No, the opposite.
If it is "information overload", imagine what variant of overload will strike when you don't use sensor fusion! Neck overload maybe...
Sensor fusion literally reduces information load.
Are you referring to the vision system and Mike's comments on it based on where the link takes us? If so a couple of thing to note, Mike has never flown the jet he is only basing it off his friends who have transitioned to the jet. Additionally almost all his friends will be former F-15E aircrew as he was a WSO in that jet. Now what we know is the older guys who transition to the F-35 from a different jet take more time to get used to the system. The longer time taken is to comprehend the wider battlespace they now have access to. New aircrew who have not flown a different fighter before transition far quicker as they know no different.
Blk 3 today is still good enough to fly and fight effectively. Israeli F-35s made a mess of Iran and while Iran isn't a near peer it gives you an idea of what the jet is already capable of.
.
Iran have nothing to see with China , Iran is still in the years 90 for his Air Force and A/A defense. Any modern 4th gen Fighters can strike in Iran. We can't take the strike in Iran in reference for saying F-35 is above with his capacity, don't think it will be the same In Turkey or Saudi Arabia or China Air defense. The real full capacity will be in Block4 and Block5.That's why I said "if"
Everyone acknowledges the capabilities of The F-35.
Of course.
Clean sheet engine is the opposite of "as cheap as possible". Maybe a modified engine? NGAP without the 3rd stream?
Yes, NGAP is an adaptive engine sized for USAF's NGAD propulsion requirements. With clean sheet, I meant something leveraging existing,more mature, technology which may be cheaper than an adaptive engine for Navy thrust and performance requirements.
Oh, I understood what you're aiming for. Just thinking an NGAD engine, without the 3rd-stream would be smaller and cheaper (than the full NGAD engine). And less of a redesign than making a smaller F135. Wouldn't want to go all the way down to an F414 EPE because you'd just be duplicating a Super Hornet/ J-31, roughly, and they need more than that.
I don't think clean sheet is the best term to use though. USN has specifically said not NGAP related propulsion and used the term derivative.. Derivative to me speaks to a growth pathway from a current in service engine and not NGAP and I cannot see the USN funding a new engine design even if it was based on NGAP.
aviationweek.com
www.flightglobal.com
I was thinking something like one of the newer CFM HPTs and the F136 fan section, maybe?
An slight change needed which confused me for a few moments. The GE is the XA-100, not the 101 which is the P&W engine. Interesting statement though given we have been lead to believe that the XA-102 is what GE would be offering for NGAP. Unless the statement from Larry Culp is more generic, he used the term "Our XA-one hundred engine" unless the detailed design is the XA-102?
I agree with your suggestions. I doubt the F/A-XX can get much bigger than the F-14 anyway given as we know weight limits for the existing carrier fleet. Question would be does that get the USN what they actually need for range? Weapons and sensors and teaming probably should be fine but range would be the concern.
The F-110 make sens it flly everyday and it is in a production for the F-15 EX it have plenty of power.
I thought about the F119 (and would love F/A-XX to be a supercruiser) but figured it would be too spendy and it's out of production. A pair of F119s with 2D TVC would be great.
If the USN could really commit, move at a decent pace and stay focused on F/A-XX they probably have a good chance even to manage cost. The F135 engine probably would be a good choice initially to get an aircraft produced and moving (the engine is in "production"), use the "Block XX" methodology to upgrade the aircraft over time. It's quite possible the F135 and a new adaptive propulsion engine may probably have the same installation envelope requirements for a high-thrust fighter-type engine.
At the moment the answer is no given we know they have reduced their own budget for F/A-XX in favour of modernisation, https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03...x-fighter-spending-for-near-term-investments/ and then the Senate followed the reduction, https://simpleflying.com/us-senate-defense-bill-90-percent-budget-cut-us-navy-fa-xx/
I can't see how any 6th gen aircraft is going to come in at F-35 prices. Potentially the only way the USN gets close if if they go for a very high rate short build period. They could opt for a 100 a year build rate and replace the fleet rapidly over that short time period but would require very good coordination from Industry and far stronger signals from Congress for Industry to take them seriously.
That's right. A $90 Million CTOL and a $100-120 MM CV is very competitive in the late 2020s. Obviously that's not a reason to not do something new but one can appreciate why Greg Ulmer was really pissed off when they nuked the adaptive engine for the F-35..that would have set them up nicely in the 2030s against alternatives costing 50-100% more.
I'm not seeing the same signals you are seeing. At the moment I cannot see the budget rising significantly especially if the direction remains for readiness.
It is the lowest risk option. Hopefully that puts paid to people thinking the USAF would have any interest in the platform.
The funding proposal for FY25 essentially keeps the PMO alive with no money left for a winning vendor to start the process.
Yes was a shame, would have been interesting to see how much additional capability they could have extracted out of the airframe with an adaptive engine. An enhanced F-35 was an early option for F/A-XX and may still be what LM have proposed but likely an opportunity wasted.
The signals from the USAF have been that more money if needed is manned NGAD goes ahead. I expect the USN will have to decide between hulls and aircraft like the USAF may have to decide between manned NGAD, NGAS etc.
