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

DWG said:
Major Aircraft Review, including A-12, launched December 1989.
26 Apr 1990, SecDef testifies first flight 1991.
1 Jun 1990, GD/MD states major delay in first flight, they've blown the budget and can't meant contractual requirements.
9 Jul 1990 SecDef orders an inquiry. Inquiry leads to resignation of Undersec for Defense Acquisition and canning of Navy's A-12 leadership. Navy given until 4 Jan 1991 to show why A-12 shouldn't be cancelled. First flight delayed at least two years, cost per aircraft increases from >$87m to $100m

So in fact it's only 18-24 months between cancelling A-6F and A-12 issues becoming known outside the Navy.

As for "LO attack aircraft is what the navy needs." what the Navy wants and what the Navy needs are two separate things. As demonstrated by the eventual acquisition of F/A-18.
Click to expand...

The Navy didn't need A-6F because it would spend the next 30 years flying combat operations against opponents without significant air defense systems or standoff anti-ship capabilities. That about sums it up. F/A-18E/F will likely fly into the 2040s while A-6F would be retired around the same time as the S-3s.
 
Scott Kenny said:
But okay, +25% to the F-35C's 600nmi range is 900nmi/1600km.
Click to expand...

It's 750 nm.

But considering the F-35C's combat radius is actually 670 nm according to TWZ, 25% more is 837.5 nm.

For comparison, the A-6A had an 803 nm combat radius for a hi-hi-hi profile with 5 Mk 84 bombs. 1100 nm with 3 Mk 84 plus 2 tanks. 1380 nm with 4 tanks plus a single special store.
So 830 nm is in the A-6 range, certainly if you add (stealthy) drop tanks.
 
eagle said:
It's 750 nm.

But considering the F-35C's combat radius is actually 670 nm according to TWZ, 25% more is 837.5 nm.

For comparison, the A-6A had an 803 nm combat radius for a hi-hi-hi profile with 5 Mk 84 bombs. 1100 nm with 3 Mk 84 plus 2 tanks. 1380 nm with 4 tanks plus a single special store.
So 830 nm is in the A-6 range, certainly if you add (stealthy) drop tanks.
Click to expand...

668 nmi for the F-35C as per the latest SAR. I wouldn't call +25% over that as short-legged. It would be quite a nice upgrade for the Navy, especially if it comes with better performance in other important areas.
 

Attachments

  • 1744070553360.png
    1744070553360.png
    155.8 KB · Views: 52
I could see F/A-XX as being worth the investment if it can carry a much heavier payload (ideally AIM-174B internally, as previously mentioned), but if it's just a stealthier F-35C with the ability to carry like 2 more AMRAAMs, that would be incredibly disappointing.
 
aim174b said:
I could see F/A-XX as being worth the investment if it can carry a much heavier payload (ideally AIM-174B internally, as previously mentioned), but if it's just a stealthier F-35C with the ability to carry like 2 more AMRAAMs, that would be incredibly disappointing.
Click to expand...
I'm expecting it to carry 4x AGM-158 internally, or more likely 2x AARGM and 2x JSOW or JDAM-ER. Twice the heavyweight carriage of the F-35, or ~10x AIM-120/AIM-260 in a pure air-to-air role (one stuck to the door and double sidekicks per bay). Plus an AMRAAM/JATM per side.

Not so sure about 4x AIM-174Bs, those would require a weapons bay about half a meter longer than one sized around JASSM/LRASMs. It's not impossible, just depends on when the design freeze when into place and how difficult it'd be to stretch the weapons bays/whole aircraft ~2 feet. And that's assuming that the plane has two bays side by side, instead of two bays in tandem. Two bays in tandem means a 1m+/~4ft stretch to the airframe, and that may be difficult to fit on the elevators.


==================
What are we thinking for bay layout, folks? Two bays side by side like F-35, or two bays in tandem like Su-57?
 
red admiral said:
To me then this seems largely wishful thinking

1. Is this any different to the other primes? Seemed pretty clear that all 3 primes were involved in F/A-XX for years until recently.
2. Is there any evidence for an NG demonstrator? Pretty clear now that NG did bid on NGAD and was placed last.
3. Very speculative around cost
4. So when LM gets involved in requirements then its "dictating" vs NG involvement is "assisting"? In pratice all the primes play to their strengths
5. Yes, but is that taken into account in the source selection criteria? (And should it be?)
6 & 7. But YF-23 lost and didn't get to a mature, in service, operational design with over 1 million flight hours, which I'd suggest has significantly greater value. Regardless of how much some people try try to spin it as "better" because it had advantages in some areas (and forget the disadvantages).
Click to expand...
Yes, this is speculation on my part and some wishful thinking because being a former NG person, I know the company's capabilities and from being involved in various NG programs and others like this during my career. Most people in this forum speculate all the time about these new programs. I am trying to piece things together and read the tea leaves, again like everyone else. I got Boeing right on being selected for the F-47.
 
B2Blain said:
What's the CONOPS for the F/A-XX? The outer air battle and long range maritime strike against Chinese SAGs? The threat is less at sea and you wouldn't necessarily need something better than the F-35 to team with CCAs. I am just not sure that F/A-XX will be that much better than the F-35C, or if it is needed.
Click to expand...

The Navy has been very clear that FA-XX is a strike fighter and it will replace the Super Hornet, not the F-35.
 
quellish said:
The Navy has been very clear that FA-XX is a strike fighter and it will replace the Super Hornet, not the F-35.
Click to expand...
It's supposed to replace both the Super Hornet and Growler, right? If so, I think that suggests F/A-XX is going to have external mounts for the NGJ (ALQ-249) unless that role is delegated to future increment CCAs.
 
aim174b said:
It's supposed to replace both the Super Hornet and Growler, right? If so, I think that suggests F/A-XX is going to have external mounts for the NGJ (ALQ-249) unless that role is delegated to future increment CCAs.
Click to expand...
I'd expect that role to go to CCAs.

Why risk pilots driving the plane with the biggest "stereo" that's always blaring a signal?

Though honestly, once the last Super Bugs are out of the air wing, there's not a lot of call for a big standoff jammer like the Growler. A MALD-sized "CCA"/deployable may be all that is required for stand-in jamming of stealth aircraft.
 
quellish said:
The Navy has been very clear that FA-XX is a strike fighter and it will replace the Super Hornet, not the F-35.
Click to expand...
So the F/A-XX will not be primarily the air dominance fighter and instead will just complement the F-35 in both of its roles?

After all, the F-35 is the "joint strike fighter", right?
 
Shusui said:
So the F/A-XX will not be primarily the air dominance fighter and instead will just complement the F-35 in both of its roles?

After all, the F-35 is the "joint strike fighter", right?
Click to expand...

The FA-XX is primarily a strike fighter, not air dominance.

The Navy has made many public statements about range, capabilities and engines as well as their plans for the carrier air wing of the future.

People can post about what they want the Navy to do but the Navy has been very clear about their plans. The FA-XX is not replacing the F-35. The Navy has no interest in using adaptive engines.
 
Shusui said:
So the F/A-XX will not be primarily the air dominance fighter and instead will just complement the F-35 in both of its roles?
Click to expand...
The FAXX is going to be pretty close to the F-111 or F-14C "Bombcat" (and longer ranged than the F-14!).

So it'll be able to do the BARCAP role and likely be able to dogfight, but the primary want is longer ranged strike than the F-35C can do.

The total planned buy of F-35Cs is something like 400 currently (~250x USN, 150x USMC as of 3Feb2025). That's roughly enough for 2 squadrons of 12 in each of 12 carrier air wings plus a couple of training squadrons from the USN, and maybe 9-10 combat squadrons from the Marines plus their training squadron(s). And we're looking at about 300 FAXX, enough for 2 squadrons of 12 per carrier air wing plus training squadrons.

That's ... call it 60 birds out of the total carrier air wing, assuming the Marines rotate their squadrons to deploy more often. Dozen helos for ASW and Plane Guard. ~4x COD, 4x AEW. 80 total, but still space to stick CCAs onboard. The Navy isn't sold on the idea of CCAs just yet.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The Navy isn't sold on the idea of CCAs just yet.
Click to expand...

The Navy is absolutely sold on CCAs and other unmanned aircraft. This is clear from their public statements and published plans.

The Navy is starting with the MQ-25 to learn how to integrate unmanned aircraft into carrier operations and plans to build on that experience with CCAs.
 
quellish said:
The Navy is absolutely sold on CCAs and other unmanned aircraft. This is clear from their public statements and published plans.

The Navy is starting with the MQ-25 to learn how to integrate unmanned aircraft into carrier operations and plans to build on that experience with CCAs.
Click to expand...
Yet they don't have a single contract out (that I've seen) for a carrier-compatible CCA. Just the Stingray, which did need a lot of fancy programming to recognize ground handling commands.
 
Hydroman said:
Yes, this is speculation on my part and some wishful thinking because being a former NG person,
Click to expand...
Your comments are definitely appreciated, I just thought this was was worth some counter points from the other side.
Scott Kenny said:
I'm expecting it to carry 4x AGM-158 internally, or more likely 2x AARGM and 2x JSOW or JDAM-ER
Click to expand...
I don't understand why you'd carry LRASM internally

For a stand-in platform like this then it'll be interesting to see whether its built around the smaller anti-ship/anti-surface weapon efforts like MACE
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm expecting it to carry 4x AGM-158 internally, or more likely 2x AARGM and 2x JSOW or JDAM-ER. Twice the heavyweight carriage of the F-35, or ~10x AIM-120/AIM-260 in a pure air-to-air role (one stuck to the door and double sidekicks per bay). Plus an AMRAAM/JATM per side.

Not so sure about 4x AIM-174Bs, those would require a weapons bay about half a meter longer than one sized around JASSM/LRASMs. It's not impossible, just depends on when the design freeze when into place and how difficult it'd be to stretch the weapons bays/whole aircraft ~2 feet. And that's assuming that the plane has two bays side by side, instead of two bays in tandem. Two bays in tandem means a 1m+/~4ft stretch to the airframe, and that may be difficult to fit on the elevators.


==================
What are we thinking for bay layout, folks? Two bays side by side like F-35, or two bays in tandem like Su-57?
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're definitely right to be skeptical. However, I'd like to raise a counterpoint about the elevators. The Ford-class has 3 of them that are each 85 x 52 feet and capable of carrying 200k pounds, which I think would comfortably fit F/A-XX even if it happens to be significantly larger than an F-35C. That being said, I'm not intimately familiar with carrier ops, so it could be the case that sortie generation capability is negatively impacted if the elevators can only fit 1 F/A-XX vs 2 F-35Cs, for example.

You also raise a good point about design freeze. We don't know when exactly this happened, but what we do know is that an air-launched SM-6 broke cover around April 2021, which suggests it was likely already in testing for a while and conceptualized even earlier. Also notable is the fact that X-planes for USAF NGAD were not full-scale prototypes, but demonstrators for technologies that would eventually find their way to both NGAD and F/A-XX. This might imply later requirements concretization and design freeze dates, which could have allowed contractors more time and flexibility to play with different ideas. It doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that a design that incorporates AIM-174Bs was at least considered, given how much potential value it could add to F/A-XX and CVW air power if carried internally.

Currently, I think the most plausible usage of the AIM-174B is to pair F-35Cs with Super Hornets, with the F-35Cs in front using their superior APG-81 / APG-85 radars to paint targets for the Super Hornets and guide the AIM-174Bs until they're within terminal active homing range of targets. F/A-XX with internal AIM-174Bs could do this mission with fewer aircraft, or even alone.
 
Last edited:
aim174b said:
Currently, I think the most plausible usage of the AIM-174B is to pair F-35Cs with Super Hornets, with the F-35Cs in front using their superior APG-81 / APG-85 radars to paint targets for the Super Hornets and guide the AIM-174Bs until they're within terminal active homing range of targets. F/A-XX with internal AIM-174Bs could do this mission with fewer aircraft, or even alone.
Click to expand...
Problem indeed is AIM-174s are big and heavy, and hornet is not exactly a flanker, so you mix them with fuel tanks to reach anywhere.
Overall, that's lots of weight and drag - 5 heavy payloads is essentially starting point.

It's up to debate super hornet will manage them in "forward pass" type capability, as it places requirements on the airframe that go beyond that it was designed for (loiter with payload, ability to freely raise altitude and speed for the throw, without thinking about fuel gauge).

F/A-XX, if it'll get them inside, will likely be the enabler here.
But, gotta say, it's some vicious cycle in US - making bays around weapons not designed for internal carriage, again and again.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
The FAXX is going to be pretty close to the F-111 or F-14C "Bombcat" (and longer ranged than the F-14!).

So it'll be able to do the BARCAP role and likely be able to dogfight, but the primary want is longer ranged strike than the F-35C can do.

The total planned buy of F-35Cs is something like 400 currently (~250x USN, 150x USMC as of 3Feb2025). That's roughly enough for 2 squadrons of 12 in each of 12 carrier air wings plus a couple of training squadrons from the USN, and maybe 9-10 combat squadrons from the Marines plus their training squadron(s). And we're looking at about 300 FAXX, enough for 2 squadrons of 12 per carrier air wing plus training squadrons.

That's ... call it 60 birds out of the total carrier air wing, assuming the Marines rotate their squadrons to deploy more often. Dozen helos for ASW and Plane Guard. ~4x COD, 4x AEW. 80 total, but still space to stick CCAs onboard. The Navy isn't sold on the idea of CCAs just yet.
Click to expand...
From the FY 25 USMC Aviation Plan:
140 F-35C in 6 active F-35C squadrons and 2 reserve F-35C squadrons.
280 F-35B in 12 active squadrons.
12 aircraft per squadron both variants.

The USN plans 273 F-35Cs as of December 2024.
 
Ainen said:
F/A-XX, if it'll get them inside, will likely be the enabler here.
But, gotta say, it's some vicious cycle in US - making bays around weapons not designed for internal carriage, again and again.
Click to expand...
AMRAAM once had large fins --> Raytheon/Hughes was successful in clipping those fins. [F-22 internal]
AARGM once had large fins --> NG/ATK was successful in making 'em go away. [F-35 internal]
AIM-174B ... large fins --> Raytheon/Hughes ... ? [F/A-XX internal?]
 
DWG said:
I'm not sure looking back from 30 years in the future is a workable decision making strategy.
Click to expand...

You brought it up with the F/A-18E comment. A-6F would have been useless because it would deny the Navy a very important, all-fighter-bomber CVW, but also it wouldn't have any meaningful strike component after about 2018 or so because it would have been retired. Most likely in favor of F-35C. It was broadly similar to the YA-7F Strikefighter in that regard.

What the Navy needs, and what the Navy wants, is a VLO attacker capable of quadruple combat radius with no buddy tanking. This hasn't changed since the requirement was discerned in 1983. It has merely ebbed and flowed in importance. It is now undeniably important with the ramping up to prepare to fight a major regional, perhaps global, war against the PRC.

If it doesn't have that then it's curtains for the carrier force. They simply will not be able to contribute meaningfully to INDOPACCOM.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'd expect that role to go to CCAs.

Why risk pilots driving the plane with the biggest "stereo" that's always blaring a signal?
Click to expand...
EW still benefits massively from operators, observing electronic warfare and controlling EW fight;
EW is highly dependent on power and processing; it isn't hard to make big, expensive drone, but it is hard it being single trick, crippled pony on a deck.
Aircraft, performing powerful jamming, is hugely constrained in that it can transmit and receive. It isn't possible to find workarounds (say, laser terminals), but those are workarounds and not normal communication techniques.
=
If we aren't talking about attritable elements, core jammer will quite likely still be the F/A-XX. In case of high risk scenario, you always can pull the optional manning trick ...
 
Last edited:
Kat Tsun said:
You brought it up with the F/A-18E comment. A-6F would have been useless because it would deny the Navy a very important, all-fighter-bomber CVW
Click to expand...
I meant the F/A-18C/D rather more than the Super Bug, the decision-making around the E/F has as much to do with F-14 replacement as A-6.

With A-6F at the time the decision was made (mid '80s) on whether to go A-6F or A-X, the Navy would have had one or the other as a medium strike component through the '90s and '00s, and into the '10s, if not '20s, with 20 per air group on the Roosevelt CVW model. F/A-18C/Ds would fill in light strike at the low-end, and NATF or new-build F-14D Tomcats would have provided the interceptor component. Maybe there would have been a case for the Super Hornet as a C/D replacement, maybe not. Remember, the F/A-18E was sitting in the wings as an understudy all the way up until the 1993 BUR cancelled A/F-X, nearly a decade after the A-X or A-6F decision.

You can't argue for the importance of an all Hornet air wing, or the later mixed Hornet/F-35C, in the A-6 or A-X decision because at the time those decisions were made, they were still planning an air-wing with separate light and medium strike and interceptor components (and AIM-152). And that's the problem with trying to apply 2020s positions to 1980s and 1990s decisions.
 
Kat Tsun said:
You brought it up with the F/A-18E comment. A-6F would have been useless because it would deny the Navy a very important, all-fighter-bomber CVW, but also it wouldn't have any meaningful strike component after about 2018 or so because it would have been retired. Most likely in favor of F-35C. It was broadly similar to the YA-7F Strikefighter in that regard.

What the Navy needs, and what the Navy wants, is a VLO attacker capable of quadruple combat radius with no buddy tanking. This hasn't changed since the requirement was discerned in 1983. It has merely ebbed and flowed in importance. It is now undeniably important with the ramping up to prepare to fight a major regional, perhaps global, war against the PRC.

If it doesn't have that then it's curtains for the carrier force. They simply will not be able to contribute meaningfully to INDOPACCOM.
Click to expand...

The carrier force can still easily strike out to a thousand miles with stand off weapons and a modest tanking effort. A 25% increase over F-18E/F seems rather underwhelming, but it will still have its uses.
 
Josh_TN said:
The carrier force can still easily strike out to a thousand miles with stand off weapons and a modest tanking effort. A 25% increase over F-18E/F seems rather underwhelming, but it will still have its uses.
Click to expand...

It sounds more and more like what the Navy wants is an aircraft that is a next generation Super Hornet-ish multi-role fighter.
 
Perhaps we need some clarification, but when they say it will have a 25% increase in range, I'm assuming they mean strike radius. Which is actually quite large, since, if you used the same engine and assumed similar aero to an SH that means 50% more internal fuel capacity. That's not insignificant. I'm guessing it will be somewhat less than a 50% increase in fuel due to more efficient propulsion and less drag from a fully LO configuration.

My thoughts are the engine being developed for F/A-XX will be the same size, physically as the NGAP, since we know NGAP won't be ready at the start of the F-47 program and they'll need something to power those early variants. Or they'll just use a variant of the F-119. I'm thinking the USN is being conservative up front to control costs, will let the USAF develop NGAP, and in a later upgrade to the F/A-XX replace it's engine with an NGAP design to increase range since the NGAP designs have to be installation agnostic; i.e., they both have to fit the same mounting envelope. Just a thought, we'll see.
 
There is apparently a non cost related reason the USN does not want adaptive engines. I suspect they are not envisioned as ever being part of the program, or else they would have been part of program from the beginning. Perhaps we will learn more with the down select, but I doubt it.
 
JetBrain said:

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

Aviation Week claimed that it is the F/A-18 that the increase in range is 25% relative to.
Click to expand...
If its a 25% range increase over the SH, and not the F-35C, that is very disappointing. On an interdiction mission, the SH (with 3x external fuel tank) has a combat radius of 489 nm compared to 668 nm for the F-35C. It would therefore mean the future F/A-XX would have a shorter range than the current F-35C... I find that hard to believe.
 
Last edited:
If this is accurate and USN carriers support up to 200k lbs, then assuming a 2 per elevator requirement then the top end is a 100k lbs aircraft. F-35C is around 70k lbs which is quite a lot for its size. One can imagine even a slightly larger twin engine stealth aircraft easily being 80-90klbs, encroaching upon the theoretical limit. And given the USN is prioritizing strike, that means a larger IWB and less space for fuel in an already size limited aircraft due to weight.

1744160284820.png
 
quellish said:
The Navy has been very clear that FA-XX is a strike fighter and it will replace the Super Hornet, not the F-35.
Click to expand...
That's not CONOPS. The Super Hornet was a strike fighter in the GWOT and did much different things than it will against the PLAN. How does the Navy intend to employ the CSG/CVW in a near peer fight with China?

The AF's CONOPS for gaining air superiority is a lot more developed. Use B-21s and ISR assets for long range strike - search and destroy mobile targets as well as stationary ones. Gain air superiority using F-47 and CCAs in pulsed operations to penetrate the A2/AD bubble and gain air superiority. The F-47 will need additional range and level of stealth to employ ACE and penetrate denied airspace.

The one snippet of information the Navy chose to release is F/A-XX's range. They are slow with unmanned vessels and will likely be slow with CCAs so they will be limited to do long range penetrating strike missions. The only asset you have to extend the CVWs range is he MQ-25. When compared to the SH, 800 nm sounds great in a vacuum. But is it that great when you consider the threat? Or does the Navy anticpate that the air threat at sea is lot more forgiving than what the AF must confront. The CSG can move and minimize the threat against it. Other than refreshing their fighter inventory what is the CONOPS that F/A-XX is supporting? Why do they need it instead of a re engined F-35C? Will a handful of MQ-25s be enough to extend the range of enough F/A-XX beyond 1,000 nm with a tactically meaningful payload? Does the Navy think that F/A-XX will enable it to conduct long range penetrating strike? Or is the CSG more concerned with sea control?

The reason why you would want to pay a higher premium for F/A-XX over the F-35 is likely because of its anticipated greater level of stealth, possible greater speed, and better sensors, which would enable the Navy to counter Chinese advances in the future. But shouldn't have range also have been an attribute that would have been desirable in protecting the CSG from Chinese attack and increasing the operational flexibility of the CVW?
 
quellish said:
Again, they are using the MQ-25 as an opportunity to learn how to integrate unmanned aircraft.
Click to expand...
The Stingray does nothing but pass gas right now.

It's not a part of the strike package like CCAs are.



red admiral said:
I don't understand why you'd carry LRASM internally

For a stand-in platform like this then it'll be interesting to see whether its built around the smaller anti-ship/anti-surface weapon efforts like MACE
Click to expand...
To make space for the largest current weapon in inventory.

Also, I'm referring back to the original design requirements for the ATA, which spec'd a bay large enough to carry an AGM-84 (Harpoon or SLAM) as well as a GBU-15, and then replacing with the appropriate weapons. AGM-158s replaced AGM-84, GBU-15 was replaced by JDAM-ER.

Also, the strakes on AARGM-ER are very nearly as wide as an AGM158.


joewee said:
AMRAAM once had large fins --> Raytheon/Hughes was successful in clipping those fins. [F-22 internal]
AARGM once had large fins --> NG/ATK was successful in making 'em go away. [F-35 internal]
AIM-174B ... large fins --> Raytheon/Hughes ... ? [F/A-XX internal?]
Click to expand...
AIM-174B has folding fins and packs into a 21" square box. Right now. The problem is that it is on the order of half a meter longer than the rest of the weapons in inventory.


aim174b said:
Yeah, you're definitely right to be skeptical. However, I'd like to raise a counterpoint about the elevators. The Ford-class has 3 of them that are each 85 x 52 feet and capable of carrying 200k pounds, which I think would comfortably fit F/A-XX even if it happens to be significantly larger than an F-35C. That being said, I'm not intimately familiar with carrier ops, so it could be the case that sortie generation capability is negatively impacted if the elevators can only fit 1 F/A-XX vs 2 F-35Cs, for example.
Click to expand...
The length/width limits of FAXX are set by the elevators, the weight limits are set by the catapults and arresting gear.

But a plane that is 90klbs or so isn't impossible to launch (USN did launch A-3s at 83k and planned to launch F-111Bs with an 88k MTOW). Landing, though, you need to be about 55klbs max, based on the struggles with Tomcats bringing back 6 phoenix missiles. So call it ~45klbs empty at max, and lighter would be better.That would allow the plane to land with up to 5000lbs of fuel onboard and 5000lbs of weapons.


aim174b said:
Currently, I think the most plausible usage of the AIM-174B is to pair F-35Cs with Super Hornets, with the F-35Cs in front using their superior APG-81 / APG-85 radars to paint targets for the Super Hornets and guide the AIM-174Bs until they're within terminal active homing range of targets. F/A-XX with internal AIM-174Bs could do this mission with fewer aircraft, or even alone.
Click to expand...
That's how I understand the plan to work as well.


overscan (PaulMM) said:
125% the range of a Super Hornet is like being 125% as tall as Peter Dinklage.
Click to expand...
Exactly. So I'm really hoping that it's +25% on F-35C range. Which would get us to basically A-6 range again, ~800nmi.
 
I think the USN is refocusing on sea control and would leave attacks against land targets largely to the USAF. The primary threat against its ships may be land based missiles, but there’s little chance of the air wing being able to reach the necessary ranges to engage that threat. Offensive anti surface operations are probably a better use of resources.
 
B2Blain said:
The one snippet of information the Navy chose to release is F/A-XX's range.
Click to expand...

This incorrect and has been pointed out many times in this and other threads.

The Navy has released quite a bit of information about FA-XX including:

- it replaces the F-18E
- the desired range. They have repeated this many times over the years.
- it is a strike fighter, not air superiority
- engines
- it will integrate with unmanned aircraft
- how it will be part of the carrier air wing of the future and how the Navy intends to transition to that
- and so much more!

So the Navy has released more than “one snippet of information” about FA-XX
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom