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

[books]

The strategy of sailing in out of range to launch a single strike a day is not really an effective one.
To be meaningful, a carrier would have to operate at range, days and night. Chinese defenses are not going to be eroded much otherwise.

During Vietnam, most carriers were stationed inside the range of North Vietnamese counter weapons. The massification of sorties and Defence they would have had to face just made it a loosing battle ground.

To replicate this sorties rate, there are no other way than extending the range of carrier based strike fighters on a cost effective way. That involves balancing their size to that effect with stealthy tankers and restricted mission set.

To be clear, I’m not at all proposing that the USN could do this alone.

My primary point was that the carriers will usually be outside of the range of less expensive Chinese missiles, and therefore also outside of range of attacks on the mainland.

My secondary point was that if they do come closer, it would at most be only briefly, and in combination with a massive US (and hopefully allied) attack involving a TON of incoming antiship missiles to be launched at Chinese convoys. This would involve not just lots of other missiles from the usual USAF suspects, but also Rapid Dragon style launches, a ton of Tomahawks and B-52 launched high end missiles, and so on. In such a case, mainland assets might be overstaturated in dealing with large quantities, but also challenged in being forced to contend with a diverse mix of hypersonics, LO and VLO, and more generic munitions, and in a heavy EM environment. Under such a case, it MIGHT be worth briefly exposing a CSG. But under any other case, no.

 

[books]

Lrasm and JASSM will be easily destroy by a strong air/air defense and fighter interceptor like J-20, you can't match the China by number, you can beat it by technology , offensive laser , hypersonic , strong stealth and speed fighter /bomber, you must disrupt the technology in face of China, impossible to win by number.

If the USN was launching a handful a day, that might well be true. If the Chinese are trying to handle dozens or hundreds in an afternoon, I don’t agree. Especially if the attack can be diversified with different munitions types, some LO/VLO cruise missiles, some hypersonic, some small and cheap but in greater numbers like JSM, etc.

Also though, as you’re pointing out, the F/A-XXes all of us are proposing would have tech advantages in ECM, EA, and probably BVR combat, as well as perhaps similar-to-the-J20-and-J35 WVR characteristics. While the F/A-XXes would be designed around strike, they’d have competitive air-air characteristics in kinematic terms, while having a clear electronic advantage…and, later, drones to help too. It’s not like we’re disagreeing on whether F/A-XX should have next gen tech…

And furthermore, lots of those Chinese escort ships are likely to be pretty damned busy dealing with USN submarines as well!

 

[Josh_TN]

The F/A-XX should be a fleet defence fighter first and a strike fighter second.

As pointed out in a previous post, long range strike can remove the need for fleet defense. Moreover if the primary threat is aeroballistic and hypersonic, high performance aircraft are not well suited to the defensive role anyway. Were a CSG to operate a thousand miles off the Chinese coast, it would be out of range unrefueled tactical aircraft and any land based missiles smaller than an MRBM/IRBM (only DF-26 comes to mind but my knowledge of PLARF weapons is not encyclopedic). At that range, there would be little requirement for a large cap force.

It’s also worth noting that if a large part of the air wing is dedicated to defensive fighters, then there is little density to any strikes launched. Launching a couple dozen munitions is a pointless exercise; strikes need to be more in the range of a hundred or more weapons to be effective, IMO.

 

[Josh_TN]

With the quality of weapons like the LRASM/JASSM, I don't think this is true anymore. I think a handful of F-35s carrying a pair of external LRASMs each are already fairly scary, and then if you supplement that with some F/A-XX carrying a pair of them internally and then maybe another pair externally, that should be a pretty scary prospect for Chinese shipping trying to move across the Straight. Or the same with some of the LRASM switched out for a larger quantity of JSM.

I think the AGM-158 family rather capable but nevertheless PLAN defenses will detect and engage them at closer ranges, and the subsonic speed means they can be readily engaged. In the short term, the solution seems to be MALD-N: give them a lot of other things to shoot down that are far cheaper, more plentiful, and can be carried in much larger numbers. In the medium term MACE or something like it fulfills the role of missile/jammer/decoy/etc on a common platform. Long term HALO hopefully comes into play.

 

[Ainen]

Umm, I think it's the USMC that would be saying that, not USAF. Although it's also a question for the F-35 forum maybe.

USMC would've preferred something much smaller, basic, servicable and affordable.

Too much capability is a con for the poorest service, which is way more than just a 3rd best western force.

And f-35 is so much investment and capability, that it makes USMC orbit around itself.

 

[books]

Were a CSG to operate a thousand miles off the Chinese coast, it would be out of range unrefueled tactical aircraft and any land based missiles smaller than an MRBM/IRBM (only DF-26 comes to mind but my knowledge of PLARF weapons is not encyclopedic). At that range, there would be little requirement for a large cap force.

It’s also worth noting that if a large part of the air wing is dedicated to defensive fighters, then there is little density to any strikes launched.

Yup. Sad though it is for everyone who always dreamed of a true Tomcat replacement for reasons as much, or more, emotional and aesthetic as practical.

And, as you said, using aircraft to intercept the tougher missiles is not wise.

Launching a couple dozen munitions is a pointless exercise; strikes need to be more in the range of a hundred or more weapons to be effective, IMO.

It’s not half bad as a supplement to a USAF surge though. A couple NGAD disrupting local defenses + some bomber-launched munitions + a wave of F/A-XX strikes could have outsize effects if properly coordinated.

I think the AGM-158 family rather capable but nevertheless PLAN defenses will detect and engage them at closer ranges, and the subsonic speed means they can be readily engaged. In the short term, the solution seems to be MALD-N: give them a lot of other things to shoot down that are far cheaper, more plentiful, and can be carried in much larger numbers. In the medium term MACE or something like it fulfills the role of missile/jammer decoy/etc on a common platform. Long term HALO hopefully comes into play.

I think JSM is a big part too. Pretty sure an F-35 can handle six of those at once, 2 internally and 4 externally. And then ECM and EA being huge parts of the picture as well…

 

[Josh_TN]

I think JSM is a big part too. Pretty sure an F-35 can handle six of those at once, 2 internally and 4 externally. And then ECM and EA being huge parts of the picture as well…

AFAIK the USN has no JSM purchases or any plans to do so. While the sub 1000 lb weight in theory should allow an F-18E/F to carry ten, I suspected main barrier is cost: I think it is still a $2 million missile. So actually buying them in hundreds or thousands is too costly. Range is also rather mediocre.

 

[yeetmahboi]

USMC would've preferred something much smaller, basic, servicable and affordable.

The USMC pursued a stealthy VSTOL fighter in the same time it took ATF to materialize. Later on those requirements were examined and found compatible with MRF, the USAF's would-have-been light component of the VLO force. The two programmes were then merged and through lots of politics and hurdles birthed the F-35 of today.

 

[books]

AFAIK the USN has no JSM purchases or any plans to do so. While the sub 1000 lb weight in theory should allow an F-18E/F to carry ten, I suspected main barrier is cost: I think it is still a $2 million missile. So actually buying them in hundreds or thousands is too costly. Range is also rather mediocre.

With USAF, RAAF, and I believe JASDF already investing in JSM, among others, I personally think it‘s extremely likely that the Navy will also end up with a bunch for NavAir, and possibly also for VLS. Sort of as a low end, high volume supplement to nicer items like LRASM and perhaps Tomahawk. Perhaps also as a bridge to MACE, or to large quantities thereof anyway…although with MACE being smaller (order of magnitude smaller warhead per Wikipedia, admittedly a feeble source), arguably they might be more complimentary.

Obviously, the F-35 integration and US standard certs will already be taken care of, so the barriers should be low, and IMO there would be a lot to be said for the Navy getting in on any available production line opportunities ASAP. With new lines coming in VA and Australia, my guess is that the opportunity will come along fairly soon.

In any case, JSM is clearly part of the USAF plan. That doesn’t prove that it would have an anti-shipping role like the LRASM/B-1 combo, but it very well might. I’m guessing it’s flexible, but that Chinese shipping is near the top of the target list.

 

[Ainen]

The USMC pursued a stealthy VSTOL fighter in the same time it took ATF to materialize. Later on those requirements were examined and found compatible with MRF, the USAF's would-have-been light component of the VLO force. The two programmes were then merged and through lots of politics and hurdles birthed the F-35 of today.

Their stealthy fighters were just much more basic.
But they've got a 30t high end, long range fighter-bomber. Which does the job, and way more of it than the basic necessity.

They're indeed compatible - just as Navy's.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Their stealthy fighters were just much more basic.
But they've got a 30t high end, long range fighter-bomber. Which does the job, and way more of it than the basic necessity.

They're indeed compatible - just as Navy's.

No arguments here. I think the Marines could have made do with a Harrier 3 solution. Was the AV-8Bs that much involved in deep interdiction that the aviators found LO desired? I was always more impressed by their ability to conduct CAS.
But the F-35 is history. Let history take its course. I think in the end the military acquired a terrific machine and many lessons for the future.

 

[Josh_TN]

With USAF, RAAF, and I believe JASDF already investing in JSM, among others, I personally think it‘s extremely likely that the Navy will also end up with a bunch for NavAir, and possibly also for VLS. Sort of as a low end, high volume supplement to nicer items like LRASM and perhaps Tomahawk. Perhaps also as a bridge to MACE, or to large quantities thereof anyway…although with MACE being smaller (order of magnitude smaller warhead per Wikipedia, admittedly a feeble source), arguably they might be more complimentary.

Obviously, the F-35 integration and US standard certs will already be taken care of, so the barriers should be low, and IMO there would be a lot to be said for the Navy getting in on any available production line opportunities ASAP. With new lines coming in VA and Australia, my guess is that the opportunity will come along fairly soon.

In any case, JSM is clearly part of the USAF plan. That doesn’t prove that it would have an anti-shipping role like the LRASM/B-1 combo, but it very well might. I’m guessing it’s flexible, but that Chinese shipping is near the top of the target list.

USAF has budgeted a buy of ~500 as a bridge to F-35 LRASM integration. AFAIK that is the only US purchase and IMO given its cost and current production rate, is likely to remain so. The USN already has its MALD/LRASM combo and JSM adds little to that. It has shown little interest in any single use VLS missile; it already passed on VL-LRASM with tomahawk and SM-6 being the anti surface weapons of choice (with NSM for small ships). There is no role for JSM to fill and at $2 mil, there is no financial reason to buy it - it is not a low end weapon. The next generation of USN SOW will be more lightweight, longer ranged, and less expensive. Warhead size will suffer, but it does not take much to disable a surface combatant or set a full landing ship on fire.

 

[bring_it_on]

A 500 missile inventory as a 'bridge' to a weapon with a planned 689 missile inventory?

 

[red admiral]

Their stealthy fighters were just much more basic.
But they've got a 30t high end, long range fighter-bomber. Which does the job, and way more of it than the basic necessity.

Were the ASTOVL aircraft really lighter and more basic? I don't see what capability USMC cuts off F-35B, and that's very much the variant driving both A and C

 

[kqcke for you]

Were the ASTOVL aircraft really lighter and more basic? I don't see what capability USMC cuts off F-35B, and that's very much the variant driving both A and C

As far as i can tell it only adds requierments and size to the aircraft

 

[books]

USAF has budgeted a buy of ~500 as a bridge to F-35 LRASM integration. AFAIK that is the only US purchase and IMO given its cost and current production rate, is likely to remain so. The USN already has its MALD/LRASM combo and JSM adds little to that. It has shown little interest in any single use VLS missile; it already passed on VL-LRASM with tomahawk and SM-6 being the anti surface weapons of choice (with NSM for small ships). There is no role for JSM to fill and at $2 mil, there is no financial reason to buy it - it is not a low end weapon. The next generation of USN SOW will be more lightweight, longer ranged, and less expensive. Warhead size will suffer, but it does not take much to disable a surface combatant or set a full landing ship on fire.

I think the JSM might actually offer two significant advantages, at least: another already existing production line (by the time of a possible Navy buy anyway), and that cost advantage you mentioned, ~2 mil vs ~3 for LRASM.

600 missiles for the price of 400, just to throw around notional amounts, from a wholly separate production line sounds like a pretty appealing supplement to me, even if LRASM is quite a bit better. IMO it would set up something of a hi-lo mix in near or near-ish term anti-ship missiles, on a schedule perhaps similar to the USN’s rather sedate pace of fielding the F-35.

Nothing against MACE or HALO, I’m just talking about a nearer term option. With larger volleys and copious jamming support, I think it could be pretty darn annoying for the PLAN. I very much doubt any of us, for example, would feel relaxed about the idea of a few dozen of these coming at some ships we were on! These advantages aside, I do admit it’s not cheap, is indeed similar go but worse than things USN already has, and has nothing unique to offer that we know of — those points are more than fair. But a cheaper makeweight with its own factory is darned good news for USN, imo.

 

[joshjosh]

Remember that the DOD has options for cheaper cruise missiles, if they'll actually invest. There's the Enterprise Test Vehicle, and Anduril's Barracuda line.

 

[kqcke for you]

I think the JSM might actually offer two significant advantages, at least: another already existing production line (by the time of a possible Navy buy anyway), and that cost advantage you mentioned, ~2 mil vs ~3 for LRASM.

But you trade range, stealth and probaly destructive power for it. JSM around half the range of lrasm which means we have to get closer

 

[bring_it_on]

I think the JSM might actually offer two significant advantages, at least: another already existing production line (by the time of a possible Navy buy anyway), and that cost advantage you mentioned, ~2 mil vs ~3 for LRASM.

600 missiles for the price of 400, just to throw around notional amounts, from a wholly separate production line sounds like a pretty appealing supplement to me, even if LRASM is quite a bit better. IMO it would set up something of a hi-lo mix in near or near-ish term anti-ship missiles, on a schedule perhaps similar to the USN’s rather sedate pace of fielding the F-35.

Nothing against MACE or HALO, I’m just talking about a nearer term option. With larger volleys and copious jamming support, I think it could be pretty darn annoying for the PLAN. I very much doubt any of us, for example, would feel relaxed about the idea of a few dozen of these coming at some ships we were on! These advantages aside, I do admit it’s not cheap, is indeed similar go but worse than things USN already has, and has nothing unique to offer that we know of — those points are more than fair. But a cheaper makeweight with its own factory is darned good news for USN, imo.

AF FY25 request (AUR Cost): JSM $2.8 MM ; LRASM $3.0 MM. There may be several good reasons to invest in an inventory of JSM. But cost advantage vs LRASM is unlikely to be one of them.

 

[books]

AF FY25 request (AUR Cost): JSM $2.8 MM ; LRASM $3.0 MM. There may be several good reasons to invest in an inventory of JSM. But cost advantage vs LRASM is unlikely to be one of them.

I’m not familiar with the term AUR. Do you suppose that that price for JSM is representative of what the missile will cost once the line is fully up and ironed out, the flyaway cost of the missile if you will?

I ask because I’m wondering if the costs of setting up the US factory described in the link below are temporarily inflating its cost.

KONGSBERG to Establish Missile Factory in the US

Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace (‘KONGSBERG’) is building a state-of-the-art missile production facility in the United States to meet global demand, following expansion in Norway and the recently announced missile factory in Australia. Located near key US Navy facilities, the site in James City...

www.kongsberg.com

But you trade range, stealth and probaly destructive power for it. JSM around half the range of lrasm which means we have to get closer

Closer, but internal on an F-35, with the signature and fuel efficiency advantages that go along with those.

Remember that the DOD has options for cheaper cruise missiles, if they'll actually invest. There's the Enterprise Test Vehicle, and Anduril's Barracuda line.

The more the merrier as far as I’m concerned. The more capacity and competition the better, even for comparable products. And if some of the become notably cheaper or better, then all the more so.