.
  • It will use derivatives of existing engines.
  • The Navy requires the F/A-XX to have range greater than 25% more than the F/A-18E with external tanks. The Navy has published the range requirement.
  • The F/A-XX will be supersonic.
  • The F/A-XX will, eventually, team with Navy unmanned aircraft.

Because this thread is full of statements that are inconsistent with the known facts of the program and these statements keep being repeated.
Click to expand...
One could think of it as a modern F-14 Bombcat. (Which itself could have been a carrier-based F-15EX with a little work.)

s-l1600.jpg
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom