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

FlyGuy369 said:
Not to detract from the original content of this post, but will our traditional understanding of aircraft roles still exist at that time? I agree the next iteration will be unmanned but I wouldn't be so sure to call it a fighter at that point.
Click to expand...
At least in separation from the really big strategic bombers, yes.

I expect aircraft to still be classified as "fighters" and "bombers," even though the typical fighter is just as often carrying Air to Ground as Air to Air.

Unless someone gets a wild hair and tries to go for "tactical" and "strategic" drones.
 
With the end of the HALO program, I think it is safe to say that FA-XX bomb bay(s) are sized to existing air to ground ordnance and nothing else. Mk84/AARGM-ER as the most oversized weapons, with things like JSOW, mk83, and SDB being easily compatible with that space as well.
 
Josh_TN said:
With the end of the HALO program, I think it is safe to say that FA-XX bomb bay(s) are sized to existing air to ground ordnance and nothing else. Mk84/AARGM-ER as the most oversized weapons, with things like JSOW, mk83, and SDB being easily compatible with that space as well.
Click to expand...
HALO IoC was supposed to be early 2028, which is to the right of F/A-XX requirements and design freeze. I don't think there is any data on HALO dimensions right?
 
No data for either. But I cannot imagine FA-XX is going to be designed around a dead program, assuming that was ever part of the requirement. And LRASM is practically an afterthought.
 
djj said:
Would replacing HALO with HACM be a viable solution?
Click to expand...

No. Not suitable for a carrier, likely for a host of reasons, but the most obvious being that carrier weapon elevators are limited to 15 feet.
 
Josh_TN said:
No. Not suitable for a carrier, likely for a host of reasons, but the most obvious being that carrier weapon elevators are limited to 15 feet.
Click to expand...
Limited to 15 feet in what dimension? Length or width, perhaps?
 
djj said:
Limited to 15 feet in what dimension? Length or width, perhaps?
Click to expand...

Length definitely. Google Ford weapon elevators, they are more obvious than the Nimitz class because they actually arrive on the flight deck.
 
Obviously HACM length is classified. Google said it would be 90 inches in length, or 7.5 feet. CatGPT said that it would be between 6 to 9 feet, considering the aircraft that would carry it. In released renders, it also seems to be on the smaller side. Assuming that the above is true, then HACM could indeed be used by the ford class elevators. Would there be other reasons why it would not be a viable replacement for HALO?
 
Josh_TN said:
With the end of the HALO program, I think it is safe to say that FA-XX bomb bay(s) are sized to existing air to ground ordnance and nothing else. Mk84/AARGM-ER as the most oversized weapons, with things like JSOW, mk83, and SDB being easily compatible with that space as well.
Click to expand...
They could have been sized for AIM174Bs, but that's questionable. It'd add at least half a meter to the length of the airframe, maybe a full meter (depends on how the bays are arranged).

I'd expect bays sized to hold AARGM-ERs and 2000lb JDAM-ERs, which as a result of those two means they can hold AGM-158s.

The question becomes "can the plane hold 2x AARGM-ERs or AGM-158s internally, or 4x?"

I'm expecting bays able to hold 4x.

AARGM-ERs and AGM-158s are almost wide enough to allow for stuffing 3x 2000lb JDAMs into one bay, as well.
 
Scott Kenny said:
They could have been sized for AIM174Bs, but that's questionable. It'd add at least half a meter to the length of the airframe, maybe a full meter (depends on how the bays are arranged).

I'd expect bays sized to hold AARGM-ERs and 2000lb JDAM-ERs, which as a result of those two means they can hold AGM-158s.

The question becomes "can the plane hold 2x AARGM-ERs or AGM-158s internally, or 4x?"

I'm expecting bays able to hold 4x.

AARGM-ERs and AGM-158s are almost wide enough to allow for stuffing 3x 2000lb JDAMs into one bay, as well.
Click to expand...
Definitely 4. Also AIM-174b is a stopgap until AIM-260.
 
djj said:
Definitely 4. Also AIM-174b is a stopgap until AIM-260.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is true, at least there isn't much evidence to suggest so. USN will probably procure a mix of AIM-120, AIM-260, and AIM-174B fulfilling the following niches:
  • AIM-120 for medium range (105-180km)
  • AIM-260 for long range (200-300km)
  • AIM-174B for very long range (400km+)
While the AIM-174B is explicitly stated as having a range of at least 130 miles (~200km), a VLS-launched SM-6 was able to sink a target over 250 miles (400+km) away, so it's pretty reasonable to assume that the AIM-174B will have +/- 50km range from that (as it's air-launched, but without booster). There's only so much range you can squeeze out of an AMRAAM-sized missile, so I don't think the AIM-260 will be able to touch that upper bound, and I don't think the USN will want to give up a nascent VLRAAM capability.
 
Last edited:
djj said:
Also AIM-174b is a stopgap until AIM-260.
Click to expand...
Disagree there. It's highly unlikely that the AIM260 has the same range.

Plus, the AIM174 is still an SM6, which means it has significant capabilities as VLRAAM, TABM, and even long range AShM. An AIM174 is broadly comparable to getting hit by a 16" HE shell, except it is faster and has more explosive inside!
 
Just a remark, wouldn´t such a rarely used weapon couldn´t simply be loaded below deck? That would avoid the Weapon´s lift limitations.

How did they manage with the A-5 Vigilante payload?
 
djj said:
Obviously HACM length is classified. Google said it would be 90 inches in length, or 7.5 feet. CatGPT said that it would be between 6 to 9 feet, considering the aircraft that would carry it. In released renders, it also seems to be on the smaller side. Assuming that the above is true, then HACM could indeed be used by the ford class elevators. Would there be other reasons why it would not be a viable replacement for HALO?
Click to expand...

This why you don’t use AI for research. The 7.5 number comes from a measurement of its booster, sans cruiser, and I am not sure of the veracity of the slide it came from.

But using the X-51 as an example of what a notional hypersonic fixed inlet waverider would look like, it’s a little hard to imagine the total stack being 15’ or less and achieving the reported ranges and speeds that the HAWC demonstrator achieved.
 
TomcatViP said:
Just a remark, wouldn´t such a rarely used weapon couldn´t simply be loaded below deck? That would avoid the Weapon´s lift limitations.

How did they manage with the A-5 Vigilante payload?
Click to expand...

The 15’ limit applies to all elevators on both classes of CVN as far as I know. That is, everything that gets stored in the magazine below the water line has to come and go that way. The Ford elevators just allow direct service to the flight deck for some shafts.
 
Josh_TN said:
No. Not suitable for a carrier, likely for a host of reasons, but the most obvious being that carrier weapon elevators are limited to 15 feet.
Click to expand...
So they wanted a Mach 10 missile with decent range that was only 15ft long? Who wrote the spec? Rumpelstiltskin?
 
Forest Green said:
So they wanted a Mach 10 missile with decent range that was only 15ft long? Who wrote the spec? Rumpelstiltskin?
Click to expand...

Unclear what the exact requirements were, but high speed was one of them. The ASALM achieved a Mach 3 ish speed on a missile suitably small enough and a test article did go hypersonic with a runaway throttle, though I expect the missile was extremely fuel inefficient at that speed. HiFly might have almost hit the right combination of size, speed, and range if it had worked. But yes, the solution was never going to be cheap or easy.
 
kken said:
Is this the mission radius at supersonic cruise or?
Click to expand...
Navy League 2025: F/A-XX to feature at least 25% range increase over F/A-18E/F
The US Navy's (USN's) upcoming F/A-XX aircraft is to fly at least 25% farther than the Boeing F/A-18E/F it is intended to replace, Rear Admiral Michael Donnelly, director of the service's Air Warfare division, told reporters on 7 April on the sidelines of the Navy League Sea-Air-Space 2025 conference in National Harbor, Maryland.

The USN lists the F/A-18E/F's range in combat configuration as 1,275 n miles (2,346 km), meaning that F/A-XX will likely be required to fly at least 1,500 n miles (2,950 km) unrefuelled. F/A-XX – like most USN aircraft – will also be capable of receiving fuel from air-to-air tankers, effectively extending its range farther still.

The increased range is “a core attribute of F/A-XX”, Rear Adm Donnelly said. “So probably over a 25% increase over [the F/A-18's] range today, to give us better flexibility and operational reach.”
Click to expand...

I think this is still speculation, "F/A-18" is in brackets.
 
How does MAKO differ from HAWC? Also, what speeds did HAWC reportedly achieve?
 
Josh_TN said:
Unclear what the exact requirements were, but high speed was one of them. The ASALM achieved a Mach 3 ish speed on a missile suitably small enough and a test article did go hypersonic with a runaway throttle, though I expect the missile was extremely fuel inefficient at that speed. HiFly might have almost hit the right combination of size, speed, and range if it had worked. But yes, the solution was never going to be cheap or easy.
Click to expand...
I'm sure I read Mach 10 somewhere.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom