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

Status
Not open for further replies.
NMaude said:
Having the SM-6 pod-based for external carriage would also mean it could be fitted the Mk-72 booster.
Click to expand...
You'll have to redesign and retest the whole thing once again.

Same trouble that the assembly will have to survive a huge kick and pass separation trials again will resurface.
 
Ainen said:
You'll have to redesign and retest the whole thing once again.

Same trouble that the assembly will have to survive a huge kick and pass separation trials again will resurface.
Click to expand...

I doubt that would be an insurmountable difficulty.
 
NMaude said:
I doubt that would be an insurmountable difficulty.
Click to expand...
Well, much of trouble of new missile is this redesign and separation trials.
May as well design your own pl-17.
 
Isn't the point of something like MACE to give the F-35 JASSM-like range capable of internal carriage? If that's what you want, and it is in the pipeline, then there's no real reason for a larger bay, heavier structure, more cost, etc.
 
_Del_ said:
Isn't the point of something like MACE to give the F-35 JASSM-like range capable of internal carriage? If that's what you want, and it is in the pipeline, then there's no real reason for a larger bay, heavier structure, more cost, etc.
Click to expand...

No one knows if MACE is in the pipeline. Everyone is spitting in the dark. It was an RFI.

The 15 foot weapon elevator limits real, and I could easily see FA-XX being sized for that.

But when it comes to NGAD and FA-XX, we all need to realize that we are amateurs punching at shadows.
 
Josh_TN said:
No one knows if MACE is in the pipeline. Everyone is spitting in the dark. It was an RFI.

The 15 foot weapon elevator limits real, and I could easily see FA-XX being sized for that.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but I doubt a program built like that is survivable.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You realize that's only about 30cm longer than what's getting stuffed into an F-35, right?
Click to expand...
And the reverse: why wasn't the F-35 designed to receive such weapon? Mind you it was the Navy who demanded the 2000lbs bay capacity. CALF would've had a smaller bay in line with the F-35B. They could've asked for more but didn't.

F/A-XX may be an uber strike platform ala ATA. They may also take advantage of the CCA revolution. Alot of UCAS research went into making VLO/XLO planforms. I believe the X-45 may have been a stealthier strike platform than Fat Amy.

Putting all your eggs in one basket when the upcoming administration is full of budget hawks. Is that a good idea? Musk will rip the Navy a new one.
 
yeetmahboi said:
Putting all your eggs in one basket when the upcoming administration is full of budget hawks. Is that a good idea? Musk will rip the Navy a new one.
Click to expand...

Hint: trying to run multiple overlapping aircraft programs for one service when the upcoming administration is full of budget hawks is really not a good idea - and will get your job pulled away and given to someone else.

And if you don't already have a choice for the ONE program you want to survive, Musk will pick one for you - likely the cheapest, without regard for capability.
 
BlackBat242 said:
Hint: trying to run multiple overlapping aircraft programs for one service when the upcoming administration is full of budget hawks is really not a good idea - and will get your job pulled away and given to someone else.
Click to expand...
There is a heck lot of difference between "way too fat, we could achieve this with a different approach" and "TFX run 2". I could see some overlap between certain CCA capabilities that would promote joint service fielding, but that's all.

Well but isn't Hegseth aiming for SECDEF? Yeah not getting my hopes up...
 
TomS said:
But the specific post was about the B-1B and the effort to fit it with external JASSM.

www.airandspaceforces.com

B-1 Drops JASSM from External Pylon, Expanding Bomber Firepower | Air & Space Forces Magazine

A B-1B bomber dropped an inert AGM-158 missile from an external pylon on Dec. 4, marking the first time the bomber has demonstrated such a capability.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...
So it's not "per quellish" as he didn't explicitly state which one will get it though by rule of grammar the B-1B was the intended subject, and not "JASSM" but "external munition" as originally stated for the B-21. I think that clears that up, but the point about external carriage remains valid.
 
yeetmahboi said:
So it's not "per quellish" as he didn't explicitly state which one will get it though by rule of grammar the B-1B was the intended subject, and not "JASSM" but "external munition" as originally stated for the B-21. I think that clears that up, but the point about external carriage remains valid.
Click to expand...
I don't see a B-21 having external carriage it have zero interest, I return to NGAD subject not B-21.
 
dark sidius said:
I don't see a B-21 having external carriage it have zero interest, I return to NGAD subject not B-21.
Click to expand...
The idea was floated around by flateric and quellish. It is also highly relevant to the subject at hand: external weapon carriage on 6th gen manned fighters.

I maintain my belief that if the need arise, large, standoff payloads will be carried-and delivered-by specific magazine drones, even under hardpoints if necessary, and not the manned fighter. There is a great effort underway to build small, high performance weapons. At the very least, we can say with confidence that AIM-260 will not be a great divergence from AMRAAM in terms of dimensions (fancy word for:they're the same size).
 
yeetmahboi said:
The idea was floated around by flateric and quellish. It is also highly relevant to the subject at hand: external weapon carriage on 6th gen manned fighters.

I maintain my belief that if the need arise, large, standoff payloads will be carried-and delivered-by specific magazine drones, even under hardpoints if necessary, and not the manned fighter. There is a great effort underway to build small, high performance weapons. At the very least, we can say with confidence that AIM-260 will not be a great divergence from AMRAAM in terms of dimensions (fancy word for:they're the same size).
Click to expand...
It eliminate the advantage of stealth of the B-21.
 
Josh_TN said:
No one knows if MACE is in the pipeline. Everyone is spitting in the dark. It was an RFI.
Click to expand...

MACE and ERAM are moving forward. The services have been pretty clear about it. Not passing an on-time budget has slowed down every program.

Josh_TN said:
But when it comes to NGAD and FA-XX, we all need to realize that we are amateurs punching at shadows.
Click to expand...

Huh? These are publicly acknowledged programs that services have been very open to speak about on the record. There are only shadows if someone is not asking the services for information. If someone is waiting for them to hand it to they may remain in the dark.
 
The requirements of the programs are not public. We are guesstimating based on released statements and budget documents.

As far as i know ERAM and MACE were RFIs; perhaps I am mistaken. But if so, that’s rather far from a program of record. That said I would be surprised if at least one type of budget cruise missile was not adopted, given the number of options the industry seems to be developing for the anticipated market.
 
yeetmahboi said:
F/A-XX may be an uber strike platform ala ATA. They may also take advantage of the CCA revolution. Alot of UCAS research went into making VLO/XLO planforms. I believe the X-45 may have been a stealthier strike platform than Fat Amy.
Click to expand...


The F/A-XX is the strike fighter component within the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Family of Systems (FoS). It is planned to replace the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in the 2030s. Its specific capabilities and technologies are under development, however 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. As the Super Hornets are retired from service, a combination of F-35C and F/A-XX will provide Navy tactical fighter aircraft capability and capacity within the CVW. The advanced carrier-based power projection capabilities resident in F/A-XX will maintain CVN relevance in advanced threat environments.
Click to expand...

The Navy is not planning to take advantage of CCAs until they have fielded and learned from MQ-25

Along with organic tanking, the MQ-25 will pave the way for unmanned air vehicles on the carrier
and manned and unmanned teaming (MUM-T) to extend strike range and enhance maneuverability.
As unmanned tanking capacity delivers, the manned tanker requirement decreases, making
additional service life and capacity available for strike fighter missions. Continued development
of MUM-T will enable information sharing across a distributed force, increasing survivability,
reducing risk to manned aircraft, and ensuring weapons capacity. Future unmanned air vehicles
with survivable planforms, sensors, and robust autonomy will find, fix, identify, track, engage, and
assess land, sea, and air targets. The NGAD FoS will include unmanned platforms with F/A-XX as the
quarterback. These manned and unmanned aircraft plus attritable assets will be employed across
domains to enable integrated kinetic and non-kinetic fires at tactically relevant ranges. As autonomy
and ML efforts mature, the appropriate mix of F/A-XX, manned and unmanned platforms will be
evaluated to ensure the most lethal and affordable CVW possible.
Click to expand...
 
There are some people who would like to see the Navy build something big enough to hold 2 JASSM internally for long-range strike missions.

Others of us are thinking, "if I could put two similar missiles in a bay half the size of the F-35 bay, what can that do for my aircraft? What does the result look like when I 'right-size' the bay/structure/engine? How much can I improve my fuel fraction by making the bay smaller? Can I now get longer range with a smaller plane and lower gross weight? Can I get away with two smaller optimized engines? Higher fineness with a far narrower and longer bay?"


A Scooter had a combat range of about 1000 miles. It had longer legs than the Hornet(s) that replaced it. Way more than the classics and about twice the combat range of a Rhino.

I would put money on the next (successful) manned programs being from the Heinemann approach. Certainly, the UCAV/CCA's will be. I don't mean dimensions necessarily, but "in the spirit of".
 
Josh_TN said:
The requirements of the programs are not public.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that?

Josh_TN said:
We are guesstimating based on released statements and budget documents.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself.

Josh_TN said:
As far as i know ERAM and MACE were RFIs; perhaps I am mistaken. But if so, that’s rather far from a program of record. That said I would be surprised if at least one type of budget cruise missile was not adopted, given the number of options the industry seems to be developing for the anticipated market.
Click to expand...

ERAM is being accelerated to provide it to foreign partners. 16 companies responded to the initial RFI, separately the Air Force is now moving directly to prototyping and accelerated procurement.

MACE is more than a budget cruise missile. It is both a floor wax and a dessert topping. Two companies are already producing flight articles.
 
_Del_ said:
There are some people who would like to see the Navy build something big enough to hold 2 JASSM internally for long-range strike missions.
Click to expand...

If the weapon has a range of over 200 miles there is not much of a burning need to carry it internally.
 
yeetmahboi said:
Like on the F-35? A stealthy interdictor?

Yeah, smart idea. Next you might as well have PCAs carry MOP and ARRW internally.
Click to expand...
Focus, padawan.

I'm talking specifically about the FAXX, the USN plane. MOP and ARRW are Air Force Programs, Navy has not publicly indicated any interest in those. ARRW definitely will not fit a carrier weapons elevator. The MOP is 20ft long all by itself, so it won't fit on a carrier either.

One of the jobs of FAXX is going to be long range strike. That's why I'm expecting bays at least the size of the old A-12.



quellish said:
If the weapon has a range of over 200 miles there is not much of a burning need to carry it internally.
Click to expand...
Unless your target is some 500 miles inside an A2AD bubble...
 
bobbymike said:
Click to expand...
I hope there was more in this analysis than the obvious point that there still needs to be manned fighters. If AF leadership was smart they would set the expectation that CCAs are an enabler for the manned component, not the other way around.

If $300 million is too expensive, what can you get for $200 million. Can you get broad spectrum stealth with a little bit more range, performance, and payload than the F-35. An adaptive engine, maybe conformal MFAs? Base the mission systems on an open architecture Block 4. If that is not possible then continue building the F-35 and fund the adaptive engine for increased range and power generation capacity.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Focus, padawan.

I'm talking specifically about the FAXX, the USN plane. MOP and ARRW are Air Force Programs, Navy has not publicly indicated any interest in those. ARRW definitely will not fit a carrier weapons elevator. The MOP is 20ft long all by itself, so it won't fit on a carrier either.

One of the jobs of FAXX is going to be long range strike. That's why I'm expecting bays at least the size of the old A-12.
Click to expand...
I'm confused. You keep talking about the A-12 and when you do I assume you are referencing the Grumman A-12. I've found the references on this forum to a larger bay than is specified n Wiki but I see no reference to them being longer than what would be considered a normal length for an aircraft.

This graphic certainly doesn't suggest the length you are referencing.


I think the text is off on the internal payload, 8 MK84s but only ten Mk83s doesn't make sense. If the bays were long enough to fit MK84s two inline then it would fit a lot more than ten Mk83.

What appears to be more likely is the bay is wider and somewhat deep but not very long which makes the ten Mk83s achievable and the eight Mk84s a pipe dream but the four Mk84s as per the graphic the likely result. Given the other payload, two TSSAM, which were projected to only be 14 feet in length any A-12 bay longer than 15 feet seems a pipe dream.

Can I also suggest that assigning so much credibility to a design that never flew and was only ever a mockup probably means there were some assumptions made that didn't match with reality.
Scott Kenny said:
Unless your target is some 500 miles inside an A2AD bubble...
Click to expand...
I suppose the JASSM XR variant gets you that additional range but I am in the camp of no internal carriage of JASSM. A better option would be the Andruil Barracuda 500 which is not as wide as a Mk84 but about the same length with a range of 500 miles. I expect Andruil could increase the width closer to Mk84 size and increase the range significantly. Barracuda maybe isn't as LO as the JASSM but would be a lot cheaper and far quicker to manufacture. That means the USN can build the F/A-XX bay around that 14 ft length which would match F-35.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom