USAF/US NAVY 6th Generation Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS news

Ozair said:
Happy to be corrected but I think continuing resolutions mean no funding increase can occur and the previously agreed budget just carries forward. It also limits the ability to start new programs or change funding limits and levels.
Click to expand...
CR's are temporary. If you are suggesting that we will be in continuous CRs for the rest of the decade then that is really not something that is going to happen. CR's cause delays and mess up new starts and other programs have to wait to ramp up as they can only be funded to previous FY levels when under CR. That doesn't mean that as administrations submit their budgets they have to honor FYDP funding profiles stated in their previous budgets. As I wrote earlier, if admin or service wishes to prioritize something based on where it is at in its analysis, it can dramatically alter the funding profile in the FYDP relative to what might have been in the out years as per the last 2-3 budget docs.

Ozair said:
What are you thinking, a further enhancement of the F414 or perhaps another in service engine such as the F135? The F135 feels maybe not quite big enough as a single and two likely too big for a carrier capable aircraft.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more in terms of a lower cost / less risky propulsion EMD program that is based on more mature technologies from a tech and mfg. readiness level. So a new clean sheet engine, just not one that blows budgets and assumes a lot of risk with untested or relative immature technology. Though certainly adapting something off the shelf could be an option. It really depends how big FA-XX will be and what the Navy wants in terms of performance.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
CR's are temporary. If you are suggesting that we will be in continuous CRs for the rest of the decade then that is really not something that is going to happen. CR's cause delays and mess up new starts and other programs have to wait to ramp up as they can only be funded to previous FY levels when under CR. That doesn't mean that as administrations submit their budgets they have to honor FYDP funding profiles stated in their previous budgets. As I wrote earlier, if admin or service wishes to prioritize something based on where it is at in its analysis, it can dramatically alter the funding profile in the FYDP relative to what might have been in the last 2-3 budget docs.
Click to expand...
No I'm not expecting CRs but I am expecting that there will be a continued cap on defence spending similar to the Fiscal Responsibility Act.

Additionally as already stated the USN has a budget issue, too many things to dev and build and not enough money when there are also readiness and manning issues.

bring_it_on said:
I was thinking more in terms of a lower cost / less risky propulsion EMD program that is based on more mature technologies from a tech and mfg. readiness level. So a new clean sheet engine, just not one that blows budgets and assumes a lot of risk with untested or relative immature technology. Though certainly adapting something off the shelf could be an option. It really depends how big FA-XX will be and what the Navy wants in terms of performance.
Click to expand...
While that is probably the lower risk approach I feel like the requirement for range makes an AETP derived engine a better option. The other issue is cost. Your suggestion is likely lower cost and we know the XA100/101 were not cheap and 102/103 likely the same. Even if GE or PW started today on a clean sheet new engine the timeline would be very close for IOC of the aircraft so timeframe might also be difficult.
 
FighterJock said:
$1 billion for F/A-XX dark sidius? Is that for the overall program?
Click to expand...
What I want to say is with a budget of 22.7 billions of research the Navy can find one billion for the FA/XX program, if they are in source selection they have the idea of want they want and how to fund it.
 
Ozair said:
No I'm not expecting CRs but I am expecting that there will be a continued cap on defence spending similar to the Fiscal Responsibility Act.
Click to expand...
Spending CAP's are on topline. Within that topline, the department and services are free to prioritize as they see fit. If the very top of the USN leadership is speaking about source selection and competition with follow on development, they would at least be willing to make the necessary changes to fund those wishes including seeking civilian approval. Or their program is less ambitious and requires significantly less funding through EMD compared to a high end 6th gen PCA the air force might have been considering.

I disagree about engine development. The EMD budget, risk, and timeline could potentially be dramatically different for developing an AETD/NGAP offshoot (scaled core etc) vs using more mature, less risky technology. NGAP itself was on the 2030s timeline the Navy seems to be on and it would be the highest risk, and lowest tech maturity option with about a 3 year head start assuming that the Navy has not funded engine work at all up to this point (at source selection) which does not seem likely. So whatever engines they think they can afford, are probably at some stage of TMRR / demonstrations in some classified space.
 
Last edited:
I’ve read and re-read the quoted October 2nd comments of CNO Franchetti regarding Navy FAXX. IMO, the Navy is entering the TMRR phase (see illustration), not EMD aka full-scale development. It appears highly unlikely the Navy has spent the kind of time and money needed to receive MS-B approval from USD-A&S LaPlante –the milestone at which the Air Force NGAD program recently stalled. Furthermore, I don’t read the CNO’s remarks as ruling out a 2-company competition in the TMRR phase.

Of course, if FAXX is actually headed toward a Super-Duper Hornet or Ultra Hornet, then an early down-select to 1 company and entry into EMD is quite possible.

1728046222168.png
 
That could be the way that the F/A-XX goes joewee. I would like that to happen for the down-select to be early and entry to EMD quicker than it othewise would be.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If Congress tries that, the Navy gets to say "With all due respect, Senator, the only time that worked is when the USAF bought aircraft designed for the Navy. USAF needs a lot more range, our airfields move and theirs don't. But we also have pretty hard limits on how big a plane can be and still take off and land from a carrier."

And then gets to say that FAXX is limited to ~85,000lbs MTOW and a landing weight with full weapons and minimal internal fuel of ~55,000lbs. While the USAF's published wish list for range means an aircraft that is closer to 105,000lbs max takeoff.
Click to expand...
Agreed, however in that context it would be the AF trying to explain to Congress why this is a bad idea (for all the reasons you stated). The Navy wouldn't be in that position, they can say "This platform best suits our requirements, and if the AF were to increase the buy, that would be fine with us." Because I don't think that Congress would merge the programs, but would instead force one service to buy the same fighter that the other one did, and the Navy's trying to get out ahead of that while Kendall tries to figure out exactly what it is he wants.
 
FighterJock said:
Thanks dark sidius, the Black Budget and it's mysterious ways of operating. That is where the NGAD F/A-XX should belong like the F-117A Nighthawk back in it's early days when it was classified as a SAP Level 1 program.
Click to expand...
The Black Budget is great for small, relatively cheap, relatively discrete projects - a few RQ-180s, 59 F-117As, etc. but also comes with drawbacks and limitations. (Look back to why the originally 'black' PWIII didn't fit the 'black' F-117A's weapons bays).
 
www.defensenews.com

Can the Air Force make its next-gen fighter jet cheaper than the F-35?

The Air Force wants to keep its next-generation fighter jet affordable without sacrificing capability. Some analysts warn it can't be done.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

www.twz.com

Navy Making Final Selection For F/A-XX Stealth Fighter, Plans For 2030s Service Entry

While the Air Force’s NGAD fighter initiative currently paused, the Navy is pushing ahead with its similar F/A-XX stealth jet program. With the Air Force’s NGAD currently paused, the Navy is pushing ahead with its F/A-XX carrier stealth fighter.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
Last edited:
Why does the USAF not do a Joint program with the US Navy in the first place and share some of the technology that would go into the NGAD F/A-XX designs, if the Air Force is getting serious about saving money then that could be the way forward. A common design with shared technology would be beneficial for both services, at least that is what I am currently thinking about right now.
 
FighterJock said:
Why does the USAF not do a Joint program with the US Navy in the first place and share some of the technology that would go into the NGAD F/A-XX designs, if the Air Force is getting serious about saving money then that could be the way forward. A common design with shared technology would be beneficial for both services, at least that is what I am currently thinking about right now.
Click to expand...

There are reasons why the USAF and USN have been pursuing their own separate NGAD programs for the better part of the past decade or so. The two programs have different goals, both the USAF and USN were burned by the JSF experience, and future operations require more than just a single platform solution (*ahem* F-35).

The F/A-XX is more of a multi-mission platform to replace the F/A-18E/F, whereas the USAF needs a long-range air superiority platform to pick up the mission set of the F-15 and F-22 before it. Can the Rhino perform air superiority? Yes. But the Raptor excels at it. Can the Raptor perform strike missions? It can and it has. But the Rhino is better suited for it. NGAD is a system of systems, it’s more than just a single air-dominance platform. It may be optionally manned or even unmanned. It’ll rely heavily on CCA. But F/A-XX will be more autonomous. It’ll work with CCA, but where are they going to stay when they’re not in use? There’s only so much space on the boat.

Secondly, you'd have too many cooks in the kitchen and there will be tradeoffs to appease the stakeholders. That was a big problem on the F-35 program. A design feature that may be beneficial for the USAF's mission may not be compatible with the US Navy's requirements and vice versa.Heavy-duty landing gear works for the Navy, but it's extra, unneeded weight for the Air Force. Folding wings are a requirement for carrier operations, but unnecessary for a land-based platform (again, unneeded weight and maintenance). So do you have two different wings, one for land and the other for the carrier? Then you lose commonality and cost-effectiveness in your production. What if the Joint-NGAD’s sea radar mode doesn't meet the requirements of what the Navy already uses? How much of a delay is that going to cause the program as a whole?

Some of the cost projections for the USAF's NGAD pointed to a platform that was potentially going to be larger than the YF-23, something approaching F-111 if not larger. That may be okay for the USAF with their nice, long runways and ample ramp space, but not for the Navy. Bigger planes means fewer planes you can take with you on the boat. It still has to fit within the confines of a carrier parking spot and be maintainable. Plus you still have to weigh low enough to recover back on the carrier without exceeding the weight limits of the arresting gear. A big reason the F/A-18E/F and F-35C have superior bring back - the amount of reserve fuel + ordnance the airframes can bring back to the carrier - compared to the F-14 is because both airframes don't weigh as much as the Tomcat.

As it currently stands, the F-35 JPO decides on what capabilities the F-35 gets in the future. Since you have the Air Force, Marines, Navy, and international partners all involved, you have multiple competing interests. So on a hypothetical Joint-NGAD program, if the Navy needs to focus on sea-search radar capabilities, and the USAF wants to focus on long range track, target, ID and engage…but the Navy has the least power since they're buying fewer aircraft, then guess who wins out?

However, the Navy controls its own fate on the Super Hornet just like how the USAF controls its own fate with F-15EX and F-22. So each program is owned by their own branch - because as much as people don't like to believe it, compromises were made to make the F-35 occur as it did, and not every compromise has aged as well as others. And that's ultimately what a lot of it comes down to. They want to focus on the unique/great capabilities of their respective programs, and not focus on having to integrate a bunch of "extra" stuff because other partner branches are also going to be reliant on that platform.

For example, because the F/A-XX and NGAD have different mission sets, the F/A-XX would have a wider portfolio of weapons that needs to be integrated onto it that NGAD just doesn't need. Being separate programs, this isn’t an issue for the USAF, but in a merged environment this changes.

We've seen this before on the F-35. Given the highly integrated nature of 5th and 6th Generation platforms. Like how do you integrate AIM-174, JSM, and AARGM at the same time without perhaps introducing compounding bugs? If the mission computer software is edited to integrate AARGM, you want to make sure the code that JSM is working with isn't going to break something that AARGM needs, and vice versa. It's been one of the biggest complaints of bugs reaching operational squadrons - new features come out, but then things break elsewhere. Imagine if Apple released a new iOS version that bricked everyone's ability to connect to WiFi - the phone still works, but you're missing a pretty important feature. No bueno.

Mind you, this is far from unique to modern fighters, which is part of why development cycles for fighters are as long as they are. But it's why its a tough nut to crack and soon you start looking at tradeoffs - do you spend the time and effort integrating JASSM on the Joint-NGAD because the Navy needs it when the Air Force doesn't and hope that doesn't set you back somewhere else more urgent?
 
Another factor to consider is that the Navy has traditionally placed a greater emphasis on loiter than the Air Force for fleet air defense purposes.

The stated fielding timeline is interesting the goal of fielding the F/A-XX by the mid-2030s, which on the surface seems rather ambitious. But I think it's also important to remember that naval aircraft tend to have somewhat shorter lifespans than land-based ones due the the rigors of carrier launch and recovery, so the F/A-18E/F Rhino fleet may need sooner recapitalization than the F-22 fleet. As far as being able to achieve that timeline, it all depends on the degree of risk and technological maturity that the Navy is pursuing.

At some point though, I do agree with the notion that you have to stop analyzing and just build a damn aircraft before the concept is studied to death. And if nothing else, I think that we should not allow the propulsion systems to stagnate.
 
Last edited:
bobbymike said:
www.defensenews.com

Can the Air Force make its next-gen fighter jet cheaper than the F-35?

The Air Force wants to keep its next-generation fighter jet affordable without sacrificing capability. Some analysts warn it can't be done.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
I expect that this will end up similar to the F-22 and F-35 dynamic. For NGAD to really be 6th gen it has to push some boundaries, similar to what the F-22 did. Then a few years later the F-35 came along and used all the lessons learned to make an affordable platform that in many respects is superior to its 5th gen sibling.

Question is, if manned NGAD does go the way of the F-22, boutique expensive capability, will there be a need and an appetite for a follow on manned aircraft or will AI and CCAs be capable enough that a follow on isn't required?
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
At some point though, I do agree with the notion that you have to stop analyzing and just build a damn aircraft before the concept is studied to death. And if nothing else, I think that we should not allow the propulsion systems to stagnate.
Click to expand...
I mentioned this once before, but at some point the DOD will build a super AI for research and development. It will be trained on centuries of military procurement history. As such, it will determine that the only sensible thing to do is to stop all new system procurement indefinitely, as by the time any new system comes out, there is already new research that can be used for new systems. The AI will recommend that we complete all possible research and development first, and build the ultimate weapon once there is nothing else to learn about the universe.
 
joshjosh said:
I mentioned this once before, but at some point the DOD will build a super AI for research and development. It will be trained on centuries of military procurement history. As such, it will determine that the only sensible thing to do is to stop all new system procurement indefinitely, as by the time any new system comes out, there is already new research that can be used for new systems. The AI will recommend that we complete all possible research and development first, and build the ultimate weapon once there is nothing else to learn about the universe.
Click to expand...

So you want the US DoD to implement Skynet;) :D ?
 
USN can get what it wants in time by measuring it's wishlist.
Overall, both USAF and USN problems are money problems. Inflation hits badly, and both have other big invoices to sign.

USAF wants to go lighter and cheaper, because smaller flying computer node is still just as good at being a node.
USN probably doesn't, because carrier limitations strongly favour heavy tailor-made planes. They however can go OTS(f-35 components are available); no need to immediately go for new engines/radar and other big pricetag items, when you can get away with mid block f-35 technically. Just one able to go to a right place and time.

Both make sense, because largest gains now are software/intercom ones in any case, both services don't need a bleeding edge hotrod, just a sufficient platform.
 
Last edited:
quellish said:
USN asked for a stealth fighter for Xmas, got the F-18E.

Let's be realistic about what the Navy asks for and what it actually gets.
Click to expand...
Making sorta twin f-35 with long loiter/dash, more range and decent oversized/bringback capability is not too dissimilar from f-18e program though.

Yes, it's a new plane and it'll cost, but it won't cost tens of billions.
At this point we started to forget that developing new platforms was actually fine in the past; it isn't fiscal death sentence unless one makes it so on purpose.
 

Rethinking FAXX -- Following the Army FLRAA Template

On second thought, the Navy FAXX may be following the Army’s FLRAA acquisition template. Mea Culpa: I am unfamiliar with any prior aircraft programs necking down to a single contractor well before MS-B, but things have apparently changed since I retired from the business.

Sources:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/820/818991.pdf
https://www.highergov.com/document/ja-flraa-capability-set-3-redacted-pdf-886f68/

The Army down-selected to 1 development contractor (Bell) in Dec 2022, not quite 2 years prior to MS-B approval in Aug 2024.

Bell was awarded a base contract with eight options over a 100-month period of performance. The initial base contract will deliver a virtual prototype and will complete a preliminary design review (PDR). Following MS-B, FLRAA will enter the EMD phase by exercising Option 1, working toward completion of CDR and the build of six prototype aircraft. The graphic shows the remaining 7 contract options, which include 3 options for yearly Contractor Logistics Support (CLS).

Picture1.png

Using the Army FLRAA approach, the Navy FAXX key milestones can be synthesized.
-----------
Concept Refinement, 3 contract awards: Mar 2020
Design Maturation, 3 contract awards: Aug 2023
System Development, 1 base contract award: Dec 2024
MS-B Approval: Aug 2026
System Development, Option 1 contract award: Oct 2026
-----------
Sources:
https://aviationweek.com/defense/bu...sign-maturation-competing-companies-announced
https://www.defensenews.com/air/202...viation-wing-must-choose-between-old-and-new/

The FAXX funding profile with an early down-select for the base contract may be feasible within the Navy's near-term budget realities. Under this plan, the big $$$ ramp-up for EMD is deferred until FY27 and beyond.

No time for major engine or advanced avionics development in this scenario, so it seems reasonable to assume that FAXX will be wrapped around the F-35 Block 4+ avionics suite and utilize a derivative turbofan, not NGAP.
 
Last edited:
joewee said:
The FAXX funding profile with an early down-select for the base contract may be feasible within the Navy near-term budget realities. Under this plan, the big $$$ ramp-up for EMD is deferred until FY27 and beyond.
Click to expand...
Makes sense with their funding issues and priorities to down select to a single vendor. Perhaps more risk given earlier selection and all three primes competing have indicated they won't sign fixed price contracts so there is wiggle room ahead for whoever wins.

joewee said:
No time for major engine or advanced avionics development in this scenario, so it seems reasonable to assume that FAXX will be wrapped around F-35 Block 4+ and utilize a derivative turbofan, not NGAP.
Click to expand...
An evolved F-35 was always one of the options for F/A-XX but I am inclined to believe it will be more than that. I couldn't see NG staying in if they believed an evolved F-35 was viable given it will cost a lot less than what Boeing and NG would have to build. If it is an option makes you wonder if LM will propose two options, an evolved F-35 and an all new airframe?
 
Ozair said:
An evolved F-35 was always one of the options for F/A-XX but I am inclined to believe it will be more than that. I couldn't see NG staying in if they believed an evolved F-35 was viable given it will cost a lot less than what Boeing and NG would have to build.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking less "F-35F Super Lightning" and more "new airframe using most of the F-35 avionics and a pair of F135 engines"


Ozair said:
If it is an option makes you wonder if LM will propose two options, an evolved F-35 and an all new airframe?
Click to expand...
I think the range demands are too high for FAXX, but if the USN is stupid enough to make a stretched F35 an option they're going to get it.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm thinking less "F-35F Super Lightning" and more "new airframe using most of the F-35 avionics and a pair of F135 engines"
Click to expand...
At what point though does the aircraft become too big to land on the carrier? If I read it correctly the Advanced Arrestor gear on the Ford class is capable of up to 70k lbs landing weight and the Mk7 was around the 60k lbs mark. Super Hornet had a max landing weight of 42k lbs so there is clearance for the F/A-XX to increase in size if necessary. I think the F-14 was the heaviest fighter to land and that was maxed at 54k lbs.

Two F135s mean the aircraft won't be cheap but would keep commonality with the Cee.
Scott Kenny said:
I think the range demands are too high for FAXX, but if the USN is stupid enough to make a stretched F35 an option they're going to get it.
Click to expand...
The oft mooted delta winged F-35E postulated here may have the range required but perhaps not the rest of the package needed to make it a 6th gen aircraft. Might also have a very high landing speed.
 
Last edited:
if USN satisfied off-the-shelf components, just need bigger stealth aircraft. There is a possibility for F135 X 2 engined stealth fighter-bomber.
 
A low risk approach that makes use of F-35 Block 4 mission system components (radar, EW, etc.) would make sense, but I think an airframe using two F135s may be too large. Perhaps an aircraft designed around two F110 derivatives may be more appropriate in size, especially as the base engine is quite mature and currently in production which reduces risk and cost, and can also leverage commercial CFM56 developments to improve performance and efficiency. Such a engine would not be optimized for supercruise speeds that the F-22 was designed for, but the Navy has traditionally placed a greater emphasis on loiter, so it may not be too big of a concern.
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
Perhaps an aircraft designed around two F110 derivatives may be more appropriate in size, especially as the base engine is quite mature and currently in production which reduces risk and cost, and can also leverage commercial CFM56 developments to improve performance and efficiency. Such a engine would not be optimized for supercruise speeds that the F-22 was designed for, but the Navy has traditionally placed a greater emphasis on loiter, so it may not be too big of a concern.
Click to expand...
If a current in service engine then reusing the F414 in the EPE variant makes sense. Navy already knows and is very happy with the engine, it is significantly lighter than the F110 and I expect they will be able to, with five years of concerted dev effort, get the thrust and durability close to the F110-129. Would also be a good export market for GE given that engine size has been popular on non US fighters.
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
A low risk approach that makes use of F-35 Block 4 mission system components (radar, EW, etc.) would make sense, but I think an airframe using two F135s may be too large.
Click to expand...
Twin f-119 projects (NATF, A/F-X, evolved tomcats) were norm, and they were by no means borderline. Maybe even swing wing, haha.
If anything, vanilla f-119 seemed to be a liability for the navy due to unnecessary focus on super cruise instead of specs that just matter more - exactly the ones where f-135 delivers.

Generation for the sake of generation is meaningless, planes aren't new iphones.
Such a plane can easily work with new oversized navy munitions (which current fleet clearly struggles with), and bring back deep strike and (proper) outer air battle, both highly relevant in the Pacific.
 
Last edited:
litzj said:
if USN satisfied off-the-shelf components, just need bigger stealth aircraft. There is a possibility for F135 X 2 engined stealth fighter-bomber.
Click to expand...
Did somebody say twin F135s?
 

Attachments

  • Phantom Works (4).mp4_snapshot_00.04_[2023.02.28_21.16.39].jpg
    Phantom Works (4).mp4_snapshot_00.04_[2023.02.28_21.16.39].jpg
    314.5 KB · Views: 79
  • Boeing_Phantom_Works_6th_Gen_Aircraft_1-326x245.jpg
    Boeing_Phantom_Works_6th_Gen_Aircraft_1-326x245.jpg
    14.4 KB · Views: 85
  • 230228-f71f63e94f41c4293c50ac8bc7dd285b (1).jpg
    230228-f71f63e94f41c4293c50ac8bc7dd285b (1).jpg
    62.3 KB · Views: 86
Ozair said:
At what point though does the aircraft become too big to land on the carrier? If I read it correctly the Advanced Arrestor gear on the Ford class is capable of up to 70k lbs landing weight and the Mk7 was around the 60k lbs mark. Super Hornet had a max landing weight of 42k lbs so there is clearance for the F/A-XX to increase in size if necessary. I think the F-14 was the heaviest fighter to land and that was maxed at 54k lbs.
Click to expand...
IIRC the catapults max out at 85-90k, and I was assuming that ~55k is the effective max for the arresting gear. Because most of the USN carriers are still Nimitz class, so we need to design to those limits, not the Ford limits.

But a pair of F135 engines means that the T:W ratio is dang close to 1:1 at takeoff. (where's the evil grin emoji on this forum?)
 
red admiral said:
Did someone say "isn't there meant to be a radar in the nose?"
Click to expand...

FighterJock said:
I suspect that there is an AESA radar in there, gone are the days of the big radome nose on traditional fighters.
Click to expand...

AESA does not equal "magic physics".

Even with AESA antenna size is important for range and resolution (detects smaller targets at a given range, detects the same target further away), due to the reality that more antenna area = more transmit/receive modules = more range/resolution.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom