USAF/USN 6th Gen Fighter - General Discussion and Speculation

[Ainen]

I still think that FAXX will be able to do the old Tomcat BARCAP mission (or maybe even the F-111B version), but yes, I also think long range strike is a much bigger weight for FAXX than BARCAP abilities.

Those come together.
Range is range.

 

[Josh_TN]

Question: is there any radar technology that would allow a low SWAPC CCA to do long distance ranging of a known target more efficiently than a modern AESA set? If I passively detect a target such that i know right where to point my beam to establish a track, and I am solely using my emitter in this mode an ignoring search capability or any other radar modes, are their compromises that can be made to lower my SWAPC needs out to a given range/m2 size? Alternatively, would a laser be less SWAPC intensive for developing a target track at a given range?

 

[Cordy]

Question: is there any radar technology that would allow a low SWAPC CCCA to do long distance ranging of a known target more efficiently than a modern AESA set? If I passively detect a target such that i know right where to point my beam to establish a track, and I am solely using my emitter in this mode an ignoring search capability or any other radar modes, are their compromises that can be made to lower my SWAPC needs out to a given range/m2 size? Alternatively, would a laser be less SWAPC intensive for developing a target track at a given range?

CCCA?

 

[yeetmahboi]

I still think that FAXX will be able to do the old Tomcat BARCAP mission (or maybe even the F-111B version), but yes, I also think long range strike is a much bigger weight for FAXX than BARCAP abilities.

I see is as a "return of the Intruder" situation instead. VLO subsonic strike airframe with FADF jammed in. The A-6 was a superb attacker and with some mods can take on the role of a Missileer. Why couldn't this one?

Doing away with stuff that demands high G ratings can help immensely, since airframes are still super expensive (as in 30-40% of the total cost breakdown) nowadays.

 

[Ainen]

Question: is there any radar technology that would allow a low SWAPC CCCA to do long distance ranging of a known target more efficiently than a modern AESA set?

Any simpler radar tech I guess, if you can provide low cost energy.
Just bruteforce firing solution.

I see is as a "return of the Intruder" situation instead. VLO subsonic strike airframe with FADF jammed in. The A-6 was a superb attacker and with some mods can take on the role of a Missileer. Why couldn't this one?

Aircraft in question is still assumed to be supersonic/fighter capable.
A-12 was the last intruder - you can afford such strike platform only together with air2air aircraft.

No such luxury is possible anymore, even if it would be nice.

 

[yeetmahboi]

is there any radar technology that would allow a low SWAPC CCCA to do long distance ranging of a known target more efficiently than a modern AESA set?

The thing is AESA can go super cheap these days, and are much more power efficient. Heck, maybe AIM-260 will even dispense with a MMW parabolic antenna for an APAR. Planar seems like the current ultimate goal of all things sensor and we are moving toward OPAs now.

Alternatively, would a laser be less SWAPC intensive for developing a target track at a given range?

Well, I think factoring in range, RF would be more efficient. Laser has to burn through weather.

 

[Josh_TN]

CCCA?

Misspelled - CCA. Collaborative Combat Aircraft.

 

[F119Doctor]

The bigger reason is that it saves time to IOC.

F110s or even F119s are already certified, even a CFM56-7 HP spool has millions of hours on it now. I'm really thinking that a modified F110 will end up what goes into FAXX, because the CFM56 spool is even more efficient in subsonic cruise.

I know that GE has indicated that an advanced F110 would use the latest CFM56 core. Despite their common origins and the CFM56 commercial certification, this may not be as easy as it sounds.

The CFM56, like most modern high bypass turbofans, utilizes active clearance control on the high compressor, high and low turbine, where fan or compressor bleed air is directed thru pipes around the core where it is directed at the cases to cool and thermally shrink them in a controlled manner to reduce the blade tip clearances and improve efficiency. This weight and complexity is not compatible with fighter engine requirements nor with the rapid throttle transients seen in fighter operations. I know in the F119 and F135, a lot of design effort when into passive clearance control.

In addition, fighter engines see much higher levels of inlet airflow distortion due to high AOA maneuvering. This distortion does continue thru the fan and is felt by the HPC. While the F110 core handles this well, the CFM56 HPC with its “advanced aero” and loss of its active clearance control might not.

Not saying GE would not be able to handle these challenges with the CFM56 core, but it is not necessarily a bolt-in solution and would require development time and $$$.

 

[Josh_TN]

The thing is AESA can go super cheap these days, and are much more power efficient. Heck, maybe AIM-260 will even dispense with a MMW parabolic antenna for an APAR. Planar seems like the current ultimate goal of all things sensor and we are moving toward OPAs now.

Well, I think factoring in range, RF would be more efficient. Laser has to burn through weather.

For the purposes of counter air, I’m assuming targets are largely above weather, or if low, then good: they are at a kinetic disadvantage and burning more fuel.

But more broadly what I am looking for is a way to establish range and velocity vector on an LO target after initial IRST or ESM detection along a bearing with the low power and cooling capabilities of something like the Incr1 airframe (or the XQ-67A OBSS). And it sounds like there is not really a technology better than existing AESA to do that.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Aircraft in question is still assumed to be supersonic/fighter capable.

Quite possible. After all interceptions still take place on a regular basis and super missiles isn't the end of all things.

A-12 was the last intruder - you can afford such strike platform only together with air2air aircraft.

Not arguing against but I can imagine the dorito planform could've pulled decent shots at altitude and coupled with a belly load of AMRAAMs and Sidewinders... A DCA effort to the highest proportion.

 

[FlyGuy369]

I know that GE has indicated that an advanced F110 would use the latest CFM56 core. Despite their common origins and the CFM56 commercial certification, this may not be as easy as it sounds.

The CFM56, like most modern high bypass turbofans, utilizes active clearance control on the high compressor, high and low turbine, where fan or compressor bleed air is directed thru pipes around the core where it is directed at the cases to cool and thermally shrink them in a controlled manner to reduce the blade tip clearances and improve efficiency. This weight and complexity is not compatible with fighter engine requirements nor with the rapid throttle transients seen in fighter operations. I know in the F119 and F135, a lot of design effort when into passive clearance control.

In addition, fighter engines see much higher levels of inlet airflow distortion due to high AOA maneuvering. This distortion does continue thru the fan and is felt by the HPC. While the F110 core handles this well, the CFM56 HPC with its “advanced aero” and loss of its active clearance control might not.

Not saying GE would not be able to handle these challenges with the CFM56 core, but it is not necessarily a bolt-in solution and would require development time and $$$.

How will inlet distortion look for this?

 

[Sundog]

The F/A-XX will be a stealthier SH, but with the range/loiter the USN always wanted. By carrying most of the load internally, they won't have to be concerned with drag inducing canted pylons for good weapon separation; I'm looking at you SH. I'll show myself out.

 

[bring_it_on]

The F/A-18E has a combat radius of 463 nautical miles with 3 external tanks + 2 AIM-9 + 4 MK 83 LD on Low Drag Pylons + FLIR pod. The F-35C does something like 668 nautical miles with 2 x 2,000 lb bombs and AIM-120's and internal fuel. Would be interesting to see what that greater range the Navy demands of the F/A-XX. F-35C + 30% (ACE upgrade) would have gotten the Navy a mission radius approaching 900 nautical miles. Something in the 800-1000 nautical mile class should probably the floor for the Pacific optimized F/A-XX which is significant increase from the SH so is probably going to eat up bulk of the cost of the platform (leading to high-speed performance and perhaps stealth as areas they look to stay conservative on to save cost).

 

[F119Doctor]

How will inlet distortion look for this?

If I am interpreting that drawing correctly, it is showing over the shoulder inlets behind the cockpit. Not saying it can’t be designed and developed with low levels of distortion, but past attempts haven’t been favorable, especially at high AOA.

Just so show the challenge, the F119 in the F-22 has been shown to be virtually stall proof at any combination of AOA and sideslip, until they reached -60 degrees AOA. Even then, the engine didn’t stall until they reached 30-40 degrees of sideslip, with only the engine on the lee side of the nose stalling due to extreme inlet distortion.

 

[Josh_TN]

If I am interpreting that drawing correctly, it is showing over the shoulder inlets behind the cockpit. Not saying it can’t be designed and developed with low levels of distortion, but past attempts haven’t been favorable, especially at high AOA.

Just so show the challenge, the F119 in the F-22 has been shown to be virtually stall proof at any combination of AOA and sideslip, until they reached -60 degrees AOA. Even then, the engine didn’t stall until they reached 30-40 degrees of sideslip, with only the engine on the lee side of the nose stalling due to extreme inlet distortion.

Wow, that’s an astounding envelope.

 

[FlyGuy369]

If I am interpreting that drawing correctly, it is showing over the shoulder inlets behind the cockpit. Not saying it can’t be designed and developed with low levels of distortion, but past attempts haven’t been favorable, especially at high AOA.

Just so show the challenge, the F119 in the F-22 has been shown to be virtually stall proof at any combination of AOA and sideslip, until they reached -60 degrees AOA. Even then, the engine didn’t stall until they reached 30-40 degrees of sideslip, with only the engine on the lee side of the nose stalling due to extreme inlet distortion.

So, with that in mind, what I have seen is flow effectors around the inlets via pressurized air valves, I imagine that could be a solution to flow distortion.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

The bigger reason is that it saves time to IOC.

F110s or even F119s are already certified, even a CFM56-7 HP spool has millions of hours on it now. I'm really thinking that a modified F110 will end up what goes into FAXX, because the CFM56 spool is even more efficient in subsonic cruise.

That is understandable if it does result in a faster IOC, but even so there should still be plans to switch to an XA-series engine later. While supercruise performance doesn't seem to be a requirement of F/A-XX it sounds like such an engine would provide plenty of other benefits, notably increasing operational range. It would be a shame for the new fighter to not reach its full potential because of an unwillingness to incorporate a next-gen afterburning turbofan.

The F/A-XX is certainly intended as the Super Hornet replacement, but I think there is a good argument to be made for strong supersonic performance, at least better than what current NAVAIR fighters can do. Generally speaking, the Navy can't afford to cut corners on this one. Without the right aircraft all of the CVNs in the world and their escorts don't mean very much. It has to be capable of defeating the best of the Chinese fighters that the PLAAF and PLAN would be sending out to try to blind and suppress the carrier strike group. The USN may be impressed by the performance of the radar on the E-2D, but without the right sort of fighter defending the fleet they'd probably still be shot down. And without those eyes in the sky things will rapidly get a lot worse.

 

[Ozair]

But more broadly what I am looking for is a way to establish range and velocity vector on an LO target after initial IRST or ESM detection along a bearing with the low power and cooling capabilities of something like the Incr1 airframe (or the XQ-67A OBSS). And it sounds like there is not really a technology better than existing AESA to do that.

A low cost AESA that is operating in FMCW would likely fit the bill and not be cost prohibitive. Good for ranging and because it has a long duty cycle uses low power. Can also be combined with multiple other LPI technologies to make the signal very difficult to intercept or jam. Using a FMCW AESA LIDAR would also be possible but I'm not sure on the range of that type of system.

Would be interesting to see what that greater range the Navy demands of the F/A-XX. F-35C + 30% (ACE upgrade) would have gotten the Navy a mission radius approaching 900 nautical miles. Something in the 800-1000 nautical mile class should probably the floor for the Pacific optimized F/A-XX which is significant increase from the SH so is probably going to eat up bulk of the cost of the platform (leading to high-speed performance and perhaps stealth as areas they look to stay conservative on to save cost).

I still think LM may be bidding two designs, a modified F-35C with potentially a newer engine and a more advanced design. While a modified F-35C will have some compromises the cost benefit will be immense. If you consider what the USN want again,

analysis shows it must have longer range and greater speed, incorporate passive and active sensor technology, and possess the capability to employ the longer-range weapons programmed for the future

https://theaviationist.com/2024/11/16/u-s-navy-f-a-xx-update/
most of that could be met with a modified F-35C. Will cost to get to that point but likely that cost may be lower than a clean sheet design.

Not sure on what Boeing and NG will offer other than they will be new clean sheet aircraft as neither has a viable aircraft in production that could be modified.

The F/A-XX is certainly intended as the Super Hornet replacement, but I think there is a good argument to be made for strong supersonic performance, at least better than what current NAVAIR fighters can do. Generally speaking, the Navy can't afford to cut corners on this one. Without the right aircraft all of the CVNs in the world and their escorts don't mean very much. It has to be capable of defeating the best of the Chinese fighters that the PLAAF and PLAN would be sending out to try to blind and suppress the carrier strike group. The USN may be impressed by the performance of the radar on the E-2D, but without the right sort of fighter defending the fleet they'd probably still be shot down. And without those eyes in the sky things will rapidly get a lot worse.

Likely the design with internal weapons carriage, two engines and large fuel load would lead itself to good supersonic performance anyway. Will be interesting to see if any of the designs for F/A-XX go tailless or retain a more conventional configuration to keep costs down.

The USN is pretty clear on the capability for fleet defence being necessary but not the first priority,

“The central focus of its design is to be able to conduct long-range fires, sea control and those types of missions. Inherent in its design is its ability to participate in fleet defense,” Donnelly says. “We can’t afford to have a break-glass capability or a really unique single-mission or single-phase-of-operation focus.”

Above link.

The more we hear about F/A-XX the more likely it will never be classed as a 6th gen aircraft but will be a 5.5 gen bridging fighter.

 

[Josh_TN]

That is understandable if it does result in a faster IOC, but even so there should still be plans to switch to an XA-series engine later. While supercruise performance doesn't seem to be a requirement of F/A-XX it sounds like such an engine would provide plenty of other benefits, notably increasing operational range. It would be a shame for the new fighter to not reach its full potential because of an unwillingness to incorporate a next-gen afterburning turbofan.

The F/A-XX is certainly intended as the Super Hornet replacement, but I think there is a good argument to be made for strong supersonic performance, at least better than what current NAVAIR fighters can do. Generally speaking, the Navy can't afford to cut corners on this one. Without the right aircraft all of the CVNs in the world and their escorts don't mean very much. It has to be capable of defeating the best of the Chinese fighters that the PLAAF and PLAN would be sending out to try to blind and suppress the carrier strike group. The USN may be impressed by the performance of the radar on the E-2D, but without the right sort of fighter defending the fleet they'd probably still be shot down. And without those eyes in the sky things will rapidly get a lot worse.

USN carriers defensively have a lot of advantages against opposing aircraft. If they lack anything it’s sufficient magazines for ABM defense. As for offensive power against opposing ships, that quite honestly will be delivered by standoff weapons. I think all the USN is looking for is an all aspect stealth aero shell with long range and deep internal payload. The F-18 has a lot of hard points and capacity, but not a lot of range and no LO characteristics.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think any LM submission would probably recycle the F-135 but just use an airframe that better conforms to the area rule and lacks vertical stabilizers. You could do a lot with that power plant if you had something longer with more internal volume. It would not be as maneuverable as F-35, but then I doubt that is what the USN is looking for. I suspect kinematics could still be F-35 like with less frontal surface area/better following of the area rule and a single common existing engine would have massive cost savings combined with a common upgrade path.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Those come together.
Range is range.

Well, yeah, but I was trying to say that the focus was on strike missions. That long range strike happens to equal lots of fuel to loiter on is nothing more than a happy convenience as far as the USN is concerned.

I know that GE has indicated that an advanced F110 would use the latest CFM56 core. Despite their common origins and the CFM56 commercial certification, this may not be as easy as it sounds.

[...]

Not saying GE would not be able to handle these challenges with the CFM56 core, but it is not necessarily a bolt-in solution and would require development time and $$$.

Bugger.

Of course it's not a bolt-in solution...

*pinches bridge of nose*

The F/A-18E has a combat radius of 463 nautical miles with 3 external tanks + 2 AIM-9 + 4 MK 83 LD on Low Drag Pylons + FLIR pod. The F-35C does something like 668 nautical miles with 2 x 2,000 lb bombs and AIM-120's and internal fuel. Would be interesting to see what that greater range the Navy demands of the F/A-XX. F-35C + 30% (ACE upgrade) would have gotten the Navy a mission radius approaching 900 nautical miles. Something in the 800-1000 nautical mile class should probably the floor for the Pacific optimized F/A-XX which is significant increase from the SH so is probably going to eat up bulk of the cost of the platform (leading to high-speed performance and perhaps stealth as areas they look to stay conservative on to save cost).

Except that the F-35s will not change to an Adaptive engine until someone figures out how to 3-stream the -B model engine. F-35 JPO is VERY firm on that.

The idea of a "Super Lightning" ("Chain Lightning"?) for the LockMart FAXX is interesting. -C wing and F135 engine, but stretched out for proper area ruling? Could be one heck of a pretty plane!

 

[uk 75]

The big US carriers need a plane that can be packed full of long range missiles to take on airborne threats and strike surface targets.
I am not sure whether the USAF needs such a platform for these roles. It has the B21 on order for global strike. The F35 can take on most likely interception roles.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The big US carriers need a plane that can be packed full of long range missiles to take on airborne threats and strike surface targets.
I am not sure whether the USAF needs such a platform for these roles. It has the B21 on order for global strike. The F35 can take on most likely interception roles.

The USAF wants a long range "escort fighter" (Penetrating Counter-Air). The relatively-safe bases in the event of a fight with China make for a 3000nmi range requirement (1000-1500nmi combat radius).

Given the mission, I halfway expect the name to be Mustang II or Thunderbolt III.

 

[Ainen]

The F35 can take on most likely interception roles.

That it can't, and it's impossible to fix.

Arguably, the whole point of f/a-xx is to leave f-35c what it should've been and suits it the best.

I.e. ideal replacement for good old a-7, at the same time superior to hornets.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

I still think LM may be bidding two designs, a modified F-35C with potentially a newer engine and a more advanced design. While a modified F-35C will have some compromises the cost benefit will be immense. If you consider what the USN want again,
https://theaviationist.com/2024/11/16/u-s-navy-f-a-xx-update/
most of that could be met with a modified F-35C. Will cost to get to that point but likely that cost may be lower than a clean sheet design.

I doubt Lockheed Martin is proposing a modified F-35C based on statements from the Navy so far regarding some of the attributes. For appreciable range improvements, the F-35C would need the AETP engine (XA100 or XA101), an entirely new 3-stream adaptive engine rather than the derivative turbofans that the Navy stated that the F/A-XX proposals have. The F-35's derivative turbofan, the F135 ECU, will not be significantly improving range since its main focus is durability and cooling capacity.

While the Navy does appear to be trending towards a lower risk approach for F/A-XX, I'm not sure if a modified F-35C would even be able to provide the capabilities being sought, and the description of the attributes thus far makes me doubt that this is what Lockheed Martin is proposing either.

 

[Ozair]

That it can't, and it's impossible to fix.

It is the most capable fighter ever fielded from an aircraft carrier and even if land based is more capable than almost every other comparable aircraft. While the Cee has some quirks it is still an incredibly capable aircraft that will hold its own for the next 20 years at least.

Arguably, the whole point of f/a-xx is to leave f-35c what it should've been and suits it the best.

I.e. ideal replacement for good old a-7, at the same time superior to hornets.

You would hope that F/A-XX will outperform the F-35C else the USN will have wasted a lot of money...

I doubt Lockheed Martin is proposing a modified F-35C based on statements from the Navy so far regarding some of the attributes. For appreciable range improvements, the F-35C would need the AETP engine (XA100 or XA101), an entirely new 3-stream adaptive engine rather than the derivative turbofans that the Navy stated that the F/A-XX proposals have. The F-35's derivative turbofan, the F135 ECU, will not be significantly improving range since its main focus is durability and cooling capacity.

It is a suggestion on my part based on original F/A-XX options of which a modified F-35 was a candidate and also the business side of me that suggests a low ball upgrade option is sometimes worth a play even when they have a higher end product available as well. There would clearly be compromises made!

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

This article from 2011 also hinted at the PW9000 being a potential candidate for F/A-XX. The article also mentions microcircuit cooling and tip blowing as cooling methods for the increased OPR of the design, based on patents submitted by Pratt & Whitney. Perhaps @F119Doctor can elucidate us a bit on the details to the extent that he's permitted?

P&W gears up for next-generation military engine

Patent applications offer clues to Pratt & Whitney's next-generation military engine, which could borrow from the manufacturer's commercial geared turbofan

www.flightglobal.com

Also, here's something else to consider from General Electric aside from an evolved F110; according to AW&ST and AFM, the company's AETD demonstrator engine (precursor to the XA100) had a compressor based on the CFM LEAP, for which the company is responsible for the hot section. With a more conventional low spool, this could possibly be another avenue for a derivative engine.

Engines of Innovation | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Real propulsion breakthroughs may be ready to leave the lab and enter the fleet.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[Ainen]

It is the most capable fighter ever fielded from an aircraft carrier and even if land based is more capable than almost every other comparable aircraft. While the Cee has some quirks it is still an incredibly capable aircraft that will hold its own for the next 20 years at least.

Intercept is time to target in different conditions (off deck; from loiter in the air).
For this particular matric, F-35C is almost as incredible as F-4B. Not quite, of course, but certainly infinitely better than even the most capable Daemon.

You may be most capable, more capable than almost every other, incredibly capable for 20 years at least, but you didn't close intercept in time and you're going to ditch, because your carrier is burning down below.

You would hope that F/A-XX will outperform the F-35C else the USN will have wasted a lot of money...

Outperforming F-35C with aircraft designer for navy priorities is one of things that is difficult not to achieve.

Just build a larger, at least a bit leaner aircraft with more installed power, space and fuel, basically.

 

[bring_it_on]

You would hope that F/A-XX will outperform the F-35C else the USN will have wasted a lot of money...

It will be more suited to Navy requirements. If the Navy truly wants F/A-XX to be a 'truck' then a larger, twin engined aircraft with greater range, payload and power and cooling for current and future systems is where it will be superior to the F-35C. Even with an adaptive engine, the F-35C would be kind of maxed out in that realm, whereas I suspect the F/A-XX will be expected to have margin to grow over the coming decades. Achieving greater range with a twin engined fighter is going to be a challenging proposition. Especially compared to the 850+ nautical mile radius the F-35C with AETP engine could have achieved. We're probably looking at a twin engined fighter with anywhere from 50-75% greater internal fuel capacity relative to the Rhino.

 

[Ozair]

Intercept is time to target in different conditions (off deck; from loiter in the air).
For this particular matric, F-35C is almost as incredible as F-4B. Not quite, of course, but certainly infinitely better than even the most capable Daemon.

You may be most capable, more capable than almost every other, incredibly capable for 20 years at least, but you didn't close intercept in time and you're going to ditch, because your carrier is burning down below.

I'm not sure you really understand what your writing...

Outperforming F-35C with aircraft designer for navy priorities is one of things that is difficult not to achieve.

Just build a larger, at least a bit leaner aircraft with more installed power, space and fuel, basically.

Can you name a current or previous aircraft that comes close to meeting the capability currently offered by the F-35C across the mission sets the USN has?

 

[Ozair]

It will be more suited to Navy requirements. If the Navy truly wants F/A-XX to be a 'truck' then a larger, twin engined aircraft with greater range, payload and power and cooling for current and future systems is where it will be superior to the F-35C. Even with an adaptive engine, the F-35C would be kind of maxed out in that realm, whereas I suspect the F/A-XX will be expected to have margin to grow over the coming decades.

You're going to hit take off limits though especially if you want the F/A-XX to use Nimitz catapults, that is about 80k lbs take off. If you consider an F-35C is 70k lbs then a twin engine aircraft, with the prospective engines weighing an additional 1k lbs and a bigger heavier structure. the F110 may be only marginally better than the F135 even in derivative form so will require more fuel to hit the range the USN is after.

Adding in some safety margin how much additional fuel and payload are you actually going to be able to carry to make a meaningful difference?

 

[bring_it_on]

Adding in some safety margin how much additional fuel and payload are you actually going to be able to carry to make a meaningful difference?

I don't know but I suppose we'll find out when the Navy shows us what it intends to pursue. I am merely going by what Navy officials have said over the years. They are not looking to upgrade F-35 or F-18 though these were once options available to the service (F/A-XX has been going on for a long time so has likely evolved to where it is now)

* Its a new design with three OEMs competing for the contract.
*Its about 8-10 months away from source selection if the program holds to timelines shared with the media last year. So most likely evaluating proposals right now.
*Navy has said that greater range and payload is needed in the Pacific and that it views F/A-XX as a 'truck' that is able to carry current and future weapons while being adaptable and having capacity to grow as other needs arise
* Won't be using adaptive engines. Navy hasn't explicitly stated that it will be a twin but it most likely will be
* Its optimized for strike and sea control
* Navy has emphasized 'affordability' which to me suggests that the service will be conservative when it comes to picking low readiness or 'high payoff' technologies and might favor more mature and proven sub-systems and technologies

I may be missing something else but that kind of captures with what I have been able to gather on the effort.

 

[FlyGuy369]

It will be more suited to Navy requirements. If the Navy truly wants F/A-XX to be a 'truck' then a larger, twin engined aircraft with greater range, payload and power and cooling for current and future systems is where it will be superior to the F-35C. Even with an adaptive engine, the F-35C would be kind of maxed out in that realm, whereas I suspect the F/A-XX will be expected to have margin to grow over the coming decades. Achieving greater range with a twin engined fighter is going to be a challenging proposition. Especially compared to the 850+ nautical mile radius the F-35C with AETP engine could have achieved. We're probably looking at a twin engined fighter with anywhere from 50-75% greater internal fuel capacity relative to the Rhino.

I thought I recognized that canopy...

 

[Ozair]

I don't know but I suppose we'll find out when the Navy shows us what it intends to pursue. I am merely going by what Navy officials have said over the years. They are not looking to upgrade F-35 or F-18 though these were once options available to the service (F/A-XX has been going on for a long time so has likely evolved to where it is now)

* Its a new design with three OEMs competing for the contract.
*Its about 8-10 months away from source selection if the program holds to timelines shared with the media last year. So most likely evaluating proposals right now.
*Navy has said that greater range and payload is needed in the Pacific and that it views F/A-XX as a 'truck' that is able to carry current and future weapons while being adaptable and having capacity to grow as other needs arise
* Won't be using adaptive engines. Navy hasn't explicitly stated that it will be a twin but it most likely will be
* Its optimized for strike and sea control
* Navy has emphasized 'affordability' which to me suggests that the service will be conservative when it comes to picking low readiness or 'high payoff' technologies and might favor more mature and proven sub-systems and technologies

I may be missing something else but that kind of captures with what I have been able to gather on the effort.

I agree with all of those, I've posted essentially the same list already here multiple times. It will be very interesting to see what the OEMS come up with, if we even get to see the unsuccessful proposals...

 

[bring_it_on]

I agree, but one thing is for sure - it can be done as long as the Navy is willing to live with some of the design trade offs made to get there. F/A-XX is going to be large and heavy aircraft if the Navy optimizes it for range and payload which it looks like doing.

 

[Ainen]

I'm not sure you really understand what your writing...

I am perfectly sure what i am writing.
Interceptor mission. Together with long range strike, basically first and second high threat carrier wing missions.

Can you name a current or previous aircraft that comes close to meeting the capability currently offered by the F-35C across the mission sets the USN has?

We don't need anything "arcoss the mission sets".
Please meet just two - let carrier strike far enough to have a chance to surive, and then defend it from attack.

For the first second one, later phantoms(at least in terms of time chart), rafales, naval flankers and of course tomcats - all close the task. So does the superhornet, due to AIM-174B.
For the first one, literally any US carrier bomber in strategic/heavy attack role(since AJ Savage onwards; Skywarrior, Vigilante; all Intruders) of old had better range/payloads performance. And more or less similar to A-7 range.

The question is practical usefulness of single largest investment in military world of today - US carrier fleet.

 

[sferrin]

Subsonic cruise (mainly) with less emphasized supersonic performance would be logical for the Super Hornet replacement.

I'd think it would be higher. It's going to have to compete against the J-20 and whatever replaces it. I can't see the J-20 replacement not having supercruise capability. Even the J-20 is supposed to get it when it gets its new engines. The USN is kinda hosed if it can't cope with those.

 

[sferrin]

I agree, but one thing is for sure - it can be done as long as the Navy is willing to live with some of the design trade offs made to get there. F/A-XX is going to be large and heavy aircraft if the Navy optimizes it for range and payload which it looks like doing.

Powered by a pair of F135s. . .but built by someone else.

 

[Ozair]

I agree, but one thing is for sure - it can be done as long as the Navy is willing to live with some of the design trade offs made to get there. F/A-XX is going to be large and heavy aircraft if the Navy optimizes it for range and payload.

So as an exercise if we say the USN will aim for 78k lbs max take of weight which is essentially close to an F-15EX max take off weight.

• Probably will use almost the same engine as F-15EX
• Have more internal fuel, at least 25% more than F-15EX with internal + CFT so around 28k lbs
• An internal weapons bay which is heavier than external carriage especially is sized as a "truck as you term it
  • Will the F/A-XX also retain external carriage of weapons/fuel?
• Require the strengthening and weight associated with landing on a carrier over and above what an F-15EX has
• Probably a similar sized radar
• An integrated TGT pod, more sensors and EW equipment.
  • Conceivably it may carry an NGJ or variants of internally
• Will CCA control equipment make a weight difference?
• Is the USN going for an all two seat or single seat aircraft or a combo of both?
• Will it retain an internal cannon or opt for space and cooling for a DEW weapon?

 

[Ozair]

I am perfectly sure what i am writing.

All good mate, I don't see any point trying to discuss this with you further.