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

[jsport]

Please, in the discussion about longer range aircraft, remember that longer range without airframe number increase provides less operational sorties, less firepower, higher mission failure rates, less Tactical opportunities.

Increase the range and sorties duration is like giving in day after day the initiative on the battle ground*.
See Russia long range aviation component that is merely a complementary force in Ukraine when it should be dictating the Tactical situation as per doctrinal initiatives.

NGAD Maxi will inherently impart a reduced AF momentum.

*I know, readers would probably shoot at me "P-38, P-51!" but the facts are there was no battle grounds while those were actively regaining Air dominance over Europe. On the west side, it was purely an Air Battle until D-day. On the contrary, the conflict that is drafted today will involves mission generated for Ground force support.

longer range without airframe number increase provides less operational sorties, less firepower, higher mission failure rates, less Tactical opportunities.

Increase the range and sorties duration is like giving in day after day the initiative on the battle ground*.

The above can not be emphasized enough.

.. would argue strategic opportunities against centers of gravity rather than tactical or even operational level targets should be the emphasis of a NGAD ie a big bird w/large missiles.

"less operational sorties, less firepower, higher mission failure rates"

means that a complementing Penetrating/Persistent Counter-air (PCA) capability must afford significant AAM, Anti-radiation Msle, counter-airfield Msle magazines. Minus a multi-role new large stealth only an existing bomber can meet the (PCA) requirement.

PS: Terminating NGAS seems to be a disaster.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Has there been any incentive for NGAD to potentially have clients other than USAF ? Perhaps even if it was cleared for export, I assume it would be more attractive for Pacific allies(such as Australia), rather than Europe, given the requirements NGAD was spurred on.

Australia seems to be the only good buyer for NGAD (or FAXX, for that matter, but with where the big airfields are NGAD would better serve Oz's situation).

longer range without airframe number increase provides less operational sorties, less firepower, higher mission failure rates, less Tactical opportunities.

Increase the range and sorties duration is like giving in day after day the initiative on the battle ground*.

The above can not be emphasized enough.

.. would argue strategic opportunities against centers of gravity rather than tactical or even operational level targets should be the emphasis of a NGAD ie a big bird w/large missiles.

"less operational sorties, less firepower, higher mission failure rates"

means that a complementing Penetrating/Persistent Counter-air (PCA) capability must afford significant AAM, Anti-radiation Msle, counter-airfield Msle magazines. Minus a multi-role new large stealth only an existing bomber can meet the (PCA) requirement.

Unless you build a plane that is designed to efficiently cruise at Mach 2.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Oops, missed one:

When is the F/A-XX needed?

It's needed to replace Super Bugs as they run out of flight hours. I'm sure the exact numbers could be found if a person knew the correct questions to ask, but the last Super Bugs will be delivered in 2027 (as currently bought). Call it 20 years from there means the LAST F/A-XX needs to be delivered in about 2047. Might be able to stretch airframes another 5-10 years, IIRC the Blue Angels birds are ~20 years old when they arrive. So the last FAXX might be able to be delivered in 2057, if no wars happen that deplete the Super Hornet supply and the Navy thinks they can get away with running the Super Bugs that long.

As of end of 2023, the USN had 421 Super Bugs in service, with 76 more on order. And only 30 F-35Cs active with 204 on order (I was expecting more, but I guess the rest are USMC). So, ~500 FAXX assuming 1:1 replacement of Super Bugs. That said, the USN was also looking at replacing some aircraft with UCAVs, one of the proposed Carrier Air Wings was only a single squadron of FAXX, the rest of the strike planes were all UCAVs (3 squadrons). So that'd bring the total needed down to as few as 132 (12-plane squadron, 11 carriers in service), but I have a better feeling for keeping about twice that. 264-288, upper number for 12 carriers in service. Call it about 300 with the Blue Angels also rocking a squadron of FAXX.

 

[Josh_TN]

Potentially. But how many allies even in the Pacific can afford a $300+ Million NGAD? Japan is already a partner on GCAP so unlikely they'll buy a third type in addition to it and F-35A/B. Australia perhaps? But I can see them also buying GCAP down the road..

I cannot imagine NGAD will be available for sale anyway; it likely will use very sensitive technology (if built). But I agree that cost also likely puts it out of reach of Australia and Japan even if it is made available. Also it likely makes little sense for Japan anyway; they are too close to exploit long range.

 

[bring_it_on]

It's needed to replace Super Bugs as they run out of flight hours. I'm sure the exact numbers could be found if a person knew the correct questions to ask, but the last Super Bugs will be delivered in 2027 (as currently bought). Call it 20 years from there means the LAST F/A-XX needs to be delivered in about 2047. Might be able to stretch airframes another 5-10 years, IIRC the Blue Angels birds are ~20 years old when they arrive. So the last FAXX might be able to be delivered in 2057, if no wars happen that deplete the Super Hornet supply and the Navy thinks they can get away with running the Super Bugs that long.

I think the solution would still be to double down on full kit installs on Block 2 SH's to get the additional 4,000 hours (15 years) and upgrades. With a mix of Block 1, 2's and Block 3 SH's, the former mix of block 1 and some block 2's would be what the F/A-XX begins replacing in the 2030s. I wouldn't be surprised if the F/A-XX production program is half or slightly more than half of the overall SH effort due to cost and other advancements in technologies leading to more unmanned component in the air wing. My overall point is that the Navy has options of the table..from adding more aircraft to the SLM and funding that effort better to increasing F-35C buys. Both of these can be used to hedge against F/A-XX delays.

We will know more about F/A-XX timelines if the Navy moves forward on the program later this year. But if they begin buying aircraft towards the end of the decade, and hope to have it operational early-mid next decade, then we can realistically expect about 180-200 in hand or on order by 2040..or about 1/3 of the SH fleet currently operational. Another 250 to 300 or so SH's would have gone through the 10,000 hour SLM process by then.