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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alex Hollings from Sandboxx has a new video out concerning the USN's F/A-XX and how it appears to be leaving behind the NGAD:


The U.S. Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance Fighter, meant to be America’s first 6th generation air superiority platform, is now staring down the barrel of a strategic pause and significant redesign aimed at curbing the program’s high sticker price, but that isn’t stopping the Navy from moving at full-steam ahead with their new stealth fighter program. In fact, there’s now a solid chance that the Navy may beat the Air Force to the punch and be the first military service on the planet to field a 6th-generation fighter.
Click to expand...
Let's go over what we know about this new fighter, and what the implications of NGAD's delay might mean for the effort to field it.
Click to expand...
 
Jackonicko said:
There's a paywalled piece on F/A-XX in AWST - by Steve Trimble, so sure to be a humdinger!

U.S. Navy Carves Independent Path For Future Fighter Design | Aviation Week Network

Top Navy officials remain confident in the affordability and design requirements for the F/A-XX as Air Force leaders consider their own next-generation fighter.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Click to expand...
The key takeaways are that the Navy is looking for the F/A-XX to be independent of Air Force funded technologies and the proposals submitted thus far have derivative turbofans rather than the adaptive cycle XA102 or XA103. Looks like @joewee was on point with some of his predictions. I would wager that the most like propulsion candidates are F110 derivatives.

Furthermore, it appears that the F/A-XX is a redux of A/F-X, where the primary focus is on strike, while also being capable of fleet air defense.
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
The key takeaways are that the Navy is looking for the F/A-XX to be independent of Air Force funded technologies and the proposals submitted thus far have derivative turbofans rather than the adaptive cycle XA102 or XA103. Looks like @joewee was on point with some of his predictions. I would wager that the most like propulsion candidates are F110 derivatives.

Furthermore, it appears that the F/A-XX is a redux of A/F-X, where the primary focus is on strike, while also being capable of fleet air defense.
Click to expand...
Why not F135 derivatives?
 
VTOLicious said:
Could twin F135s without afterburners do the trick? Especially if the emphasis is indeed on strike missions?
Click to expand...
That seems pretty unlikely. F/A-XX is going to perform likely a lot like a super hornet but with hopefully more range, VLO, no canted pylons, CCA control etc. Hence a requirement for Mach level speed and potentially a low Mach super cruise is possible or required for the fleet air defence mission.

The aircraft is replacing the SH so think anything the SH does F/A-XX will have to do as well. Then add in 6th gen love and mission types with autonomous ops. The threat the SH had to deal with wasn't wider fleet defence or contested strike until very late in its life. F/A-XX will have that present from day one.
 
VTOLicious said:
Could twin F135s without afterburners do the trick? Especially if the emphasis is indeed on strike missions?
Click to expand...
On a carrier aircraft with their basic safety requirements?
No way in hell
 
Ainen said:
On a carrier aircraft with their basic safety requirements?
No way in hell
Click to expand...
Why not? Plenty of aircraft without afterburning have operated successfully from carriers? Really just depends on the requirements, and we know almost nothing about those. If USN is really emphasising strike and hence payload-range, then maybe subsonic/very low supersonic is the trade off, and no afterburner to save weight/space

The comment about derivative turbofans is interesting: derivatives of what? F414 too small? F100/110 too old? Maybe F135? Maybe civil core?
 
red admiral said:
Why not? Plenty of aircraft without afterburning have operated successfully from carriers? Really just depends on the requirements, and we know almost nothing about those. If USN is really emphasising strike and hence payload-range, then maybe subsonic/very low supersonic is the trade off, and no afterburner to save weight/space

The comment about derivative turbofans is interesting: derivatives of what? F414 too small? F100/110 too old? Maybe F135? Maybe civil core?
Click to expand...
I only thought using the F135 or some close relative could keep parts common. Being out to sea and keeping the parts akin to one another is often crucial, especially when you're trying to keep ops moving between unreps.
 
Moose said:
No adaptive cycle turbines for F/A-XX. Ouch. Navy's range issues not going away.
Click to expand...
F119 derivative? With all the work PW has done with the digital twin plus new materials and manufacturing techniques, it could end up being quite the powerplant even without adaptive cycle. Probably easier to spin up than something totally new.
 
red admiral said:
Why not? Plenty of aircraft without afterburning have operated successfully from carriers? Really just depends on the requirements, and we know almost nothing about those. If USN is really emphasising strike and hence payload-range, then maybe subsonic/very low supersonic is the trade off, and no afterburner to save weight/space

The comment about derivative turbofans is interesting: derivatives of what? F414 too small? F100/110 too old? Maybe F135? Maybe civil core?
Click to expand...
No they speak at high supersonic for FA/XX not subsonic they need an interceptor too , what do you want to do with a poor subsonic fighter today ?
 
NG may be and has been working more closely with the Navy regarding F/A-XX than anyone has thought, the reason NG dropped out from the USAF program, even the NG CEO stated they were putting their efforts towards the Navy program. USAF seems to have shifted to CCA's and possibly a cheaper NGAD fighter. The Navy could take advantage initially of an F/A-XX using dual, upgraded F135 power plants and other F-35 mission systems, may not be a bad way to go in order to get a platform quicker.

This might be be left field but their also could be a USN/NG resurgence of the NG ATA and based upon B-21 tech. NG may have some current deep roots with the Navy? The Navy can still use a good purposed attack platform something they have been lacking for a long time.
 
what_is_that said:
F119 derivative?
Click to expand...
F135 is based on F119 already but with bigger fan for higher cruise efficiency, and more modern architecture e.g. electrical power offtake. I think F135 derivative seems more likely - depending on the aircraft size and hence thrust requirements.

what do you want to do with a poor subsonic fighter today ?
Click to expand...
Payload range with a low signature
 
I do not see why a single engine is a non starter. The F-35 pays a lot kinematically for the USMC length requirement in terms of area rule; you could probably make a super cruiser with all aspect stealth on a single F135 power plant. It would not be super long range, probably still greater than F-35 just with aerodynamic efficiency.
 
It isn't going to be only subsonic. It's still going to be a fleet defender which means it will be supersonic capable. I expect it to have new engines. I'm expecting something F414 sized or slightly larger using F119/F135 tech. Two of them, because the USN still prefers twin engines and you can get a lower side profile with twin engines. It will have afterburners, but it may still be able to supercruise in the fleet defender configuration, like many 4th gen aircraft are capable of. I expect it to have range better than a SH, but I don't know how much better. It certainly couldn't be worse, unless they are trying. I think it will be SH sized, not F-14, due to trying to keep costs down. In five to ten years, maybe we'll know those answers. ;)
 
Sundog said:
It isn't going to be only subsonic. It's still going to be a fleet defender which means it will be supersonic capable. I expect it to have new engines. I'm expecting something F414 sized or slightly larger using F119/F135 tech. Two of them, because the USN still prefers twin engines and you can get a lower side profile with twin engines. It will have afterburners, but it may still be able to supercruise in the fleet defender configuration, like many 4th gen aircraft are capable of. I expect it to have range better than a SH, but I don't know how much better. It certainly couldn't be worse, unless they are trying. I think it will be SH sized, not F-14, due to trying to keep costs down. In five to ten years, maybe we'll know those answers. ;)
Click to expand...
Not if they want the range everyone has been talking about.

What the Navy still wants is a stealth Tomcat with even more range. BARCAP patrols, strike missions, etc ad nauseam.
 
Sundog said:
It isn't going to be only subsonic. It's still going to be a fleet defender which means it will be supersonic capable. I expect it to have new engines.
Click to expand...
What threats is it meant to be defending the fleet from? And which of these require supersonic performance?

It's not going to be much use against DF-21D from land/ship or H-6s launching ASBMs from 1,000nm away. So is it mostly just going to be doing outer layer cruise missile defence before they get to SM-6 range?
 
red admiral said:
What threats is it meant to be defending the fleet from? And which of these require supersonic performance?

It's not going to be much use against DF-21D from land/ship or H-6s launching ASBMs from 1,000nm away. So is it mostly just going to be doing outer layer cruise missile defence before they get to SM-6 range?
Click to expand...
Interception of enemy fighters, Bombers , awacs , air policy , explain me how you do that with a subsonic fighter ? the time to go on zone, if you take the double time because you have a slow fighter you have zero interest to have a new fighter instead of F-35
 
Josh_TN said:
I do not see why a single engine is a non starter. The F-35 pays a lot kinematically for the USMC length requirement in terms of area rule; you could probably make a super cruiser with all aspect stealth on a single F135 power plant. It would not be super long range, probably still greater than F-35 just with aerodynamic efficiency.
Click to expand...
Well, su-75 may prove this point if it'll fly. But it's another country and another technological realm.

Making another fighter on a same engine solution 15 years later sounds...not worth it.

Twins do make sense(massive payload/range leap), but a single... squeezing more out of f-35 is just more attractive.

P.s. wasn't the length limitation actually imposed by the navy and not usmc? I thought USMC(stovl) only affected the engine position in the aircraft.
 
Last edited:
dark sidius said:
Interception of enemy fighters, Bombers , awacs , air policy , explain me how you do that with a subsonic fighter ? the time to go on zone, if you take the double time because you have a slow fighter you have zero interest to have a new fighter instead of F-35
Click to expand...
How do you intercept those aircraft when the weapons they're firing are multiple times the range of your own aircraft? Let alone the much shorter range when it's accelerating to and flying at supersonic speed.

Chasing cruise missiles (that are coming towards you) doesn't sound a compelling argument for supersonic performance
 
red admiral said:
How do you intercept those aircraft when the weapons they're firing are multiple times the range of your own aircraft? Let alone the much shorter range when it's accelerating to and flying at supersonic speed.

Chasing cruise missiles (that are coming towards you) doesn't sound a compelling argument for supersonic performance
Click to expand...
This is not exactly a new problem, it's only 70+ years old(young by US elections standards).
Even skipping stand off bombing and human-guided missiles(1943-44), first proper ASCM deployment against USN was during Korean war(no shooting ofc), and supersonic ASCMs from Badgers fly beyond normal CAP barriers since before Caribbean crysis.

You make an aircraft that can loiter long enough, far enough, with sufficient dash capability and with sufficiently powerful weapons. Then you provide it with sufficient SA picture at those outer CAP barriers.

This solution is also known since 1950s, i.e. since trackers and first day/night sparrow interceptors.
 
Ainen said:
Well, su-75 may prove this point if it'll fly. But it's another country and another technological realm

Making another fighter on a same engin solution 15 years later sounds...not worth it.

Twins do make sense(massive payload/range leap), but a single... squeezing more out of f-35 is just more attractive.

P.s. wasn't the length limitation actually imposed by the navy and not usmc? I thought USMC(stovl) only affected the engine position in the aircraft.
Click to expand...

USMC had the length requirement for the gator freighter’s elevators.
 
red admiral said:
How do you intercept those aircraft when the weapons they're firing are multiple times the range of your own aircraft? Let alone the much shorter range when it's accelerating to and flying at supersonic speed.

Chasing cruise missiles (that are coming towards you) doesn't sound a compelling argument for supersonic performance
Click to expand...
What you are saying is false the most mission of the fighters is air policing and identification , everyday OTAN fighters intercept Russian fighter or Chinese for air policing and for that you need supersonic dash, you d'ont shoot missile beyond the horizon on all plane you can't identify.
 
On the topic of patches, I found this. Plenty of NGAD patches on eBay at the moment, but I found something relating to the drone wingmen. Feel free to correct me if this has been posted here before or if this unrelated. There is a listing for this patch at the moment on eBay.
 

Attachments

  • 57750.jpg
    57750.jpg
    48.9 KB · Views: 53
Ninja said:
On the topic of patches, I found this. Plenty of NGAD patches on eBay at the moment, but I found something relating to the drone wingmen. Feel free to correct me if this has been posted here before or if this unrelated. There is a listing for this patch at the moment on eBay.
Click to expand...

Hah, dig the 1942 reference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom