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

[bring_it_on]

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)

That's not what the F/A-18 E is nor the F/A-XX is going to be. So your example is a pretty bad one unless their was perfect overlap between the A-6 and what the F/A-18E / F/A-XX are expected to perform in terms of missions.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That's not what the F/A-18 E is nor the F/A-XX is going to be. So your example is a pretty bad one unless their was perfect overlap between the A-6 and what the F/A-18E / F/A-XX are expected to perform in terms of missions.

ATA and A/F-X were also supposed to be 800nmi range aircraft.

Super Bugs were a very "we're not going to get the capabilities we need, and the A-6s are out of life" answer.

 

[bring_it_on]

ATA and A/F-X were also supposed to be 800nmi range aircraft.

Super Bugs were a very "we're not going to get the capabilities we need, and the A-6s are out of life" answer.

My point was simply that we may still not have issues with 800 nmi subsonic strike aircraft. Even today. But that the F/A-XX, like the F/A-18E it replaces, is not a subsonic strike aircraft. At this point, we kind of know what the Navy is looking for and it is not that far off.

 

[Scott Kenny]

My point was simply that we may still not have issues with 800 nmi subsonic strike aircraft. Even today. But that the F/A-XX, like the F/A-18E it replaces, is not a subsonic strike aircraft. At this point, we kind of know what the Navy is looking for and it is not that far off.

Yet I can spec out an aircraft that has a ~760nmi range that carries what the USN seems to want for the mission. And that's assuming no fuel consumption improvements over F119 or F110.

 

[bring_it_on]

Yet I can spec out an aircraft that has a ~760nmi range that carries what the USN seems to want for the mission.

But the F/A-XX is not a subsonic strike aircraft as I previously mentioned. You seem to be stuck with that as a benchmark and want the F/A-XX to be one. It is not. It is a supersonic F/a-18E replacement. Navy has been clear in terms of what it wants it to do with the platform. I am not sure what 'I can't spec out an aircraft' means exactly but that may be something to system requirements and KPI's not being publicly shared.

 

[quellish]

With regards to CCAs, I am sure we have all seen this before, right?
It's very clear that there will be EW and ISR CCAs.



From Naval Aviation Vision 2030-2035 , posted here months ago

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/usaf-usn-6th-gen-fighters-f-a-xx-f-x-ngad-pca-asfs-news-analysis.3536/page-208#post-733461

 

[Scott Kenny]

But the F/A-XX is not a subsonic strike aircraft as I previously mentioned. You seem to be stuck with that as a benchmark and want the F/A-XX to be one. It is not. It is a supersonic F/a-18E replacement. Navy has been clear in terms of what it wants it to do with the platform. I am not sure what 'I can't spec out an aircraft' means exactly but that may be something to system requirements and KPI's not being publicly shared.

Again, I can put together specs for a supersonic aircraft that is roughly F-22 weight and has a 760nmi combat range while subsonic. 28,000lbs of fuel onboard. 80k MTOW, 40k empty. ~12,000lbs of weapons. And those aren't crazy optimistic specs, most modern fighters have an MTOW that is twice their empty weight, give or take. The only question in there is if you can enclose a huge bay and all that fuel in 40klbs empty weight.

Thing is, I can't compare an F-22's range while supercruising, because I have no clue how the new engines will handle supercruise.

But F110s and F119s have very similar subsonic fuel consumption numbers. So I can make comparisons with that.

 

[Josh_TN]

I had thought the F119 was particularly thirsty as a consequence of the low bypass?

 

[Ainen]

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.

Strike aircraft against ASBM aren't that much of an answer. Dispersable, concealed fires aren't vulnerable to intruder action.
Persistent overhead can do it, but persistence overhead doesn't look all that rosy even in Yemen.

Also, while main threat to carrier today may still be AShBMs (i personally think it isn't the case anymore - if you're fighting off salvo and not the targeting loop, it's a very technical task to overwhelm your ABM capacity), it is also threat to everything else.
And fighters may very well have to take on at least part of ABM mantle.

And it would be rather ironic if USN, preparing for a status quo of 2010s(world where ASBMs still were a main, contestable threat), will enter with this preparation into the 2030s. Against PLAN as large - and suported by almost comical superiority in shipbuilding might - than itself.

 

[Josh_TN]

What do view as the main PRC threat? Its surface fleet?

 

[Ainen]

What do view as the main PRC threat? Its surface fleet?

PLA is very rapidly changing into peer threat.
I.e. yes, it very rapidly changes into symmetric threats.

Denial assets aren't less deadly than before, it's just parading within their reach against peer opponent won't end well. Having cripples when there's incoming surface force is ugly.

USN was stronger than IJN in 1941, and it could deliver a strike against home islands in 1942.
But only in 1945, after IJN visibly collapsed in late 1944, USN appeared near Japan in force.

 

[Josh_TN]

PLA is very rapidly changing into peer threat.
I.e. yes, it very rapidly changes into symmetric threats.

Denial assets aren't less deadly than before, it's just parading within their reach against peer opponent won't end well. Having cripples when there's incoming surface force is ugly.

USN was stronger than IJN in 1941, and it could deliver a strike against home islands in 1942.
But only in 1945, after IJN visibly collapsed in late 1944, USN appeared near Japan in force.

I have no doubt the PLAN is a peer threat, but typically surface ships are defensive in nature while aircraft and submarines (and now land based missiles) are used to sink ships. I suspect the USN surface fleet only accounted for a few dozen major surface combatants for the whole war.