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

[Rhinocrates]

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.

I agree but if I recall correctly, didn't NG withdraw from the competition stating that they couldn't meet the - unrealistic - cost requirements?

 

[NMaude]

Any links to the NG proposal?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I agree but if I recall correctly, didn't NG withdraw from the competition stating that they couldn't meet the - unrealistic - cost requirements?

They wouldn't agree to the fixed price contract. This is fixable by the US Navy not having unrealistic cost expectations.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Any links to the NG proposal?

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/us-navy-ata-advanced-tactical-aircraft-program-a-12-avenger-ii-its-rivals.1169/#post-9414

Mini-me B-2.

 

[Jacky]

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.

No, A-6F is not a good option, its design is out of style. The best solution is the design of Northrop. The key was that the Navy should accept the price offered by Northrop instead of fixed-price.

 

[bring_it_on]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNlinQw6oMQ&t=36s

 

[DWG]

No, A-6F is not a good option, its design is out of style. The best solution is the design of Northrop. The key was that the Navy should accept the price offered by Northrop instead of fixed-price.

This was the era of the Peace Dividend, defence budgets were being slashed, entire classes of surface warships were being retired. A low risk, low cost project like A-6F, or A-6G, that actually ended up being delivered would have distinct advantages over a high-end one that ended up cancelled. There's also the possibility for high-low mixes.

 

[jsport]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNlinQw6oMQ&t=36s

Thank you for posting, this seems like a long pitch for NG's competitive advantage in radar/AESA. The fast depiction of four large arrays mounted in the fuselage seems to be an indicator.. Not saying their wrong, four large arrays providing spherical coverage would be as necessary as DAS especially against hiding ground tgts.

 

[dark sidius]

Thank you for posting, this seems like a long pitch for NG's competitive advantage in radar/AESA. The fast depiction of four large arrays mounted in the fuselage seems to be an indicator.. Not saying their wrong, four large arrays providing spherical coverage would be as necessary as DAS especially against hiding ground tgts.

X-47B ? for new fighter ?

 

[Scott Kenny]

They wouldn't agree to the fixed price contract. This is fixable by the US Navy not having unrealistic cost expectations.

And the Navy not breaking the law about telling MDD when NG turned in their noncompliant bid.

NG did not do a fixed-price development contract, instead they left Uncle Sam on the hook for development costs. And that meant the bid was not what the Navy wanted.

 

[aim174b]

I believe unlike the Air Force NGAD, F/A-XX is stated as having a larger capacity than the F-35C (which after the Sidekick upgrade will be able to carry 6x AIM-120 / AIM-260 internally).

While Phelan did not go in-depth on Naval aviation during the hearing, he did address it when asked in his his advanced policy questions shared with the committee. Specifically, he said the F/A-XX—the Navy’s designation for its Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter—will offer “significant advancements in operational reach and capacity within contested environments.” The aircraft is “intended to enable Carrier Strike Groups to outpace adversaries while maintaining naval air dominance,” he wrote.

Being able to carry the AIM-174B and future very-long-range AAMs internally would mean the F/A-XX could remain undetected for longer and target Chinese high-value ISR assets like AEW aircraft further behind the front lines.

 

[Jacky]

This was the era of the Peace Dividend, defence budgets were being slashed, entire classes of surface warships were being retired. A low risk, low cost project like A-6F, or A-6G, that actually ended up being delivered would have distinct advantages over a high-end one that ended up cancelled. There's also the possibility for high-low mixes.

But A-6F had been cancelled in 1988, much earlier than USN found significant issues with GD/MD's ATA. After ATA, the Navy luanched A/X program, which means that an LO attack aircraft is what the navy needs. But when the navy converted A/X into A/F-X, everything became very bad, and finally they got F/A-18E/F.

 

[Ainen]

No, A-6F is not a good option, its design is out of style. The best solution is the design of Northrop. The key was that the Navy should accept the price offered by Northrop instead of fixed-price.

With visibly troublesome b-2 around and knowing that Northrop isn't exactly a big name in getting planes off the deck? Even Lockheed had S-3.

Not happening. MD is second most important name to navair, just after Grumman. Northrop is dead last.

Being able to carry the AIM-174B and future very-long-range AAMs internally would mean the F/A-XX could remain undetected for longer and target Chinese high-value ISR assets like AEW aircraft further behind the front lines.

Greatest asset with AIM-174B is arguably not even range, it's unification with surface vessels, including for fire control purposes (ABM, hypersonics).
But it's indeed just a bit too long for comfort. I think it should be doable if it's a design priority, but won't come free.

 

[DWG]

But A-6F had been cancelled in 1988, much earlier than USN found significant issues with GD/MD's ATA. After ATA, the Navy luanched A/X program, which means that an LO attack aircraft is what the navy needs. But when the navy converted A/X into A/F-X, everything became very bad, and finally they got F/A-18E/F.

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

https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-91-98.pdf

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.

 

[Manuducati]

With visibly troublesome b-2 around and knowing that Northrop isn't exactly a big name in getting planes off the deck? Even Lockheed had S-3.

Not happening. MD is second most important name to navair, just after Grumman. Northrop is dead last.

Northrop was teamed with Grumman on the A-12 program, don't forget that.
Northrop also had the very fresh experience of the F/A-18 Hornet, partnering with MDD.
Lockheed indeed built the S-3, but it was essentially a LTV design.

 

[Ainen]

Northrop was teamed with Grumman on the A-12 program, don't forget that.
Northrop also had the very fresh experience of the F/A-18 Hornet, partnering with MDD.

To be fair, Northrop had such a wonderful experience with F-18 that they lost their plane...

 

[Hydroman]

To be fair, Northrop had such a wonderful experience with F-18 that they lost their plane...

I could be wrong but have rolled the bones, I think NG is going to be selected for F/A-XX because:

1. NG has been working an F/A-XX for quite a long time and was asked and probably had assisted the USN/NAVAIR with requirements.
2. I think NG only built a F/A-XX classified demonstrator (maybe two) and had no intentions of bidding the USAF requirement.
3. LM too pricey for both the USAF and USN, plus LM has F-22 (which will continue being upgraded), F-35 and "SR-72".
4. LM also may have been possibly trying to dictate requirements to both the USAF and USN (not good, you don't do that).
5. Boeing (as a corporation) has, F-47, KC-46, P-8, F-15EX, T-7, MQ-25, quite a current corporate portfolio.
6. NG may be levering some our YF/F-23 5.5 gen tech among other classified efforts involving NG fighter expertise.
7. Not a complete F-23 revival but NG benefited from YF-23 no matter how you slice it.

Comments and criticisms always welcome.

 

[Hanse]

To be fair, Northrop had such a wonderful experience with F-18 that they lost their plane...

The McDD / Northrop split was McDD was responsible for the carrier variant while Northrop would be responsible for the F-18L land variant. All buyers chose to take the performance hit, and just buy the carrier version, than to pony up the extra dough to help fund the F-18L development.

 

[NMaude]

It would've been interesting to see the F-18L in production and I wonder how it would've performed?

 

[EmoBirb]

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

It would make sense.

General Atomics YFQ-42
Anduril YFQ-44
Northrop Grumman/Boeing F/A-45
Northrop Grumman/Boeing F/A-46
Boeing F-47
Lockheed Martin XF-48

I assume that's how it's being handled with regards to designations currently. Also makes sense to have a similar sequence as all of these projects are somewhat connected too.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It would make sense.

General Atomics YFQ-42
Anduril YFQ-44
Northrop Grumman/Boeing F/A-45
Northrop Grumman/Boeing F/A-46
Boeing F-47
Lockheed Martin XF-48

I assume that's how it's being handled with regards to designations currently. Also makes sense to have a similar sequence as all of these projects are somewhat connected too.

As I understand it, the FQ-fortysomethings are in the Q series numbers, not the F series numbers.

 

[EmoBirb]

As I understand it, the FQ-fortysomethings are in the Q series numbers, not the F series numbers.

I think drones can be pretty much everything really. MQ-1, MQ-9, RQ-4, RQ-170, RQ-180, RQ-20 etc.

Not even touching the XQ-58A etc.

And given that the GA and Anduril designs were given the prototype designations of YFQ-42 and YFQ-44, it's pretty safe to assume that the production model will just drop the Y leaving the FQ-42/44. I think the FQ designation is actually already in service with F-16s converted into target drones. So another reason to believe FQ will stick.

Why I think this sequence is correct? Because the PCA (F-47), Next Gen Carrier Fighter (F/A-XX) and the CCAs (YFQ-42 and YFQ-44) are all born out of the NGAD effort, with the navy having their own fighter component but still being in certain ways connected to the overall NGAD initiative.

Because of that close relation between them all, I'm pretty certain that the F/A-XX will also be in the 40s, following the other three out of four projects. And with 42, 44 and 47 already covered I can definitely see it being 45 by virtue of just being logical. It doesn't take tinfoil hat assumptions regarding the President of the US to come to consider the possibility of the F/A-XX being the F/A-45. Although by virtue of keeping with the sequence rather than silly theories about trying to appeal to the ego of POTUS.

On that note, I wonder when we'll see the failed Lockheed NGAD bid and the failed F/A-XX bid in a museum. How long did it take for the YF-23? Does anyone know?

 

[Scott Kenny]

And given that the GA and Anduril designs were given the prototype designations of YFQ-42 and YFQ-44, it's pretty safe to assume that the production model will just drop the Y leaving the FQ-42/44.

That's the usual pattern, yes.

I think the FQ designation is actually already in service with F-16s converted into target drones. So another reason to believe FQ will stick.

Any drone-converted Fighter gets the Q in front of the F. So there were QF-80s, QF-4s, QF-16s...

Why I think this sequence is correct? Because the PCA (F-47), Next Gen Carrier Fighter (F/A-XX) and the CCAs (YFQ-42 and YFQ-44) are all born out of the NGAD effort, with the navy having their own fighter component but still being in certain ways connected to the overall NGAD initiative.

Because of that close relation between them all, I'm pretty certain that the F/A-XX will also be in the 40s, following the other three out of four projects. And with 42, 44 and 47 already covered I can definitely see it being 45 by virtue of just being logical. It doesn't take tinfoil hat assumptions regarding the President of the US to come to consider the possibility of the F/A-XX being the F/A-45. Although by virtue of keeping with the sequence rather than silly theories about trying to appeal to the ego of POTUS.

Sure, if you ignore the entire "just gets next number in line" process that is supposed to exist...

On that note, I wonder when we'll see the failed Lockheed NGAD bid and the failed F/A-XX bid in a museum. How long did it take for the YF-23? Does anyone know?

I don't think it took the F23s more than a couple of years to get handed off to museums.

But I suspect that the LockMart demonstrators are broken up and buried in Area 51.

 

[red admiral]

I could be wrong but have rolled the bones, I think NG is going to be selected for F/A-XX because:

1. NG has been working an F/A-XX for quite a long time and was asked and probably had assisted the USN/NAVAIR with requirements.
2. I think NG only built a F/A-XX classified demonstrator (maybe two) and had no intentions of bidding the USAF requirement.
3. LM too pricey for both the USAF and USN, plus LM has F-22 (which will continue being upgraded), F-35 and "SR-72".
4. LM also may have been possibly trying to dictate requirements to both the USAF and USN (not good, you don't do that).
5. Boeing (as a corporation) has, F-47, KC-46, P-8, F-15EX, T-7, MQ-25, quite a current corporate portfolio.
6. NG may be levering some our YF/F-23 5.5 gen tech among other classified efforts involving NG fighter expertise.
7. Not a complete F-23 revival but NG benefited from YF-23 no matter how you slice it.

Comments and criticisms always welcome.

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).

 

[BillRo]

It would've been interesting to see the F-18L in production and I wonder how it would've performed?

It was 2000 lbs lighter. I think the main reason countries preferred the F/A-18A was because of the support system available through the USN and common spares.

 

[fightingirish]

IMHO the F/A-XX fighter decision won't be unveiled at the Sea Air Space exhibition this week.

‘Secretary-level and above’ officials ‘working’ F/A-XX fighter decision: Acting CNO
"I don’t want to get ahead of the contract decision, but I will tell you we need F/A-XX in the United States Navy just like the Air Force says," Chief of Naval Operations Adm. James Kilby said. [...]

Source:

'Secretary-level and above' officials 'working' F/A-XX fighter decision: Acting CNO - Breaking Defense

"I don’t want to get ahead of the contract decision, but I will tell you we need F/A-XX in the United States Navy just like the Air Force says," Chief of Naval Operations Adm. James Kilby said.

breakingdefense.com

 

[dark sidius]

IMHO the F/A-XX fighter decision won't be unveiled at the Sea Air Space exhibition this week.

Source:

'Secretary-level and above' officials 'working' F/A-XX fighter decision: Acting CNO - Breaking Defense

"I don’t want to get ahead of the contract decision, but I will tell you we need F/A-XX in the United States Navy just like the Air Force says," Chief of Naval Operations Adm. James Kilby said.

breakingdefense.com

The decision is coming I think we will know it soon.

 

[B2Blain]

IMHO the F/A-XX fighter decision won't be unveiled at the Sea Air Space exhibition this week.

Source:

'Secretary-level and above' officials 'working' F/A-XX fighter decision: Acting CNO - Breaking Defense

"I don’t want to get ahead of the contract decision, but I will tell you we need F/A-XX in the United States Navy just like the Air Force says," Chief of Naval Operations Adm. James Kilby said.

breakingdefense.com

The most important nugget of information is that its range will likely be up to 125% the range of current fighters.

 

[Manuducati]

Which, given the poor performance of the Super Hornet in this field, doesn't mean much.

 

[Hanse]

Which, given the poor performance of the Super Hornet in this field, doesn't mean much.

Would hope it would least have the range of an Intruder or Corsair II.

 

[B2Blain]

Which, given the poor performance of the Super Hornet in this field, doesn't mean much.

I was hoping that they were talking about the F-35C. The F-35 would have resulted in a 25% increase in range if it was re engined with the XA-100. There was speculation that the Navy would not use adaptive engines for the F/A-XX.

At this point, with all of the Navy's issues, and with the lack of need for a penetrating counter air platform, I am wondering whether they should be forced to continue to buy the F-35C. Increase the buy and use the development money in the F/A-XX budget to pay for adaptive engines for the F-35.

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.

 

[Nart]

The most important nugget of information is that its range will likely be up to 125% the range of current fighters.

Did he really mean 125%, or did he want to say 25% but said 125 instead?

 

[joewee]

VCNO Kilby: “It’s a decision at the secretary-level and above, and they’re working that now”.

Maybe new SECNAV Phelan wants to put his oar in the water? I wrote last month that Hegseth had already given the thumbs up to Kilby. Also, I was told that the Navy's announcement was to come out in March just as Reuters stated from their source(s).

I added: "Unless of course someone in the White House objects to one winner takes both .... so I will read any delay beyond the end of March as a last minute change: NG in, B out."

Well, maybe Phelan or someone in the WH has indeed objected to the Navy's selection of Boeing?

 

[B2Blain]

Did he really mean 125%, or did he want to say 25% but said 125 instead?

https://www.twz.com/air/f-a-xx-will-have-just-25-more-range-over-existing-navy-fighters

He later clarified that it was just a 25% increase. That is a yawner. If it was a little more in cost than an F-35 you could justify it. It has a hard enough time affording the 10-13 Cs a year.

 

[bring_it_on]

If it was a little more in cost than an F-35 you could justify it. It has a hard enough time affording the 10-13 Cs a year.

I didn't find any other attributes in the article to even begin justifying such a claim. What about signature? Payload? Speed? SWaPC margins? What would make the F/A-XX a more attractive package vs simply buying more F-35C's? Especially with the 2030's and 40's threats and needs in mind and the fact that despite having a huge leg up given its already building F-35C's on a dedicated DON line in Fort Worth, Lockheed got booted out of the competition?

F/A-XXs overall size and dimensions are going to be limited by a need for affordability since it needs to replace a sizable F/A-18E/F and EA-18G fleet even if the Navy does not aim for a direct 1/1 replacement ratio (still probably need between half to 2/3 fleet replacement by manned). Significant (think 2x of F-35C) combat radius increase would need to come via unmanned and subsonic platform to keep things affordable Clearly that option would not meet other F/A-XX needs so will probably be pursued at a later stage.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I was hoping that they were talking about the F-35C. The F-35 would have resulted in a 25% increase in range if it was re engined with the XA-100. There was speculation that the Navy would not use adaptive engines for the F/A-XX.

At this point, with all of the Navy's issues, and with the lack of need for a penetrating counter air platform, I am wondering whether they should be forced to continue to buy the F-35C. Increase the buy and use the development money in the F/A-XX budget to pay for adaptive engines for the F-35.

Adaptive engines in F-35 has been killed by the F-35 program office. All variants run on the same base engine, full stop.

Neither A100 nor A101, the F135-size/power adaptive engines, could power the LiftFan.

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.

Same as ATA, A-X, and A/F-X before it.

~800nmi/1600km heavy attack, plus BARCAP. The attack range the USN lost when they retired the Intruders. Bay space for ARMs and bombs/cruise missiles. (which means BIG bays, likely 55" wide each because JASSM/LRASM is 25" wide and AARGM-ER is close to that wide)

Yes, I know that the Navy now uses standoff weapons with up to 1000km range. That's nice, but you still gotta get within the A2AD bubble to launch those weapons. At targets on the coast. Where are the AShBM launchers located? Far enough inland that they're immune to typhoons, at least. AARGM-ERs are only 300km range.

https://www.twz.com/air/f-a-xx-will-have-just-25-more-range-over-existing-navy-fighters

He later clarified that it was just a 25% increase. That is a yawner. If it was a little more in cost than an F-35 you could justify it. It has a hard enough time affording the 10-13 Cs a year.

+25% of 450nmi/850km is 675nmi/1275km. Which is a disappointment. I can only assume that the navy is accepting the reduced combat range due to the much longer ranged weapons than the ATA was planned around (Harpoon/SLAM and 2000lb Paveway versus JASSM and JDAM-ER or AARGM-ER)

The point is that it's carrying probably twice the warload of an F-35C internally for strike missions.

 

[Moose]

A larger range increase was taken off the table when they walked away from the idea of using the USAF adaptive cycle engine.

 

[bring_it_on]

+25% of 450nmi/850km is 675nmi/1275km. Which is a disappointment. I can only assume that the navy is accepting the reduced combat range due to the much longer ranged weapons than the ATA was planned around (Harpoon/SLAM and 2000lb Paveway versus JASSM and JDAM-ER or AARGM-ER)

It depends on +25% of what. F-35C (>600 nautical miles) combat radius of.. strike configured F/A-18 E/F with CL and/or other tanks? It really depends.

 

[B2Blain]

Adaptive engines in F-35 has been killed by the F-35 program office. All variants run on the same base engine, full stop.

Neither A100 nor A101, the F135-size/power adaptive engines, could power the LiftFan.

The justification of the need to maintain commonality is bogus. The last time I checked the A doesn't have a lift fan, the smaller weapons bay of the B, the larger wings of the C, or the C's more robust landing gear. Engine competition would drive down costs and spur innovation and efforts to improve reliability.

This was purely a budget decision.

The Navy transitions about 1 F-35C Navy/Marine squadron a year. NAVAIR would need to do better than that to replace the Super Hornets. If they could manage a low rate production of 20 or so, the rest could be made with CCAs, assuming a carrier version is developed in time.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It depends on +25% of what. F-35C (>600 nautical miles) combat radius of.. strike configured of F/A-18 E/F with CL and/or other tanks? It really depends.

I did that based on Super Hornets, split the difference between the published numbers for 2 tanks and 3 (adding the 1800L CL tank only gives you another 45nmi range!)

After all, the FAXX is replacing the Super Bugs.

But okay, +25% to the F-35C's 600nmi range is 900nmi/1600km 750nmi/1350km. Which is A-6 range but with all weapons internal.

The justification of the need to maintain commonality is bogus. The last time I checked the A doesn't have a lift fan, the smaller weapons bay of the B, the larger wings of the C, or the C's more robust landing gear. Engine competition would drive down costs and spur innovation and efforts to improve reliability.

Having an extra couple thousand engines you can use for parts and that you are buying parts for saves a hell of a lot of money.

Edit: JFC I cannot math today!