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

[Moose]

No one is putting two F135s in anything.

There's a chance B-21 has two F135-derived turbines.

 

[doolyii]

No one is putting two F135s in anything.

F135 is huge compared with F100 class engines...(F119 as well).. can't imagine putting those two and become 'fighter''... more like F111 / bomber...

 

[Scott Kenny]

F135 is huge compared with F100 class engines...(F119 as well).. can't imagine putting those two and become 'fighter''... more like F111 / bomber...

F111B, but yes. I'm picturing FAXX being the size of an F111 or so.

 

[kqcke for you]

F111B, but yes. I'm picturing FAXX being the size of an F111 or so.

If we only Go after EMALS capabilitys then around a 100.000Ibs is possible with a 130 knots of speed. But with the requierments of an nimitz we are limited to 80.000 Ibs for a 140 knots if u remember it right.

On the side note i hope for FCAS NGF to max out the possible MTOW making it a giant.

Edit: well an Ford designed F/A-XX could work in Nimitz but with a lot of limitations if it wasn't taken into consideration while development as 20.000 Ibs less is alot which means lower payload and fuel capacity.

 

[Avimimus]

The NGAD on the other hand...

 

[Magnum_Force]

Realistically I think the Navy will have to except an OR rather than an AND for the fuel / payload requirement. So you can have a plane with X total weight, and depending on mission that might mean Y fuel load and Z weapons load, or Z weapons load and Y fuel load.

If you want the stand off ranges then you'll have to accept that weapons load will have to be reduced for that particular flight/mission.

They'd be best to start with a look at what the minimum weapons load for a given affect they can get away with, then design a plane that can carry that minimum load as far as it possibly can, with the caveat that space used to store fuel will need to be able to be repurposed to carry a heavier weapons load at the expense of fuel.

 

[joshjosh]

If we only Go after EMALS capabilitys then around a 100.000Ibs is possible with a 130 knots of speed. But with the requierments of an nimitz we are limited to 80.000 Ibs for a 140 knots if u remember it right.

On the side note i hope for FCAS NGF to max out the possible MTOW making it a giant.

Edit: well an Ford designed F/A-XX could work in Nimitz but with a lot of limitations if it wasn't taken into consideration while development as 20.000 Ibs less is alot which means lower payload and fuel capacity.

At current Ford build rates, Nimitz carriers will have to operate until almost the 2070s. Nimitz carriers will be 50% of the carrier force around the year 2050. It doesn't seem feasible to build an aircraft that is primarily designed to work on the minority of carriers. The Nimitz carriers would be sitting ducks without F/A-XX interceptors, compared to the Ford carriers. I doubt congress would allow this, even if the Navy wanted it.

 

[Ozair]

Realistically I think the Navy will have to except an OR rather than an AND for the fuel / payload requirement. So you can have a plane with X total weight, and depending on mission that might mean Y fuel load and Z weapons load, or Z weapons load and Y fuel load.

If you want the stand off ranges then you'll have to accept that weapons load will have to be reduced for that particular flight/mission.

They'd be best to start with a look at what the minimum weapons load for a given affect they can get away with, then design a plane that can carry that minimum load as far as it possibly can, with the caveat that space used to store fuel will need to be able to be repurposed to carry a heavier weapons load at the expense of fuel.

As kqcke for you alluded to earlier it is possible the USN could accept an aircraft that was hobbled for Nimitz class. For example for A2G missions the aircraft would take off with a low fuel state and link up with the MQ-25 as it flies out to execute its mission. For A2A the loadout would mean less munition weight but still likely fuel required from the MQ-25. Certainly not ideal but possible.

At current Ford build rates, Nimitz carriers will have to operate until almost the 2070s. Nimitz carriers will be 50% of the carrier force around the year 2050. It doesn't seem feasible to build an aircraft that is primarily designed to work on the minority of carriers. The Nimitz carriers would be sitting ducks without F/A-XX interceptors, compared to the Ford carriers. I doubt congress would allow this, even if the Navy wanted it.

F/A-XX isn't expected to reach IOC before the early 2030s while the USN expects, going by the current schedule, to have 5 Ford class by 2036 and you would expect 8 by 2050. Again not ideal but workable.

​

 

[Scott Kenny]

If we only Go after EMALS capabilitys then around a 100.000Ibs is possible with a 130 knots of speed. But with the requierments of an nimitz we are limited to 80.000 Ibs for a 140 knots if u remember it right.

[...]

Edit: well an Ford designed F/A-XX could work in Nimitz but with a lot of limitations if it wasn't taken into consideration while development as 20.000 Ibs less is alot which means lower payload and fuel capacity.

Remember that F-111B was ~85klbs MTOW, not the 100+ of the USAF versions.

Also, even a "heavy" load of say, 10x AMRAAMs and 2x AIM9s is only 4000lbs. Nobody has said how heavy the AIM260s are, but I'll go with ~400lbs for them, to allow F16s to continue using BVRAAMs on their wing tips. It's conceivable that they'll be 500lbs each, Sparrow weight, due to high density propellants, which would make the BARCAP mission load 5500lbs.

Means that a ~42klbs empty fighter could have ~35klbs of fuel onboard!

On the side note i hope for FCAS NGF to max out the possible MTOW making it a giant.

I expect that even if France develops their own version of EMALS instead of buying the US system, it'll still give about the same MTOWs as the US version.

I don't know that the French will aim for a 90+klb MTOW, however. Just because that means a physically huge aircraft that takes up a lot of hangar space and limits how many planes you can put in the air wing.

Realistically I think the Navy will have to except an OR rather than an AND for the fuel / payload requirement. So you can have a plane with X total weight, and depending on mission that might mean Y fuel load and Z weapons load, or Z weapons load and Y fuel load.

If you want the stand off ranges then you'll have to accept that weapons load will have to be reduced for that particular flight/mission.

They'd be best to start with a look at what the minimum weapons load for a given affect they can get away with, then design a plane that can carry that minimum load as far as it possibly can, with the caveat that space used to store fuel will need to be able to be repurposed to carry a heavier weapons load at the expense of fuel.

I suspect that the CONOPS will be ~85klbs launch weight with some 4000lbs of AAMs onboard for BARCAP. (maybe 5500 if AIM260s are really heavy). On the order of 30+klbs of internal fuel, minimum.

And ideally internal volume for a good 20klbs of A2G boom, but you'd take off with much less fuel than the BARCAP mission (~15klbs internal fuel) and so have to hit the tanker before the raid departs.

 

[Josh_TN]

I suspect the Nimitz limits largely stand. For the USN, even a thousand miles would probably be a useful range, and you could probably squeeze that out of an F-35 sized and powered airframe if you could ignore the USMC length restrictions. Certainly any more efficient engine could get you there, even the existing upgrade. This will not IMO be a super large twin engine; the costs benefit ratio just doesn’t work out.

 

[Ozair]

Remember that F-111B was ~85klbs MTOW, not the 100+ of the USAF versions.

Also, even a "heavy" load of say, 10x AMRAAMs and 2x AIM9s is only 4000lbs. Nobody has said how heavy the AIM260s are, but I'll go with ~400lbs for them, to allow F16s to continue using BVRAAMs on their wing tips. It's conceivable that they'll be 500lbs each, Sparrow weight, due to high density propellants, which would make the BARCAP mission load 5500lbs.

Means that a ~42klbs empty fighter could have ~35klbs of fuel onboard!

42k lbs empty weight seems optimistic to me.

I expect that even if France develops their own version of EMALS instead of buying the US system, it'll still give about the same MTOWs as the US version.

I don't know that the French will aim for a 90+klb MTOW, however. Just because that means a physically huge aircraft that takes up a lot of hangar space and limits how many planes you can put in the air wing.

France has already ordered EMALS for their new carrier. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...-wins-emals-order-for-frances-future-carrier/ Whether it is the length of the Ford class I don't think is clear.
I cannot see a French FCAS carrier aircraft being anywhere near that weight.

I suspect the Nimitz limits largely stand. For the USN, even a thousand miles would probably be a useful range, and you could probably squeeze that out of an F-35 sized and powered airframe if you could ignore the USMC length restrictions. Certainly any more efficient engine could get you there, even the existing upgrade. This will not IMO be a super large twin engine; the costs benefit ratio just doesn’t work out.

An Adaptive engine to an F-35C could potentially see the airframe hit close to 1000nm but F-35, even an evolved one, isn't a 6th gen aircraft. The question comes back to what is 6th gen, what will the USN accept and where will they compromise on weight and subsequently cost.

 

[Scott Kenny]

42k lbs empty weight seems optimistic to me.

It probably is, depends on how much of the airframe is composite versus metal. 46k is more likely, but every extra lb of empty weight is 1lb less fuel carried. So there's going to be a serious push for weight control in FAXX because it's MTOW-limited.

France has already ordered EMALS for their new carrier. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...-wins-emals-order-for-frances-future-carrier/ Whether it is the length of the Ford class I don't think is clear.
I cannot see a French FCAS carrier aircraft being anywhere near that weight.

I'm honestly assuming that the French would want the longest cats available. Not least because it lets them launch US planes easily.

The size of the Rafale was determined by the elevator size on Foch or Clem, and weight by catapults on CdG. FCAS will not enter service before the new carrier is built, so it can be as big as whatever the elevators are on the new carrier and however heavy the new catapults can handle.

An Adaptive engine to an F-35C could potentially see the airframe hit close to 1000nm but F-35, even an evolved one, isn't a 6th gen aircraft. The question comes back to what is 6th gen,

Well, let's see here... 3rd gen was the start of true multirole aircraft (F-4), 4th Gen focused on maneuverability, 5th gen was stealth and supercruise, 6th gen is sounding like range, better stealth than 5th gen, and CCAs.

what will the USN accept and where will they compromise on weight and subsequently cost.

If the USN is relatively in a hurry to get FAXX flying, they can insist on the same avionics as F-35C and use a pair of F135 engines. All off the shelf, only development time is the airframe. Doing this has a lot of logistics advantages in commonality, though the pair of F135s will suck a lot of fuel. This will also tend to be less expensive than other options, because everything but the airframe is already developed. It still won't be cheap, per-plane costs will be more than F35Cs just because of the extra engine and larger airframe.

 

[kqcke for you]

42k lbs empty weight seems optimistic to me.

France has already ordered EMALS for their new carrier. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...-wins-emals-order-for-frances-future-carrier/ Whether it is the length of the Ford class I don't think is clear.
I cannot see a French FCAS carrier aircraft being anywhere near that weight.

Same / 1m shorter than Fords

France Orders First Long Lead Items for PANG Aircraft Carrier Program - Naval News

The French MoD has awarded the first contract for the order of long lead items for the PANG new generation aircraft carrier program.

www.navalnews.com

 

[Ozair]

It probably is, depends on how much of the airframe is composite versus metal. 46k is more likely, but every extra lb of empty weight is 1lb less fuel carried. So there's going to be a serious push for weight control in FAXX because it's MTOW-limited.

I look at weight to fuel ratios. F-35A is 29k empty weight and 18k of fuel, F-35C is 34k lbs and 19.25k lbs of fuel. F-22 is 43k empty weight and 18k of fuel. If you want an internal payload the size you have been suggesting as well as two engines just don't see how you could get more than about 25k of fuel at best. The saving grace is the generational change engine technology.

I'm honestly assuming that the French would want the longest cats available. Not least because it lets them launch US planes easily.

The size of the Rafale was determined by the elevator size on Foch or Clem, and weight by catapults on CdG. FCAS will not enter service before the new carrier is built, so it can be as big as whatever the elevators are on the new carrier and however heavy the new catapults can handle.

Is a new French carrier going to be longer than QE which is itself almost 50m shorter than a Nimitz?

Well, let's see here... 3rd gen was the start of true multirole aircraft (F-4), 4th Gen focused on maneuverability, 5th gen was stealth and supercruise, 6th gen is sounding like range, better stealth than 5th gen, and CCAs.

I'm not convinced yet that CCAa are a generation defining attribute. I think propulsion over range is a more defining characteristic given it appears like we won't see an adaptive engine back ported to a 5th gen platform.

If the USN is relatively in a hurry to get FAXX flying, they can insist on the same avionics as F-35C and use a pair of F135 engines. All off the shelf, only development time is the airframe. Doing this has a lot of logistics advantages in commonality, though the pair of F135s will suck a lot of fuel. This will also tend to be less expensive than other options, because everything but the airframe is already developed. It still won't be cheap, per-plane costs will be more than F35Cs just because of the extra engine and larger airframe.

Just doesn't seem realistic to me. Based on the size and fuel carried I gave for F-35 and F-22 above you wouldn't get range or payload from that type of airframe. I wouldn't go with F135 for commonality over the NGAP which will be smaller, perhaps similar thrust and likely 25% more efficient.

 

[Ozair]

Same / 1m shorter than Fords

France Orders First Long Lead Items for PANG Aircraft Carrier Program - Naval News

The French MoD has awarded the first contract for the order of long lead items for the PANG new generation aircraft carrier program.

www.navalnews.com

Interesting, so very close to the same length on a vessel 25 meters shorter...

 

[kqcke for you]

Remember that F-111B was ~85klbs MTOW, not the 100+ of the USAF versions.

Also, even a "heavy" load of say, 10x AMRAAMs and 2x AIM9s is only 4000lbs. Nobody has said how heavy the AIM260s are, but I'll go with ~400lbs for them, to allow F16s to continue using BVRAAMs on their wing tips. It's conceivable that they'll be 500lbs each, Sparrow weight, due to high density propellants, which would make the BARCAP mission load 5500lbs.

Means that a ~42klbs empty fighter could have ~35klbs of fuel onboard!

All depends on empty weight, range requierments (SPFC) and how mutch drones are supposed to do.

I expect that even if France develops their own version of EMALS instead of buying the US system, it'll still give about the same MTOWs as the US version.

Buying the same / 1m shorter systems

I don't know that the French will aim for a 90+klb MTOW, however. Just because that means a physically huge aircraft that takes up a lot of hangar space and limits how many planes you can put in the air wing.

The Air wing is small anyway with around 30 NGF jets planed

I suspect that the CONOPS will be ~85klbs launch weight with some 4000lbs of AAMs onboard for BARCAP. (maybe 5500 if AIM260s are really heavy). On the order of 30+klbs of internal fuel, minimum.

And ideally internal volume for a good 20klbs of A2G boom, but you'd take off with much less fuel than the BARCAP mission (~15klbs internal fuel) and so have to hit the tanker before the raid departs.

A2G could allways be given to F-35C on Nimitz class carrier with F/A-XX more in an A2A role which as you wrote is in general mutch lighter. What is or probaly should be are the engines. Adaptive engines are the best compromise for 2 compromises. 1 for a higher SPFC and the other for enhanced kinematics and speed. Both are needed so i think its hard for them to work around it.

 

[kqcke for you]

Interesting, so very close to the same length on a vessel 25 meters shorter...

But a lot less fighter for example. For now around 30 are planned and atleast some E-2's.

 

[Ozair]

But a lot less fighter for example. For now around 30 are planned and atleast some E-2's.

And I assume likely not to sustain the same number of sorties for as long a period as the Ford/Nimitz.

 

[kqcke for you]

And I assume likely not to sustain the same number of sorties for as long a period as the Ford/Nimitz.

Yeah probaly but drones and other stuff will probaly come too like that one based on Neuron. Tought while around 30 sounds bad we have to remember thats just 40 rafales right now.

 

[Ozair]

Yeah probaly but drones and other stuff will probaly come too like that one based on Neuron. Tought while around 30 sounds bad we have to remember thats just 40 rafales right now.

I don't think 30 is bad at all although could easily se that reducing based on as you say drones replacing NGF. The QE is designed for about 35 but the key is sustaining operations for 5 days.

The QEC has magazine capacity to support around 400 sorties, assuming a ‘maximum effort ‘110 strike sorties on day one, followed by a further 5-6 days sustaining about 50 sorties per day.

Are the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers too big? | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

 

[Ainen]

At current Ford build rates, Nimitz carriers will have to operate until almost the 2070s. Nimitz carriers will be 50% of the carrier force around the year 2050. It doesn't seem feasible to build an aircraft that is primarily designed to work on the minority of carriers. The Nimitz carriers would be sitting ducks without F/A-XX interceptors, compared to the Ford carriers. I doubt congress would allow this, even if the Navy wanted it.

F-14s operated that way for significant part of their career. F-35s and even Superbugs aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
If they can't accept an affordable big bad bird - they just can't. Carriers can operate together, or be at risk for skipping on the necessary heavy platform.

Well, let's see here... 3rd gen was the start of true multirole aircraft (F-4), 4th Gen focused on maneuverability, 5th gen was stealth and supercruise, 6th gen is sounding like range, better stealth than 5th gen, and CCAs.

I frankly struggle to see that 6th gen can do for CCAs that f-18e with updated console and datelinks can't.

Moreover - while CCAs are attractivr for naval aviation from many aspects(deck servicing, size), in general, deck capability favours the most multirole and heaviest platforms feasible. Heavier aircraft aren't proportionally larger, but they are disproportionately more capable.
Also, no one will give carrier time to respot under air attack, much less an ASBM strike.

 

[BlackBat242]

F-14s operated that way for significant part of their career. F-35s and even Superbugs aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

For a good part of the F-14's career (about 1/3) there were only 2-3 USN carriers that it could not operate from (the various Midway class CVs), and 10-13 that it could (all Forrestal, all Kitty Hawk, JFK, and all CVNs).

For the other 2/3 there were NO USN carriers the F-14 could not operate from.

If you are trying to count the two modified Essex class carriers that were still around when the F-14 made its first deployment in September 1974, note that Hancock decommissioned in January 1975 (and had been in the pre-decommissioning process for months before that) and Oriskany decommissioned in September 1976, having ended her last deployment in March of that year... when there were no more than 3 air wings with F-14s in them. So the question of those two carriers never entered the F-14 capability equation at all.

Even the Midways could have operated F-14s on an emergency basis - their catapults were strong enough (only Coral Sea would have restricted the F-14's take-off weight at all) as were their arresting gear and decks - the issue was that two specific maintenance procedures could not be performed in the hangar, due to height restrictions.

 

[NMaude]

the issue was that two specific maintenance procedures could not be performed in the hangar, due to height restrictions.

What were those procedures?

 

[Ainen]

For a good part of the F-14's career (about 1/3) there were only 2-3 USN carriers that it could not operate from (the various Midway class CVs), and 10-13 that it could (all Forrestal, all Kitty Hawk, JFK, and all CVNs).

For the other 2/3 there were NO USN carriers the F-14 could not operate from.

If you are trying to count the two modified Essex class carriers that were still around when the F-14 made its first deployment in September 1974, note that Hancock decommissioned in January 1975 (and had been in the pre-decommissioning process for months before that) and Oriskany decommissioned in September 1976, having ended her last deployment in March of that year... when there were no more than 3 air wings with F-14s in them. So the question of those two carriers never entered the F-14 capability equation at all.

Even the Midways could have operated F-14s on an emergency basis - their catapults were strong enough (only Coral Sea would have restricted the F-14's take-off weight at all) as were their arresting gear and decks - the issue was that two specific maintenance procedures could not be performed in the hangar, due to height restrictions.

Thanks, noted.
Though I can add, that (1)it's unlikely there will be aircraft Nimitz can't operate on any basis(i.e. under some restrictions; Nimitz class was certainly good for NATF and A/F-X), (2)Nimitz can be upgraded, and (3)there were big long-ranged aircraft before Tomcat which indeed operated only from small part of the fleet(Savage to Vigilante).
So the precedent is very much here.

 

[Scott Kenny]

A2G could allways be given to F-35C on Nimitz class carrier with F/A-XX more in an A2A role which as you wrote is in general mutch lighter. What is or probaly should be are the engines. Adaptive engines are the best compromise for 2 compromises. 1 for a higher SPFC and the other for enhanced kinematics and speed. Both are needed so i think its hard for them to work around it.

Again, the problem there is that you're adding a new logistics path to the fleet for adaptive engines. Because they're not getting backfitted to F-35s for fleet commonality reasons there (Apparently they couldn't make the 3-stream engine work with the 3-bearing swivel nozzle on the F-35Bs).

If we allow a new engine, that delays getting FAXX in service by however long it takes to get the A102/103 engines reliable.

My whole point was using as much off the shelf and reasonably debugged hardware as possible and just sticking it into a new airframe, exactly like how the F14 was made in the first place. Idea being that we'd get a first flight some 5 years from now, not 10-20.

 

[Ozair]

I frankly struggle to see that 6th gen can do for CCAs that f-18e with updated console and datelinks can't.

From a data link perspective F-18e doesn't currently posses an LPI data link so there would be tactical implications a 4th gen platform would have operating CCAs compared to a 5th gen. That means less sharing of sensor data to the host platform and likely more autonomy expected of the CCA. F-18 could conceivably deploy MADL in an external pod but I doubt that represents an optimal solution compared to a 5th gen platform.

Again, the problem there is that you're adding a new logistics path to the fleet for adaptive engines. Because they're not getting backfitted to F-35s for fleet commonality reasons there (Apparently they couldn't make the 3-stream engine work with the 3-bearing swivel nozzle on the F-35Bs).

The USN hasn't specified a low logistics footprint as a requirement for F/A-XX. Frankly I just don't think it worries them.

If we allow a new engine, that delays getting FAXX in service by however long it takes to get the A102/103 engines reliable.

The benefit the 102/103 provide outweighs the logistic and any potential delays to service.

My whole point was using as much off the shelf and reasonably debugged hardware as possible and just sticking it into a new airframe, exactly like how the F14 was made in the first place. Idea being that we'd get a first flight some 5 years from now, not 10-20.

USN is targeting early to mid 2030s. Some systems can come off the shelf but not all of it needs to or should. The platform has to meet the advanced range, sensors and lethality that the CNO recently mentioned. They don't get that from recycling existing systems...

 

[BlackBat242]

What were those procedures?

According to this article in Naval Aviation News July 1979, ejection seat removal and landing gear drop checks - see the notes at the bottom of the chart on the 4th page (pg 11) referencing the "clear hangar height" line in the chart:

 

[Scott Kenny]

The USN hasn't specified a low logistics footprint as a requirement for F/A-XX. Frankly I just don't think it worries them.


The benefit the 102/103 provide outweighs the logistic and any potential delays to service.


USN is targeting early to mid 2030s. Some systems can come off the shelf but not all of it needs to or should. The platform has to meet the advanced range, sensors and lethality that the CNO recently mentioned. They don't get that from recycling existing systems...

First flight in 2030 means IOC in roughly 2035 at the earliest, if we're using all established systems. The F-35 took 10 years from First Flight to IOC. F-22 took ~8 years.

 

[FighterJock]

First flight 2030 and IOC in 2035? That would make it the same entry into service as the GCAP.

 

[Geo]

First flight in 2030 means IOC in roughly 2035 at the earliest, if we're using all established systems. The F-35 took 10 years from First Flight to IOC. F-22 took ~8 years.

And T-7 flew in 2016...

 

[kqcke for you]

First flight 2030 and IOC in 2035? That would make it the same entry into service as the GCAP.

Assuming nothing happens too both

 

[FighterJock]

And we do not want nothing like that to happen to both programs kqcke for you.

 

[kqcke for you]

And we do not want nothing like that to happen to both programs kqcke for you.

Yeah but i assume luck is never on my side so prepare for the worst and accept what you get. Same for FCAS of MGCS. Those can go really wrong or even exceed expectations but with existing open information its really hard to tell where its going. But based on what they stated i assume a lot of work is already done and atleast the Navy knows what they want and probaly can get. Same for GCAP which probaly relies heavily on F-X work done by Japan which looked like the first in service 6th gen fighter anyway.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And T-7 flew in 2016...

New airframe, new systems, old engine.

 

[Hydroman]

Maybe an initial NGAD: New airframe, new systems, install upgraded F135s then in another block move to New Adapted Propulsion?

 

[Josh_TN]

Maybe an initial NGAD: New airframe, new systems, install upgraded F135s then in another block move to New Adapted Propulsion?

Only makes sense if there’s no three stream engine available, and I thought was one of the key enabling technologies of NGAD and FA-XX. I would think sans that, what does it bring over a stretched F-35 for far less cost?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Maybe an initial NGAD: New airframe, new systems, install upgraded F135s then in another block move to New Adapted Propulsion?

Eh, maybe?

In the time you get the new systems worked out, you should have 3-stream engines available for install.

 

[Ozair]

First flight in 2030 means IOC in roughly 2035 at the earliest, if we're using all established systems.

I don't think an earlier IOC happens just because the engine is in service today so I think your use of all is not accurate. If they wanted to risk reduce they could go with an existing engine and then put an adaptive engine in later on but I still doubt that will happen.

If we look at original Super Hornet Blk 1 had essentially a new engine but existing avionics and radar. Depending on the F/A-XX selected vendor that seems a good option, an LM, Boeing or even NG aircraft could transpose their respective mission systems across and then upgrade as newer systems arrive. Frankly though I wonder if the USN would want to tie itself to F-35 avionics. Things are likely to improve but running with that overhead could make things ugly.

The F-35 took 10 years from First Flight to IOC. F-22 took ~8 years.

As the sole customer I expect the USN will have a shorter time from first flight to IOC than comparable programs. SH Blk 1 first flight was Nov 1995 and IOC was Sep 2001.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don't think an earlier IOC happens just because the engine is in service today so I think your use of all is not accurate. If they wanted to risk reduce they could go with an existing engine and then put an adaptive engine in later on but I still doubt that will happen.

Not just engines, also using the F-35 avionics.

As the sole customer I expect the USN will have a shorter time from first flight to IOC than comparable programs. SH Blk 1 first flight was Nov 1995 and IOC was Sep 2001.

I'd hope they could get it faster, but I'm not betting on it.

 

[Bounce]

The future of the Air Force’s next-generation combat jet will be decided by the end of the year, the service’s top officer said Oct. 25.

“We intend to have that by December,” Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin said at the Military Reporters and Editors Conference in Washington, D.C. “We also want to be able to influence the Department’s Presidential Budget Submission in February.”

NGAD Review to Finish Before End of Year, Allvin Says

The panel determining the fate of the Air Force’s future manned fighter (NGAD) will provide its recommendations by the end of 2024.

www.airandspaceforces.com