Agree but I expect there is some fat so close to 60k for the Mk7 should be doable.
Was thinking though if you are going F135 size why then go F135, you might as well use the XA100/101. More expensive again than the F135 but you would design the platform to make full use of the adaptive advantage. That is a step change in range. The timeframe to productionise that engine would be suitable for F/A-XX.
More is always possible(for additional usd), but here I think we did more of a thought experiment on the most affordable navair boost program.
www.twz.com
They must built it no choice the Super Hornet start to be a tired and old plane and the F-35 will never maintain is promise and is not enough for the Pacific theater.Sure a mild upgrade and spiral update other systems in over time makes some sense. Problem is we know what the USN want and it is more than you are suggesting;
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.
Question is of those requirements what changes from the current generation?
Advanced sensors - You could argue APG-85 is probably as good a current system as can be bought today but will that be sufficient for a new build airframe in 2035... What else will be required from sensors, perhaps LIDAR, next gen EOTS and EODAS for certain.
Advanced Lethality - Is a AIM-260 and hypersonic ASM sufficient for increased lethality? Do we finally see some sort of Directed Energy Weapon especially if we have a twin engined behemoth with plenty of power generation available? It feels like 5th gen platforms are only finally now close to getting 5th gen weapons. How long would a notional 6th gen platform have to wait for weapons to match its capabilities?
Advanced Range - I expect an Adaptive cycle engine brings this. Simply building a bigger aircraft that holds more fuel but with current generation engines probably won't deliver the range increase the USN want or need.
Manned and Unmanned Teaming - No doubt that will be in place for the platform whether a minor upgrade or a full blown platform but where is the CCA that takes off and lands on a carrier going to come from? MQ-25 isn't sufficient nor capable enough for what the USN will need.
How about the EW mission. Will the F/A-XX incorporate the NGJ internally or will the USN push that mission to an unmanned platform.
Will F/A-XX be single or two seat or both?
USN likely have a good set of requirements, have three keen vendors and a slew of good technologies that are reasonably mature but their budget is the least certain aspect. Will the USN have the money to build what they want or will they have to compromise?
I don't think either of those statements are accurate assessments of the situation.
Another F-18.....?
Because the F135 is in production RIGHT NOW, and is common to the F35C.
The intention isn't for F/A-XX to field as soon as possible. It is intended to IOC in the early to mid 2030s. In that context there is plenty of time for the XA-100/101 to mature and be available. Commonality is good but not king, there are already a number of different engines on the boats so removing the F414 and adding the XA-100/101 won't make that much of a difference especially in the context of the rest of the changes that would come with F/A-XX replacing the SH.
I think that ship has sailed so to speak and it won't be happening any time soon. I expect even the smaller NGAP would be a better option than the F135 given the timeline of NGAP is approx 2028.
F-414 are great engines but already underperforming with the F/A-18E-F Super Hornet. Even with the hypothetical 20% thrust increase of the EPE, I don't think they would be a solution for the F/A-XX. With internal weapons bay(s) and the fuel needed for PTO, I don't see the XX being less than 20% heavier than the Bug. Meaning poor thrust to weight ratio, poor acceleration, marginal one engine out performance, poor kinetics (to increase weapons performance).
So say we disqualify an established airframe builder and award to a team that has never built a full-size combat aircraft and that's the team which falls behind on milestones and/or runs over on cost. What's the plan then?
The current understanding is only LM, NG and Boeing are bidding on F/A-XX. The smaller entrants may be subs but I expect the smaller entrants see more value and opportunity in CCAs and that is where they are focusing their efforts.
That makes no sense and almost certainly the USN wouldn't even award a contract to a vendor offering that. The set of requirements they are using will almost certainly require all aspect stealth and they have the f-35C reference point to work from. The USN has rotated a lot of personnel through the F-35 JPO so will have an excellent corporate knowledge of what they want.
It wasn't that long ago people were expecting NG to go to pieces if it didn't win B-21. Which to say both "NG's cooking" and "don't write off anyone."
At the very least the commercial aspects and past performance will be evaluated by the USN team running the tender and at that stage Boeing may not be looked at as favorable. Noting the contract won't be fixed price perhaps that becomes less of an issue, Boeing might be better positioned when the US Govt assumes some of the risk.
Most of Boeing's problems are Boeing Commercial, Boeing Military is just fine. Its got issues but so do the other two.
Yeah, it's blooming
www.defenseone.com
Honestly the whole thing sorta makes sense to me now. USAF cancelling NGAD because it doesn't see any credible opponent against who can create a qualitative and quantitative superiority against them in the near future (except for China). Additionally, the advancement on anti-stealth tech with medium-to long wave radars on the ground means the only design that can be truly considered stealthy will be broadband stealth designs, which are not compatible with fighter-like agility. And probably even those will be at risk of being shot down. That means only drones can do the job.
How do I know it isn't 20% NGAD? Like what are you basing your assumptions on since we know exactly zilch in terms of what the USAF requirements were for NGAD and what technologies it matured, and demonstrated for inclusion on it or what the two teams still in the running offered as part of their submission for EMD? And also not a whole lot is known about the GCAP for that matter.
You'd need to make a lighter airframe than an F14.
I don’t agree. Its engineering culture has eroded from the top down, it has a legacy cost base (non right to work states, labor unions, etc) and has not delivered a fully internally developed airframe since F-15 and C-17. Maybe I’m thinking about this all wrong and this is the perfect time to break up BA, put new “real (externally sourced) leadership” in Boeing Defense and Space and give them the scaled down PCA component of NGAD.
There are also areas that will drive weight higher. As a Fighter/Attack, I'd imagine that the F/A-XX would at least need internal weapons bay the size of the F-35C's, if not larger. For range and endurance, it would likely have to carry more internal fuel than the 16,200 lbs that the F-14 had.
I'm assuming closer to the A-12 bay size, room for 4x 2000lb plus 2x AMRAAM.
Yes, I'm assuming more like 25,000lbs if not more. Though since the F-35 carries some 18,000lbs and has a 1500nmi range, we're probably talking more like 35-40klbs of fuel internally to feed a pair of F135 engines.
It's not about the static thrust. It's about the logistic advantages of having one engine type across the air wing. Static thrust is a bonus.
That seems a bit big to me. I am thinking bay depths similar to the F-35 so 2x 2000 lbs plus AAM but longer to allow larger munitions in, such as JASSM. That may also allow for a separate bay for AIM-120 sized weapons similar to F-22 but not side mounted. Could even lengthen the bay to be just beyond 18ft which would allow SDB sized munition to be packed in three length wise.
F-35 is ~1500nmi one way.. A realistic F-35A/C combat radius on a high altitude profile would put it closer to 800 to 850nmi. I cannot see F/A-XX having 35k lbs of fuel especially if you want the payload to be as suggested above. That is where the Adaptive engines come into play to reduce the fuel use during cruise.
In most cases the best metric is the dry thrust. The aircraft won't want to be in afterburner for long periods so an engine that has high mil power but comparatively lower augmented thrust, like the F135 and F119, is the better option.
Well, in the A-12 that was 4x bays. AMRAAMs in two bays, and two bays each big enough to hold 2x 2000lb bombs (or more practically, 1x HARM/Harpoon and 1x 2000lb LGB/JDAM).
Well, the assumed combat radius I think the USN wants is on the order of 2000nmi. Which makes things ... complicated.
Right, but again the primary driver was logistic commonality with the F-35C.
