USAF/USN 6th Gen Fighters - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS News & Analysis

[Hydroman]

Yes Sundog I agree with you as well, the USN and USAF have different mission requirements and they should define their own platforms, no more bi or tri-service platforms. Actually as a USN example, the Navy had the F-8 then F-4 but even with these two aircraft, the USN sort of had primary and secondary-type fighter mission capabilities. The F-4 could also drop bombs where the F-8 did not but the F-8 also evolved into recce missions when the F-14 came online. The Navy definitely allowed flexibility of all of their airframes, primarily out of necessity due to deployed carrier operations.

When I was on CVN-65 in the early 1980's and on our '82-'83 WestPac, here was our aircraft mix:
F-14, A-6/KA-6, EA-6, A-7, S-3, C-2, E-2, C-1 (short haul COD), and SH-3. We also deployed EA-3 and USMC F-4s and A-6s (took them onboard when in NAS Cubi Point). With this mix, every mission covered and were very effective. Hell, the USN could have made good use of the production version of the X-32 which in its latest configuration did not look bad an would have done the job.

The USN needs is own mission-defined F/A-XX and a good semi-LO medium attack platform which they really need. A production version of the X-47B would have been good and a well defined future USN CCA, if done right, yes, just common sense.

 

[dark sidius]

View attachment 752510

We had this debate time ago, there is no Draken in Area 51.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The J58 had a high TIT limit for its time at around 2000F, but not nearly as high as current engines allow. The engine measured EGT, which ran at 790-800C (cockpit gauge units) during cruise. The engine had an electronic EGT trim system to raise or lower main combustor fuel flow to maintain the EGT in that band at Mil power and above. The control system modulated the convergent exhaust nozzle area to hold a constant 7400 RPM during cruise. If the EGT trimmer added fuel to raise the EGT, that increases RPM. The nozzle would close to raise exhaust pressure, reducing the pressure drop across the turbine, which lowers RPM back to the 7400 target, and thrust goes up. If the trimmer lowered fuel flow to reduce EGT, the nozzle opens to maintain RPM and thrust goes down.

Bottom line, Turbine temperature was not a limiting factor for speed for the J58 because it was held steady by the control system. But inlet temperature keeps going up the faster you go, so 427C inlet temperature was the engine speed limit.

Right, the TIT was not a concerning factor because the engine controls kept the overall system below the Turbine blade temp limits.

You could still get a hot start, for example.

Also, I keep getting differing answers on what a CFM56 max TIT is. I've seen 1350degC, and yet I'm also seeing ~900degC. I suspect that the 900 is sustained and 1350 is max. 2000degF is ~1100degC, so you should be able to run a modern engine a couple hundred degrees C hotter than a J58 without trouble.

I agree with you, I'm just stating this for general purposes, since people seam to intentionally ignore this or not know it.

For some reason I have to keep saying this; The mission defines the airplane, not the other way around. The USAF could use the F-4 back in the sixties because the plane they were looking for had similar mission requirements to the USN's. Of course, they had to just live with the heavier weight and longer field length required due to the landing gear layout. Which is why they added the drogue chute.

The NGAD and the F/A-XX do not have similar mission profiles. In fact, based on what has been reported, they're vastly different. To use the same airframe for both would be incredibly dumb. Not to mention, as Quellish keeps stating, the way the USAF wants to manage the tech and the airframes is completely at odds with the route the USN is taking. The only area where I could see sharing among the two would be in subsystems. RADAR, ECM, etc. But even those systems would require different tailoring for the mission requirements.

At the very least, the NGAD seems to have a requirement for about 50% more range than FAXX. Not to forget the USN's very hard limits on weight and length due to catapults, arresting gear, and elevators.

Assuming the stats that have been talked about are correct, this suggests an NGAD that is about 105klbs while the FAXX would be about 85klbs. And the USAF NGAD could easily grow to 125klbs.

If the USAF was forced to take the F/A-XX in lieu of the NGAD I haven't any doubt the USAF would cancel NGAD and just concentrate on unmanned systems. Simply because the F/A-XX doesn't do what the USAF wants NGAD to do. There's no point in buying something that can't do what you want and the same is true in reverse. Although it would be much more difficult to make a navalized NGAD.

I don't think the USAF would do that, simply because it'd mean losing all those pilot slots.

The USN needs is own mission-defined F/A-XX and a good semi-LO medium attack platform which they really need. A production version of the X-47B would have been good and a well defined future USN CCA, if done right, yes, just common sense.

I suspect that the FAXX will be a more air-to-air capable version of that semi LO medium attack platform. Not sure which side will dominate in the DNA, it could be like the saying about the Tomcat and Hornet: Tomcat is heavy on the F, light on the A, while Hornet is light on the F and heavy on the A.

Even though the F-35C is a striker, I expect the FAXX to be heavier on the attack side of the equation than the Lightning.

 

[quellish]

I suspect that the FAXX will be a more air-to-air capable version of that semi LO medium attack platform. Not sure which side will dominate in the DNA, it could be like the saying about the Tomcat and Hornet: Tomcat is heavy on the F, light on the A, while Hornet is light on the F and heavy on the A.

HEARING ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES HEARING ON FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET REQUEST OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR FIXED–WING TACTICAL AND TRAINING AIRCRAFT PROGRAMS HEARING HELD MARCH 29, 2023

STATEMENT OF RADM ANDREW J. LOISELLE USN, DIRECTOR,
AIR WARFARE, U.S. NAVY

The F/A–XX is the manned quarterback strike fighter component of this family of systems, orchestrating manned-unmanned teaming at the leading edge of the battlespace. Included in the unmanned tactical platforms for the NGAD family of systems are ‘‘loyal wing- man’’ unmanned aircraft referred to as Collaborative Combat Air- craft. These CCA’s will augment current and next-generation crewed platforms with lower cost complementary capabilities to in- crease combat effectiveness in highly contested environments. Collectively, the carrier air wing will maintain strike fighter

STATEMENT OF NICKOLAS H. GUERTIN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITION) AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL BRADFORD GERING DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR AVIATION AND REAR ADMIRAL MICHAEL DONNELLY DIRECTOR AIR WARFARE BEFORE THE TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FISCAL YEAR 2025 BUDGET REQUEST FOR TACTICAL AVIATION APRIL 16, 2024

The NGAD FoS is comprised of crewed and uncrewed tactical platforms, advanced weapons, sensors and networks to attain and maintain air superiority. F/A-XX is the strike fighter component of the NGAD FoS and is the designated replacement for the F/A-18E/F. Design maturation efforts remain on track and the program is now considered to be in a source selection environment. The Navy released a request for proposal (RFP) for a follow-on development contract in December 2023 to Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin. F/A-XX is designed from the outset to incorporate crewed and uncrewed teaming. Included in the uncrewed tactical platforms for the NGAD FoS are the family of CCA’s. Navy and Marine CCA’s will augment current and next generation crewed platforms with multiple lower cost, complementary capabilities to increase combat effectiveness in highly contested environments.

HEARING ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022 AND OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION FULL COMMITTEE HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET REQUEST HEARING HELD JUNE 16, 2021

Mr. NORCROSS. Thank you. Continuing on the four-plus-one, and we are looking at NGAD, which there is a considerable amount of money going towards that. And in the past, the Air Force has said time and time again they want to get away from that single-role fighter. To the degree you can in this environment, can you tell us, are you looking at NGAD as a single- or multi-role platform?

General BROWN. I would like to have it be multi-role. But the primary aspect for NGAD is air superiority, and with air superi- ority, it is an increased weapons load; it is increased range, par- ticularly when you look at operating in the Indo-Pacific and against the threat we expect to see in the Indo-Pacific. So, I look to the fu- ture, but what I really look at for all of our fighters is to have multi-role capability to be able to go from a high-end conflict all the way down to homeland defense, and that drives a combination ca- pability. But, really, NGAD is really focused more so on a highly contested environment, to have the weapons load both air-to-air primarily, but some air-to-ground capability to ensure, one, that it can survive, but also provide options for our component com- manders and for the joint force.

There is very similar testimony from the Navy which I can't locate right now, that in response to a question the Navy stated that they see NGAD/F/A-XX as a direct replacement for the Super Hornet, with a primary strike role and some small air-to-air role. Essentially the opposite of the USAF manned NGAD.

The Navy has been very clear than on F/A-XX air-to-air is not a priority.

 

[joshjosh]

The Navy has been very clear than on F/A-XX air-to-air is not a priority.

Does this imply that the F-35 will have the air-to-air role, and thus will be a more capable interceptor than the F/A-XX?

 

[Ainen]

Does this imply that the F-35 will have the air-to-air role, and thus will be a more capable interceptor than the F/A-XX?

See F/A-X for what it means.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Navy has been very clear than on F/A-XX air-to-air is not a priority.

Huh. Was not expecting that, was expecting it to be more Tomcat than Hornet. Yes, capable of delivering A2G, but focusing more on Air-to-Air.

Does this imply that the F-35 will have the air-to-air role, and thus will be a more capable interceptor than the F/A-XX?

I'm expecting that to be the job of CCAs.

 

[Ainen]

Huh. Was not expecting that, was expecting it to be more Tomcat than Hornet. Yes, capable of delivering A2G, but focusing more on Air-to-Air.

Long range strike is first best anti air means of a csg. It's the greatest enabler.

CSG isn't static, it's a highly mobile asset. What for land airfield is a binary equation (does their bomber reach you or not), for navy is additional space(area of circle). CSG has to be found, identified within this huge area. And carrier (s) within CSG has to be found and identified, too.

Same range extends stand off from land for any target csg attacks(and of course ability to prosecute it in the first place). Range means safety for CSG, very straightforward.

Range means exposure for defender's aircraft.
Remember how CSGs exposed even backfires for (virtual) Formosing.

F-14 was the thing precisely because navy already had ideal long range striker in A-6, but badly needed intercept and escort(failure of f-111b didn't mean much).

F/a-xx will take both of those still, especially since interceptor for the navy now means aim-174b. Aircraft being able to move those to a long range is almost by default a strike aircraft in modern age.
Add supersonic capabilities, RIO/mission specialist - and you have enough of interceptor.

Overall - perfectly in line with my expectations, and exactly what navair needed since the late 1980s.

 

[Forest Green]

Does this imply that the F-35 will have the air-to-air role, and thus will be a more capable interceptor than the F/A-XX?

Well the F-35 was to replace F-16s, F-18C/Ds and AV-8Bs, the F/A-XX is to replace F-18E/Fs, so it should at least be better than the F-35s at A2A.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Does this imply that the F-35 will have the air-to-air role, and thus will be a more capable interceptor than the F/A-XX?

F-35 and "capable interceptor" dont go well together.

I suppose that with the demise of NATF and Outer Air Battle, alot of the fleet defense mission went over to AEGIS vessels. The emphasis on strike for F/A-XX seems to be filling the gap left from the Intruder force retiring and the A-12 cancellation.

Well, the best defense is offense (or in this case, bombing the J-20 runways). And strike radius has always been a critical factor in CSG effectiveness (hence why continous fielding of SupaBug and F-35C, to plug in that gap).

 

[dark sidius]

Does this imply that the F-35 will have the air-to-air role, and thus will be a more capable interceptor than the F/A-XX?

I don't see the F-35 be a air dominance , it is to slow with mach 1.6 when enemys fighters go mach 2 and not realy a beautiful dogfigter too, a lot of computers unable to work well, so dangerous to let it on the A/A role. SU-57, J-20, new J-35 fly more faster and higher than the F-35C than we know have less kinematics capacity than the A version.

 

[FighterJock]

Quite, the F-35 doesn't have the speed, range or the weapons capability that the NGAD or for that matter F/A-XX are going to have dark sidius. To try to modify the F-35 to have all those things that would make the Lightning 2 an interceptor would be far too costly and far too much of a technical challenge.

 

[kqcke for you]

I don't see the F-35 be a air dominance , it is to slow with mach 1.6 when enemys fighters go mach 2 and not realy a beautiful dogfigter too, a lot of computers unable to work well, so dangerous to let it on the A/A role. SU-57, J-20, new J-35 fly more faster and higher than the F-35C than we know have less kinematics capacity than the A version.

The F-35 still is quite a lot better than the F-18 SH even with 4 AMRAAM's and 2 AIM-9X while its quite likely for them to choose sidekick too if seen as needed. At the same time while Air to Air isn't in focus with F/A-XX the avionics while be more than enough for it and the kinematics probaly aren't worse than F-35's likely better so it still can do it. Then we also come back to the not so big problem of shooting down missiles which still would be a primary Air to Air mission.

 

[_Del_]

FoS.

 

[quellish]

FoS.

Family of Systems.

 

[dark sidius]

The F-35 still is quite a lot better than the F-18 SH even with 4 AMRAAM's and 2 AIM-9X while its quite likely for them to choose sidekick too if seen as needed. At the same time while Air to Air isn't in focus with F/A-XX the avionics while be more than enough for it and the kinematics probaly aren't worse than F-35's likely better so it still can do it. Then we also come back to the not so big problem of shooting down missiles which still would be a primary Air to Air mission.

You need kinematics performance in face of SU-57 who become more and more capable, the same for the J-20 , if you want to win you need something superior to today performance.

 

[Ainen]

You need kinematics performance in face of SU-57 who become more and more capable, the same for the J-20 , if you want to win you need something superior to today performance.

This is not what interceptor needs performance for.

 

[TomcatViP]

F-35 have on par perfs with SH, albeit a 0.2 Mach. It has equal Alpha maneuverability in pitch (what means the best in the world by far but the F-22) and an unknow ability in yaw that by far outmatch the SH.
By all metrics it is more maneuverable and matches SH combat capable speed.

I don't know where the concerns are.

 

[kqcke for you]

F-35 have on par perfs with SH, albeit a 0.2 Mach. It has equal Alpha maneuverability in pitch (what means the best in the world by far but the F-22) and an unknow ability in yaw that by far outmatch the SH.
By all metrics it is more maneuverable and matches SH combat capable speed.

I don't know where the concerns are.

And are those numbers for hornets with similiar armament or even range? Probaly not

 

[4decaa]

F-35 have on par perfs with SH, albeit a 0.2 Mach. It has equal Alpha maneuverability in pitch (what means the best in the world by far but the F-22) and an unknow ability in yaw that by far outmatch the SH.
By all metrics it is more maneuverable and matches SH combat capable speed.

I don't know where the concerns are.

I agree!
With sidekick and one or even 2 CCAs to increase it’s situational awareness/CEC, the F35 is going to be extremely effective in BVR engagement (not to say that it’s currently ineffective). I also believe that it’s loiter time is a big factor in its combat effectiveness -> versus supermaneuverability, which has little utility outside of air shows and BVM.

 

[dark sidius]

I agree!
With sidekick and one or even 2 CCAs to increase it’s situational awareness/CEC, the F35 is going to be extremely effective in BVR engagement (not to say that it’s currently ineffective). I also believe that it’s loiter time is a big factor in its combat effectiveness -> versus supermaneuverability, which has little utility outside of air shows and BVM.

F-35 is not a air superiority fighter what ever evrybody say, and be equal of SH is not a reference for a fighter hungry of billions and billions of dollars , it is more a commercial fighter able to be sell in a lot of country than something superior for dominate all air Force. F-22 was an awesome fighter F-35 is not , soon we will see the Rafale F-5 and with the rumors on it it will be superior to the F-35 in a lot of domaine, Musk is a little to excessive but in the line he have reason.

 

[dark sidius]

China Launches Hypersonic Test Planes From Drones, Balloons

The vehicle designs are related to China's MD-22 hypersonic military aircraft concept that emerged in 2022.

www.twz.com

It is realy time for USAF to move on, China is running faster and faster , F-35 and CCA will be soon obsolete. Remember the paper plane J-20 of 2010.......

 

[TomcatViP]

Really? The Rafale is going to be a full stealth aircraft with better fusion than the best outta there?...

Regarding SH Vs 35, the point is that the latter already dominates. Heck, F-35 dominance has been proven jaw droppingly in the ME at length.

It could even been argued that the Lightning was fundamental in Israel late strategic rebalance.

 

[dark sidius]

Really? The Rafale is going to be a full stealth aircraft with better fusion than the best outta there?...

Regarding SH Vs 35, the point is that the latter already dominates. Heck, F-35 dominance has been proven jaw droppingly in the ME at length.

Rafale F-5 will be less stealth than a F-35 but , more elongated wings, New powerful radar ,conformal tanks, new 90kn engines and a new electonic warfare suite , yes it will be surely a more air dominante fighter than the F-35, the kinematics performance of a Rafale are very good with 70 kn engines so with 90 kn and a lot of upgrade , I will be more confident in the new Rafale to become an air dominante fighter.

 

[kqcke for you]

F-35 is not a air superiority fighter what ever evrybody say,

We don't say its an air superiorirty Fighter but its the best one they currently have on deck with better performance than the SH the prime fighter of the the current USN. With block 4 most of not all the advantages the SH may have will be given to the F-35 with inprovements to already better systems. At the same time any new aircraft development would increase the time which the SH would be the sole fighter they got which i think we can agree on is not what the USN needs.

and be equal of SH is not a reference for a fighter hungry of billions and billions of dollars , it is more a commercial fighter able to be sell in a lot of country than something superior for dominate all air Force. F-22 was an awesome fighter F-35 is not , soon we will see the Rafale F-5 and with the rumors on it it will be superior to the F-35 in a lot of domaine

Maybe it has more thrust or option for a better EW Suite (think F-35 Suite compared to the Growler with the new the new Pods) but even then it doesn't matter when it doesnt give what the CSG needs. Range for example is something which i doubt will be larger for it with the same loadout.

, Musk is a little to excessive but in the line he have reason.

His reason is something i don't agree on in the current situation with my given knowledge

 

[kqcke for you]

Rafale F-5 will be less stealth than a F-35 but , more elongated wings,

More elongated to what? Only because is has bigger Wings than rafale or F-35 doesn't make it better or have more range.

New powerful radar

Same for F-35 so i doubt its better than the coming APG-85.

,conformal tanks,

Yes a nice option but then again we have the development of stealth drop tanks which WE know to be an option for F-35 when it works out.

new 90kn engines

Okay but without testing this combined with the rest against an F-35C with similiar loadout comparison is hard to make if those extra ~50kN (both engines) dry make a difference.

and a new electonic warfare suite

Uno Reverse Card for the F-35

, yes it will be surely a more air dominante fighter than the F-35, the kinematics performance of a Rafale are very good with 70 kn engines so with 90 kn and a lot of upgrade , I will be more confident in the new Rafale to become an air dominante fighter.

You forget that those upgrades also increase weight and drag while kinematics aren't everything. A modern USN CSG has not only the Airwing but also the whole fleet for combat for which we know sensor shering is an thing which works. U doubt sutch integration IS the same in the french CSG. I bet on the USN CSG with F-35C vs. rafale F5 all the same time.

Lets agree to disagree

 

[_Del_]

yes it will be surely a more air dominante fighter than the F-35

I don't think you're using the same definitions as the USAF -- or most people, generally, even.

 

[Archibald]

No elongated wings for Rafale. It's a translation mistake.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I have some worries if the F/A-XX is only seen as having a "small" air-to-air role. The F-35C is already more focused towards the strike mission than air-to-air roles. Even compared to the F-35A it sacrifices some performance in favor of greater range and other benefits offered by the larger wing. To protect the fleet the new fighter needs both a strong supercruise capability and to be capable of Mach 2+ speeds. Getting to where you need to be faster is still very important especially if you are to intercept attackers trying to hit the CVBG. And for any air-to-air engagement in the modern era, supercruising at high altitude is a good way to enter the fight.

 

[Airbus A340]

I have some worries if the F/A-XX is only seen as having a "small" air-to-air role. The F-35C is already more focused towards the strike mission than air-to-air roles. Even compared to the F-35A it sacrifices some performance in favor of greater range and other benefits offered by the larger wing. To protect the fleet the new fighter needs both a strong supercruise capability and to be capable of Mach 2+ speeds. Getting to where you need to be faster is still very important especially if you are to intercept attackers trying to hit the CVBG. And for any air-to-air engagement in the modern era, supercruising at high altitude is a good way to enter the fight.

Look at carrier tactics through history. Carriers have always, except in a few periods used the same tactics. EMCON, dart in, launch a strike and get out of range before the enemy can respond. Carriers cannot take a punch from a land base. The only exception is the USN in mid '-43 through the end of the war and later with Aegis. A fighter can't do anything to protect a carrier from a large strike from a peer competitor. Against failed states, the fighters are not needed. No reason to equip carriers with air dominance aircraft. Especially if the carrier killers of choice are torpedoes and ballistic missiles.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Long range strike is first best anti air means of a csg. It's the greatest enabler.

CSG isn't static, it's a highly mobile asset. What for land airfield is a binary equation (does their bomber reach you or not), for navy is additional space(area of circle). CSG has to be found, identified within this huge area. And carrier (s) within CSG has to be found and identified, too.

Same range extends stand off from land for any target csg attacks(and of course ability to prosecute it in the first place). Range means safety for CSG, very straightforward.

Range means exposure for defender's aircraft.
Remember how CSGs exposed even backfires for (virtual) Formosing.

F-14 was the thing precisely because navy already had ideal long range striker in A-6, but badly needed intercept and escort(failure of f-111b didn't mean much).

F/a-xx will take both of those still, especially since interceptor for the navy now means aim-174b. Aircraft being able to move those to a long range is almost by default a strike aircraft in modern age.
Add supersonic capabilities, RIO/mission specialist - and you have enough of interceptor.

Overall - perfectly in line with my expectations, and exactly what navair needed since the late 1980s.

The USN already has a relatively competent attacker in the shape of the F35C. Somewhat limited bay volumes, which is why I believe that the FAXX will have the same bay sizes as the A-12 Avenger 2 (Space for 2x AMRAAMs, 2x AARGM-ERs, and 2x 2000lb JDAM or SLAMs), and probably bigger Air-to-Air bays.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the FAXX bays are long enough to hold SM6s.

 

[4decaa]

The USN already has a relatively competent attacker in the shape of the F35C. Somewhat limited bay volumes, which is why I believe that the FAXX will have the same bay sizes as the A-12 Avenger 2 (Space for 2x AMRAAMs, 2x AARGM-ERs, and 2x 2000lb JDAM or SLAMs), and probably bigger Air-to-Air bays.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the FAXX bays are long enough to hold SM6s.

I think SM-6 (aim174) integration would depend on how early the USN decided to begin developing the SM-6 into an air launched missile. I might wager that it would have been too late for a FAXX redesign by that point (2019ish?)

 

[quellish]

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the FAXX bays are long enough to hold SM6s.

SM-6 is described as an interim weapon. There are better, slimmer things on the horizon.

 

[Scott Kenny]

SM-6 is described as an interim weapon. There are better, slimmer things on the horizon.

While I'd certainly hope so, I could see some shenanigans with longer weapons bays. Carrier weapons elevators are what, 15 feet long, maybe 17 if you angle the item?

 

[quellish]

While I'd certainly hope so, I could see some shenanigans with longer weapons bays. Carrier weapons elevators are what, 15 feet long, maybe 17 if you angle the item?

About the same size as AMRAAM for twice or more the capability.

“ what can you do within the AMRAAM space?”

“ twice as many missiles or the same number but 4x the range and new capabilities”

 

[Scott Kenny]

About the same size as AMRAAM for twice or more the capability.

“ what can you do within the AMRAAM space?”

“ twice as many missiles or the same number but 4x the range and new capabilities”

4x the range of an AMRAAM-D? 700km range?!? Or are we talking ~400-500km range?

An ~18ft long weapons bay would allow 3 rows of SDBs, for example, though I suspect that AIM174s would be external carry only due to a lack of folding fins

 

[Ainen]

SM-6 is described as an interim weapon. There are better, slimmer things on the horizon.

While true,
(1) It's here and works; aim-260 -maybe;
(2) It's more capability, even if large;
(3) It's potential for integration with NIFC-CA(including abm/hypersonic, and dual purpose) is higher.

The USN already has a relatively competent attacker in the shape of the F35C. Somewhat limited bay volumes, which is why I believe that the FAXX will have the same bay sizes as the A-12 Avenger 2 (Space for 2x AMRAAMs, 2x AARGM-ERs, and 2x 2000lb JDAM or SLAMs), and probably bigger Air-to-Air bays.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the FAXX bays are long enough to hold SM6s.

Relatively competent light attack, not unlike hornet, a-7 and so on.
F-35c is ultimately limited in both internal and external payloads, as well as range.
It's still ok for Iran (though Iran develops), it's questionable against Russia, it outright better be no more than secondary capability against China.
For CSGs, of course, from land and even light carriers situation is rather different.

Yes, with something like JASSM-XR range can be improved. But I struggle to see, how it's going to be superior to mq-25 in hauling them to release point.

 

[yeetmahboi]

While true,
(1) It's here and works; aim-260 -maybe;
(2) It's more capability, even if large;
(3) It's potential for integration with NIFC-CA(including abm/hypersonic, and dual purpose) is higher.

Those are assumptions at best. Size has its own detriments, including inducing a specific lower bound on airframe dimensions.

 

[Dreamfighter]

USAF Leaders See 'Human-Machine Teams'—Not Robots—as Future of Airpower

The Air Force has a word of caution for those who are urging that autonomous systems supplant crewed platforms: we still need a human.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[Scott Kenny]

Those are assumptions at best. Size has its own detriments, including inducing a specific lower bound on airframe dimensions.

When you're also assuming stuffing JASSMs and SLAMs into the weapons bays, you're probably going to have space for AIM174s