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:
From a Jan Congressional Research Services report on USAF NGAD

“By 2023, it appeared that Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman had all developed NGAD demonstrators, and the Air Force released a classified request for proposals for an F-22 Raptor replacement. Northrop Grumman opted out of the competition as a prime contractor but with plans to support other bids as a supplier.”
 
Training_Dummy said:
From a Jan Congressional Research Services report on USAF NGAD
Click to expand...

As a reminder, CRS reports are nothing more than things anyone can uncover via Google or other forms of open source research.

From the DARPA announcement, we now know that Northrop Grumman did not have an AII funded demonstrator as was previously rumored. We seem to have no documented evidence (that I have seen) stating NG went out on its own and built a demonstrator outside of the DARPA-AF-Navy funded efforts or for that matter that they produced a demonstrator designed by someone else. The CRS report also wrongly claims (now that we know) that Northrop Grumman 'opted out' of the NGAD competition where we now know that they were not selected to go further into the final source selection.

Also, this is a Navy FA-XX thread.
 
bring_it_on said:
As a reminder, CRS reports are nothing more than things anyone can uncover via Google or other forms of open source research.

From the DARPA announcement, we now know that Northrop Grumman did not have an AII funded demonstrator as was previously rumored. We seem to have no documented evidence (that I have seen) stating NG went out on its own and built a demonstrator outside of the DARPA-AF-Navy funded efforts or for that matter that they produced a demonstrator designed by someone else. The CRS report also wrongly claims (now that we know) that Northrop Grumman 'opted out' of the NGAD competition where we now know that they were not selected to go further into the final source selection.

Also, this is a Navy FA-XX thread.
Click to expand...
Thanks take all your points. I was just adding as an addendum to the Check pod “points” against NG not having built an AII demonstrator (hence this being in the XX thread) and bc it was a claim that went against my understanding.

My dumb take: i think it just comes down to the proposals detail rather than if a vendor was a recent supersonic prime or flew a specific demonstrator.

Regardless of what happens to F/A-XX and NG, a bigger Raider buy means NG is well positioned. If NG does get it, the thought of the names of Grumman back in the air wing and Northrop in the fighter world would be exciting, and given the knowledge base being built with Stingray, that Boeing and USN can apply that to a strike fighter UCAV.
 
Training_Dummy said:
Thanks take all your points. I was just adding as an addendum to the Check pod “points” against NG not having built an AII demonstrator (hence this being in the XX thread) and bc it was a claim that went against my understanding.

My dumb take: i think it just comes down to the proposals detail rather than if a vendor was a recent supersonic prime or flew a specific demonstrator.

Regardless of what happens to F/A-XX and NG, a bigger Raider buy means NG is well positioned. If NG does get it, the thought of the names of Grumman back in the air wing and Northrop in the fighter world would be exciting, and given the knowledge base being built with Stingray, that Boeing and USN can apply that to a strike fighter UCAV.
Click to expand...
Your "dumb take" is generally 100% correct. Formal source selections are highly driven by the scoring of paper proposals against detailed evaluation factors that are fixed in stone well in advance. Source selection authorities are bound by acquisition law to follow the basis for award laid out in the RFP, and if they don't, the Comp Gen will overrule them in a heartbeat in the event of a protest.
 
kqcke for you said:
"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
Click to expand...

This Aviation Week article has a paywall and I am not a member, but this conversation with Admiral Donnelly was reported on by other outlets as well. Perhaps Aviation Week is reporting this differently or had a private conversation with Donnelly, but according to other outlets, Donnelly did not explicitly list an F/A-18 with two external tanks as the point of reference.

Here's what TWZ reported: https://www.twz.com/air/f-a-xx-will-have-just-25-more-range-over-existing-navy-fighters

Navy Rear Adm. Michael “Buzz” Donnelly, head of the Air Warfare Division within the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, talked about the expected range and other features of the F/A-XX with TWZ and other outlets on the sidelines of the Navy League’s Sea Air Space 2025 exhibition earlier today. Following the reported ejection of Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman are now said to be face-to-face in the F/A-XX competition, the winner of which is expected to be announced soon.

F/A-XX will offer “probably over 125 percent of the range that we’re seeing today to give us better flexibility operational reach,” Donnelly said. “So it will definitely have longer inherent range.”

Donnelly was subsequently asked explicitly if this meant “25 percent more capacity before you start adding in refueling,” to which he said “yeah, affirm[itive].”

Donnelly did not offer any specifics, but the F-35C carrier-based variant of the Joint Strike Fighter has the longest combat radius of any tactical jet in the Navy’s current carrier air wings, which U.S. military sources put at around 670 nautical miles (close to 1,241 kilometers). This, in turn, would put the F/A-XX’s expected maximum combat radius at roughly 837.5 nautical miles (just over 1,551 kilometers)
Click to expand...

Now, it's true that an F/A-18 with two external tanks is probably the point of reference, given that this is a common configuration for the jet that F/A-XX is meant to replace.

But to state confidently that it is definitely 100% the point of reference is a strong claim for which no evidence has yet been provided.
 
joshjosh said:
Now, it's true that an F/A-18 with two external tanks is probably the point of reference, given that this is a common configuration for the jet that F/A-XX is meant to replace.

But to state confidently that it is definitely 100% the point of reference is a strong claim for which no evidence has yet been provided.
Click to expand...

Oh, I have the references (to the external fuel). I would take time and effort to track them down in a mess of documents, congressional testimony, etc. They have been posted in this thread and others before.

The point here is that there have been many statements in this thread by users about the range of the F/A-XX compared to the F-35, "existing fighters" etc. including "the only range statement I've seen is 25% more than existing fighters. Not 25% greater than Super Bug."

The Navy has made *many* statements that this program is replacing the F/A-18E and has made their statements about range reflect that. The April statements to the press by Donnelly are only one example. These statements and references to them have been posted in this thread many times - yet the misconceptions remain and are reposted.

So what would be the point of finding these references and posting them again? There is no learning going on here.

(And not surprisingly, "TWZ" has reported what Donnelly said inaccurately. He was specific about the range being compared to the F/A-18E)
 
Last edited:
Training_Dummy said:
From a Jan Congressional Research Services report on USAF NGAD

“By 2023, it appeared that Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman had all developed NGAD demonstrators, and the Air Force released a classified request for proposals for an F-22 Raptor replacement. Northrop Grumman opted out of the competition as a prime contractor but with plans to support other bids as a supplier.”
Click to expand...

The Department of Defense has been clear - since 2015 - that the demonstrator program involved a USAF X-plane and a Navy X-plane. One contractor each. There were not 3 primes in that program.


I have not found any evidence that Northrop Grumman built an air dominance demonstrator. They could have, but there is no evidence (not even a hint) that they did, even at their own expense.
 
Last edited:
kqcke for you said:
"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
Click to expand...
Paywalled.
 
Since the F/A-XX is supposed to replace the Super Hornet (Which in turn has replaced the Hornet) maybe it could be named the Ultra Hornet;):D.
 
I did find the references.

I'm having a really hard time believing that the premier striker for the next 30odd years is going to be +25% range for a Super Bug.

Unless they're trolling the hell out of us, meaning +25% on 1275nmi 2xAIM9 range one way (~1600nmi), or +25% on 1600nmi ferry range (2000nmi).

Because combat ranges of the super bug suck ass. ~450nmi however you care to slice it with any respectable warload. And +25% of that is only ~565nmi, 100nmi less than F-35Cs. And I find it really hard to believe that the USN is going to accept a new plane that can't fly as far as the F-35Cs.
 
The "practical range" of the F-35С is 2,612 km / 1,410 nautical miles.

Combat range:
air-to-air 914 km / 494 nautical miles
air-to-ground 1240 km / 670 nautical miles
 
@Scott Kenny : the problem with extended range is mission rate. At the end, an aircraft carrier is a battle station built to generate sorties to repell, contest and subjugate an opponent. One sorties a day is not the most efficient way to achieve this goal, even taking into account the risks to be on station. For that, the USN banks on its superior firepower which should be seen as a more cost-effective way to reach that goal and drive operations (instead of pooring money in larger aircraft).
 
TomcatViP said:
@Scott Kenny : the problem with extended range is mission rate. At the end, an aircraft carrier is a battle station built to generate sorties to repell, contest and subjugate an opponent. One sorties a day is not the most efficient way to achieve this goal, even taking into account the risks to be on station. For that, the USN banks on its superior firepower which should be seen as a more cost-effective way to reach that goal and drive operations (instead of pooring money in larger aircraft).
Click to expand...
Yet they had no issue with 800nmi range subsonic strike aircraft through the entire Cold War, in the A-6. (That's 4x 2000lb warload, IIRC with a single fuel tank on centerline)

Plus, the USN has known about the various AShBMs the Chinese have been developing since ~2009 or so, so I can only assume that the want for the ability to have carriers at the edge of that range while launching strikes ran through their minds.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom