USAF/US NAVY 6G Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS news

[Avimimus]

Look at the slug known otherwise known as the Lightning II. Hell they decided kinematics were not even that important.

They did? Where did they do that? Last I checked the F-35A was a 9G aircraft just like the F-16. Let me guess, you think when an F-16 pulls 9Gs it turns sharper than when an F-35 does it right? Right?

This is getting somewhat off-topic, but the slightly higher sustained supersonic speeds seen in air-dominance designs are attractive from a kinematic BVR dueling perspective - just as supersonic maneuverability is more important than subsonic. IHMO, neither the F-16 nor the F-35 were designed to replace the F-15.

A more legitimate question is the balance between supercruise and maneuverability in general...

 

[Triton]

The reality is that NAVAIR simply doesn't have the funding for much (any?) of the above as it's being squeezed by surface and subsurface recapitalizations; the fumbling with UCLASS hasn't helped their credibility with Congress either.

So rather than just saying "We are not acquiring these capabilities because we cannot afford them" they have to generate a more politically palatable pretext in the form of "We are not acquiring these capabilities because they are not important or effective."

So plans for F/A-XX could also change if the budget situation changes in the next adminisration.

 

[TomS]

So plans for F/A-XX could also change if the budget situation changes in the next adminisration.

Of course. But don't assume that the next administration is going to open the floodgates on defense spending. Even if it is Republican, they're going to be pushed by the party's own fiscal conservatives to contain spending.

 

[Grey Havoc]

So plans for F/A-XX could also change if the budget situation changes in the next adminisration.

Of course. But don't assume that the next administration is going to open the floodgates on defense spending. Even if it is Republican, they're going to be pushed by the party's own fiscal conservatives to contain spending.

With the way the world is going to hell in a handbasket, they may not have a choice.

 

[sferrin]

Look at the slug known otherwise known as the Lightning II. Hell they decided kinematics were not even that important.

They did? Where did they do that? Last I checked the F-35A was a 9G aircraft just like the F-16. Let me guess, you think when an F-16 pulls 9Gs it turns sharper than when an F-35 does it right? Right?

This is getting somewhat off-topic, but the slightly higher sustained supersonic speeds seen in air-dominance designs are attractive from a kinematic BVR dueling perspective - just as supersonic maneuverability is more important than subsonic. IHMO, neither the F-16 nor the F-35 were designed to replace the F-15.

A more legitimate question is the balance between supercruise and maneuverability in general...

Apples and oranges. The F-16/F-35 fills a different niche than the F-15/F-22.

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

They did? Where did they do that? Last I checked the F-35A was a 9G aircraft just like the F-16. Let me guess, you think when an F-16 pulls 9Gs it turns sharper than when an F-35 does it right? Right?

This is getting somewhat off-topic, but the slightly higher sustained supersonic speeds seen in air-dominance designs are attractive from a kinematic BVR dueling perspective - just as supersonic maneuverability is more important than subsonic. IHMO, neither the F-16 nor the F-35 were designed to replace the F-15.

A more legitimate question is the balance between supercruise and maneuverability in general...

Apples and oranges. The F-16/F-35 fills a different niche than the F-15/F-22.

I believe the F/A-XX should be more analogous to the F-22 than the F-35. It's supposed to fill give the Navy a fleet interceptor lost by the untimely retirement of the F-14.

 

[bring_it_on]

The CNO doesn't want to emphasize speed (Which the F-22 did), Doesn't want to emphasize Stealth (which both the F-22 and F-35) did. From the looks of it the CNO was laying the ground work for proposing an advanced super hornet varient as a full FA-XX alternative in the AOA. Nice welfare program for Boeing that couldn't win the 5th generation JSF competition (where they did emphasize stealth in their design whereas they could have offered the Super Hornet and Growler concepts ).

 

[sferrin]

The CNO doesn't want to emphasize speed (Which the F-22 did), Doesn't want to emphasize Stealth (which both the F-22 and F-35) did. From the looks of it the CNO was laying the ground work for proposing an advanced super hornet varient as a full FA-XX alternative in the AOA. Nice welfare program for Boeing that couldn't win the 5th generation JSF competition (where they did emphasize stealth in their design whereas they could have offered the Super Hornet and Growler concepts ).

Hopefully this guy will be shown the door before he does much damage.

 

[bring_it_on]

More importantly, with the track record of tactical aircraft programs that continues on its course (UCLASS back and forth) does anyone consider the USN leadership to be capable of successfully executing a program such as the FA-XX? I say so in the context of the FA-XX being a genuine clean sheet 6th generation project.

 

[tacitblue]

Look at the slug known otherwise known as the Lightning II. Hell they decided kinematics were not even that important.

They did? Where did they do that? Last I checked the F-35A was a 9G aircraft just like the F-16. Let me guess, you think when an F-16 pulls 9Gs it turns sharper than when an F-35 does it right? Right?

This is getting somewhat off-topic, but the slightly higher sustained supersonic speeds seen in air-dominance designs are attractive from a kinematic BVR dueling perspective - just as supersonic maneuverability is more important than subsonic. IHMO, neither the F-16 nor the F-35 were designed to replace the F-15.

A more legitimate question is the balance between supercruise and maneuverability in general...

Apples and oranges. The F-16/F-35 fills a different niche than the F-15/F-22.

F-35A approaches F-16C kinematics at higher altitudes. Denser atmosphere, not so. Physics is physics. F-16s drop bombs, F-35 drops bombs, so kinda sorta the -16 can be compared to the -35.

As for the FXX replacing Tomcat, that mission in fleet defense is as extinct as is the magnificent beast herself. For fleet extended range defense all that is needed is a missile carrier with good loiter time and sensors (onboard or via network). Quite simply, NAVAIR recognizes that the -35C ain't its dog in the race for air superiority vs other fighters. F-22 league speed & LO performance in a plane that operates with a couple hundred foot long runway would cost too much $$$ which means program cut after program cut, and perhaps cancellation &/or failure. NAVAIR has it's **** together.

 

[tacitblue]

double post

 

[sublight_]

The CNO doesn't want to emphasize speed (Which the F-22 did), Doesn't want to emphasize Stealth (which both the F-22 and F-35) did. From the looks of it the CNO was laying the ground work for proposing an advanced super hornet varient as a full FA-XX alternative in the AOA. Nice welfare program for Boeing that couldn't win the 5th generation JSF competition (where they did emphasize stealth in their design whereas they could have offered the Super Hornet and Growler concepts ).

Hopefully this guy will be shown the door before he does much damage.

So a heavy subsonic platform loaded with DEW sounds too far fetched?

 

[Triton]

I'm confused. Did MCAIR have any influence on Boeing's JSF proposal--the X-32? Aren't the F/A-XX concepts coming from the Phantom Works of Boeing Defense, Space & Security which is the new name of MCAIR?

 

[Triton]

More importantly, with the track record of tactical aircraft programs that continues on its course (UCLASS back and forth) does anyone consider the USN leadership to be capable of successfully executing a program such as the FA-XX? I say so in the context of the FA-XX being a genuine clean sheet 6th generation project.

Is that really a fair observation during a period of sequestration and a transition period from two developing-world wars to a new Cold War period with the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China? Isn't the world changing for Navy leadership? Maybe things were a lot simpler when the Soviet Union was the designated enemy?

 

[bring_it_on]

I think its fair. It may not accurately portray what they are likely to do with this system, but there is plenty of evidence to have a degree of doubt. Just as there is that degree of doubt on the USAF's ability to stay on budget with high technology projects.

 

[DrRansom]

Re: Stealth and Speed: there is the possibility that the Navy doesn't think it can use manned fighters as strike weapons in a high intensity conflict, hence any movement towards that direction is a waste of resources. In low and medium wars (the only wars the US has fought for the past 5 decades), lower technology was 'acceptable.'

A charitable explanation is that the Greenart is merely claiming the F/A-XX won't be as exotic as the F-X.

Another thought is that a 5+ gen fighter would be the best for the Navy. Less advanced than the F-X, but cheaper to design and build and faster to field. There probably is room for such a fighter anyway:

Take F-35 skin coatings, adaptive engine technology, and the radars and IRST from the F-X program and combine into a single aircraft. This would be better than the vast majority of hostile fighters, but wouldn't be so expensive for a Navy.

 

[bobbymike]

Re: Stealth and Speed: there is the possibility that the Navy doesn't think it can use manned fighters as strike weapons in a high intensity conflict, hence any movement towards that direction is a waste of resources. In low and medium wars (the only wars the US has fought for the past 5 decades), lower technology was 'acceptable.'

A charitable explanation is that the Greenart is merely claiming the F/A-XX won't be as exotic as the F-X.

Another thought is that a 5+ gen fighter would be the best for the Navy. Less advanced than the F-X, but cheaper to design and build and faster to field. There probably is room for such a fighter anyway:

Take F-35 skin coatings, adaptive engine technology, and the radars and IRST from the F-X program and combine into a single aircraft. This would be better than the vast majority of hostile fighters, but wouldn't be so expensive for a Navy.

I agree he is not only talking about the F/A-XX but a whole different concept of operations. Also, in the 2030-2040 timeframe do we have UCLASS or a VLO UAV plus satellites providing the forward/overhead targeting for a large A2A missile carrier with a very long range missile? But if you have these then ship board anti-air can fire hundreds of KMs with a forward targeting aircraft. Pure speculation on my part of course.

 

[marauder2048]

Re: Stealth and Speed: there is the possibility that the Navy doesn't think it can use manned fighters as strike weapons in a high intensity conflict, hence any movement towards that direction is a waste of resources. In low and medium wars (the only wars the US has fought for the past 5 decades), lower technology was 'acceptable.'

A charitable explanation is that the Greenart is merely claiming the F/A-XX won't be as exotic as the F-X.

Another thought is that a 5+ gen fighter would be the best for the Navy. Less advanced than the F-X, but cheaper to design and build and faster to field. There probably is room for such a fighter anyway:

Take F-35 skin coatings, adaptive engine technology, and the radars and IRST from the F-X program and combine into a single aircraft. This would be better than the vast majority of hostile fighters, but wouldn't be so expensive for a Navy.

I agree he is not only talking about the F/A-XX but a whole different concept of operations. Also, in the 2030-2040 timeframe do we have UCLASS or a VLO UAV plus satellites providing the forward/overhead targeting for a large A2A missile carrier with a very long range missile? But if you have these then ship board anti-air can fire hundreds of KMs with a forward targeting aircraft. Pure speculation on my part of course.

All of which would call into question the need for carriers in the first place....

 

[bobbymike]

Re: Stealth and Speed: there is the possibility that the Navy doesn't think it can use manned fighters as strike weapons in a high intensity conflict, hence any movement towards that direction is a waste of resources. In low and medium wars (the only wars the US has fought for the past 5 decades), lower technology was 'acceptable.'

A charitable explanation is that the Greenart is merely claiming the F/A-XX won't be as exotic as the F-X.

Another thought is that a 5+ gen fighter would be the best for the Navy. Less advanced than the F-X, but cheaper to design and build and faster to field. There probably is room for such a fighter anyway:

Take F-35 skin coatings, adaptive engine technology, and the radars and IRST from the F-X program and combine into a single aircraft. This would be better than the vast majority of hostile fighters, but wouldn't be so expensive for a Navy.

I agree he is not only talking about the F/A-XX but a whole different concept of operations. Also, in the 2030-2040 timeframe do we have UCLASS or a VLO UAV plus satellites providing the forward/overhead targeting for a large A2A missile carrier with a very long range missile? But if you have these then ship board anti-air can fire hundreds of KMs with a forward targeting aircraft. Pure speculation on my part of course.

All of which would call into question the need for carriers in the first place....

Still need forward 'airfields' for strike, future land basing rights for a given conflict/geographic area may not be available.

 

[quellish]

So a heavy subsonic platform loaded with DEW sounds too far fetched?

Yes.

 

[sferrin]

I'm confused. Did MCAIR have any influence on Boeing's JSF proposal--the X-32? Aren't the F/A-XX concepts coming from the Phantom Works of Boeing Defense, Space & Security which is the new name of MCAIR?

MCAIR/NG/BAE was Door #3 for JSF.

 

[bring_it_on]

Contrary to the way some of this has been reported, the CNO was talking in general terms when speaking about stealth, speed etc. I think he was throwing out the challenge to the S&T community to go out and find ways to ensure dominance rather than spelling out a formal Navy policy on what capability should and importantly should not exist in the future FA-XX.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcVINAmYI6M

 

[bobbymike]

Contrary to the way some of this has been reported, the CNO was talking in general terms when speaking about stealth, speed etc. I think he was throwing out the challenge to the S&T community to go out and find ways to ensure dominance rather than spelling out a formal Navy policy on what capability should and importantly should not exist in the future FA-XX.

Yes from watching the video the 'media' descriptions of what he said were overblown.

Two things intrigued me;

1) The 'things' they are doing with Rail Gun projectiles
2) The 'classified thing that keeps him up at night

 

[Sundog]

In the article at Aviation Week about the Navy cutbacks on the F-35C program, they mentioned that tests carried out by the Navy with the EA-18G have shown that it can detect many systems at stand-off ranges and it just needs long range missiles to take them out. my guess is the Navy did the math and found long range weapons are lower cost than close in stealth, relatively speaking.

 

[marauder2048]

I'm confused. Did MCAIR have any influence on Boeing's JSF proposal--the X-32? Aren't the F/A-XX concepts coming from the Phantom Works of Boeing Defense, Space & Security which is the new name of MCAIR?

MCAIR/NG/BAE was Door #3 for JSF.

You have to admit that "Lambda wing" rolls off the tongue better than "Trapezoid wing"

 

[Triton]

MCAIR/NG/BAE was Door #3 for JSF.

True. If only McDonnell Douglas/Northrop Grumman/British Aerospace could have gotten the gas-driven lift fan to work. As I understand it, McDonnell Douglas executives were certain that their proposal would make JSF downselect. I can imagine that St. Louis was in shock when Boeing was selected.

With a legacy of producing great fighter planes, perhaps MCAIR is entitled to some missteps? Should we presume that Boeing is going to make a hash of F/A-XX now that they own the legacy of North American Aviation and McDonnell Douglas?

 

[marauder2048]

In the article at Aviation Week about the Navy cutbacks on the F-35C program, they mentioned that tests carried out by the Navy with the EA-18G have shown that it can detect many systems at stand-off ranges and it just needs long range missiles to take them out. my guess is the Navy did the math and found long range weapons are lower cost than close in stealth, relatively speaking.

Forgive my skepticism, but perhaps the Navy showed the above in the same manner as they "showed" that the 30mm chaingun was just as effective as the 57mm cannon for Zumwalt's CIWS after more stringent cost constraints were imposed.

 

[marauder2048]

Re: Stealth and Speed: there is the possibility that the Navy doesn't think it can use manned fighters as strike weapons in a high intensity conflict, hence any movement towards that direction is a waste of resources. In low and medium wars (the only wars the US has fought for the past 5 decades), lower technology was 'acceptable.'

A charitable explanation is that the Greenart is merely claiming the F/A-XX won't be as exotic as the F-X.

Another thought is that a 5+ gen fighter would be the best for the Navy. Less advanced than the F-X, but cheaper to design and build and faster to field. There probably is room for such a fighter anyway:

Take F-35 skin coatings, adaptive engine technology, and the radars and IRST from the F-X program and combine into a single aircraft. This would be better than the vast majority of hostile fighters, but wouldn't be so expensive for a Navy.

I agree he is not only talking about the F/A-XX but a whole different concept of operations. Also, in the 2030-2040 timeframe do we have UCLASS or a VLO UAV plus satellites providing the forward/overhead targeting for a large A2A missile carrier with a very long range missile? But if you have these then ship board anti-air can fire hundreds of KMs with a forward targeting aircraft. Pure speculation on my part of course.

All of which would call into question the need for carriers in the first place....

Still need forward 'airfields' for strike, future land basing rights for a given conflict/geographic area may not be available.

Gotcha. My reasoning was that with all of those assets the impact of your opening cruise missile salvo from SSGNs and surface ships would be greatly amplified. Your BDA is vastly improved allowing UCLASS equipped with loitering munitions to handle much of the follow-up work.

 

[Grey Havoc]

I'm just idly wondering here, but, could we be about to see a revival of the sub launched Cormorant or similar for SEAD, BDA, etc.?

 

[bring_it_on]

Full Video of the CNO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3cuNiaEXI8

 

[Racer]

There will be the F-135 followup that pushes F-35C in the air in future. To build another single engine fighter around it, doesn't make to much sense in my view, you could just improve on F-35C. I can see the chance for a big 2-engine fighter similar to NAFT.

As for speed not in focus: could mean no very high supersonic (Mach 3+) approach. Limit the max. speed to something around Mach 2.3, so no expensive material and maintenance is needed.

Stealth: could be in other words: "F-35 level is OK, don't go the route of much more advanced (expensive) level of stealth."

F/A-XX and Air Dominance is asking for a very potent platform. Kinematics and stealth on the level of adversaries (T-50, J-20), electronics and weaponry on a higher level. Maneuverability should be optimized for supersonic speeds. Goal: stay in BVR fights.
In the strike role a long range is needed. This would also help to stay a long time in the air for CAPs. For very hard defended targets use superstealthy UCAVs or cruise missiles for strikes.

Future focus in pacific region and Cold War II just starting, old Cold War I relics will have some revivals.

Edit: typing error correction

 

[Sundog]

If they were going to limit the speed it would be M=1.8, not 2.3, due to material limitations. If you're flying off of a carrier, high supersonic speeds and long range tend to work against each other, unless you're using variable geometry (See: F-14). Now that they have seen how much the F-35 costs, not just to purchase, but also to operate, though they haven't really said why they're cutting their buys of F-35Cs, it seems the Navy has decided that the airframe doesn't need a lot of stealth if it operates farther away from "the fight" and uses it's systems and weapons to perform more of the work. I would say missile-leer, but it seems that is sort of how they plan to use the F-35C and when it's out of missiles, it becomes a mini-AWACS.

It seems to me that what they, the U.S. Navy, are pushing for, with their experience from operating the EA-18G, is a more refined version of the Growler, with all of the EW systems built in and tied in with the weapons system. I'm thinking one step up on stealth from the EA-18G, sort of the uprated stealthy super hornet Boeing was studying in terms of LO, but performance closer to that the JASDF is looking at in their latest iteration of their new fighter. They stated that they found efficiency for loiter was more important than supercruise and have made the requisite trade-off. It will still be maneuverable, but not unnecessarily so; i.e., it won't need to fly a COBRA maneuver, since that only wins the air show war, not a real war. It will have supersonic capability IMHO, just no need to be supercruise. Which makes me wonder what type of engine they will need as they wouldn't need thew cost and complexity of a variable bypass engine as much, unless they are just using to to optimize the subsonic sfc during loiter. I don't know that that would be worth it, though.

I guess, what they're looking for based on what I've said above is a less costly F-35C, with better supersonic performance, in terms of supersonic interception, but no need for supercruise. At least that's what they seem to be saying to me. Does this mean they will be buying a Super Super Hornet? i.e.- A design that has the aerodynamic capabilities of the current SH, but with a better fuel fraction, slightly better LO, and F-35 avionics?

 

[sferrin]

If they were going to limit the speed it would be M=1.8, not 2.3, due to material limitations. If you're flying off of a carrier, high supersonic speeds and long range tend to work against each other, unless you're using variable geometry (See: F-14). Now that they have seen how much the F-35 costs, not just to purchase, but also to operate, though they haven't really said why they're cutting their buys of F-35Cs,

Have they actually said they're cutting the total number rather than deferring them?

 

[sublight_]

If they were going to limit the speed it would be M=1.8, not 2.3, due to material limitations. If you're flying off of a carrier, high supersonic speeds and long range tend to work against each other, unless you're using variable geometry (See: F-14). Now that they have seen how much the F-35 costs, not just to purchase, but also to operate, though they haven't really said why they're cutting their buys of F-35Cs, it seems the Navy has decided that the airframe doesn't need a lot of stealth if it operates farther away from "the fight" and uses it's systems and weapons to perform more of the work. I would say missile-leer, but it seems that is sort of how they plan to use the F-35C and when it's out of missiles, it becomes a mini-AWACS.

It seems to me that what they, the U.S. Navy, are pushing for, with their experience from operating the EA-18G, is a more refined version of the Growler, with all of the EW systems built in and tied in with the weapons system. I'm thinking one step up on stealth from the EA-18G, sort of the uprated stealthy super hornet Boeing was studying in terms of LO, but performance closer to that the JASDF is looking at in their latest iteration of their new fighter. They stated that they found efficiency for loiter was more important than supercruise and have made the requisite trade-off. It will still be maneuverable, but not unnecessarily so; i.e., it won't need to fly a COBRA maneuver, since that only wins the air show war, not a real war. It will have supersonic capability IMHO, just no need to be supercruise. Which makes me wonder what type of engine they will need as they wouldn't need thew cost and complexity of a variable bypass engine as much, unless they are just using to to optimize the subsonic sfc during loiter. I don't know that that would be worth it, though.

I guess, what they're looking for based on what I've said above is a less costly F-35C, with better supersonic performance, in terms of supersonic interception, but no need for supercruise. At least that's what they seem to be saying to me. Does this mean they will be buying a Super Super Hornet? i.e.- A design that has the aerodynamic capabilities of the current SH, but with a better fuel fraction, slightly better LO, and F-35 avionics?

You're basing this off the CNO video above?

 

[marauder2048]

If they were going to limit the speed it would be M=1.8, not 2.3, due to material limitations. If you're flying off of a carrier, high supersonic speeds and long range tend to work against each other, unless you're using variable geometry (See: F-14). Now that they have seen how much the F-35 costs, not just to purchase, but also to operate, though they haven't really said why they're cutting their buys of F-35Cs,

Have they actually said they're cutting the total number rather than deferring them?

The Navy's desired Go-to-War configuration is Block 4. The Block 4 intercept date is something like FY2021+ and includes
some non-trivial weapons bay modifications to accommodate SBD II (JMM BRU). I can see the Navy's desire to reduce the ramp
rate until Block 4 arrives to minimize the number of birds that have to go back to Ft. Worth for retrofits.

 

[Sundog]

Have they actually said they're cutting the total number rather than deferring them?

According to this article, they're cutting them. Because the Navy states that "foreign sales" should make up for what they won't be buying. Now, that's up to 2020. But it sure seems to me that the Navy is slow-walking it's way out of the F-35 program. Maybe they will buy more after 2020, but it sure doesn't seem that way to me. You don't show "strong support" for a program by not buying it. Also, by the time 2020 rolls around, I'm sure they'll be "too committed" to F/A-XX to be able to spend on other programs. Sure, I may be wrong, but given the history of how I've seen the services behave before, they sure don't seem to want it. Maybe it will translate into more B's for the Marines?

 

[sferrin]

Have they actually said they're cutting the total number rather than deferring them?

According to this article, they're cutting them. Because the Navy states that "foreign sales" should make up for what they won't be buying. Now, that's up to 2020. But it sure seems to me that the Navy is slow-walking it's way out of the F-35 program.

Seems to me it's more a case of trying to fund all that shipbuilding that's come due.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a13967/lockheed-martin-augmented-reality-f-35/

Seems more of a 6th Generation fighter story to me.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/02/heres-what-youll-find-fighter-jet-2030/104736/?oref=d-dontmiss

 

[marauder2048]

Have they actually said they're cutting the total number rather than deferring them?

According to this article, they're cutting them. Because the Navy states that "foreign sales" should make up for what they won't be buying. Now, that's up to 2020. But it sure seems to me that the Navy is slow-walking it's way out of the F-35 program. Maybe they will buy more after 2020, but it sure doesn't seem that way to me. You don't show "strong support" for a program by not buying it. Also, by the time 2020 rolls around, I'm sure they'll be "too committed" to F/A-XX to be able to spend on other programs. Sure, I may be wrong, but given the history of how I've seen the services behave before, they sure don't seem to want it. Maybe it will translate into more B's for the Marines?

Not that you'd know it from the AvWeak article but the Navy is also reducing the number of E-2Ds it plans to acquire
during the period and cutting the planned weapons inventory by 1,000 (SM-6, ESSM, RAM Blk 2, etc).

Of course, acknowledging the above and more specifically the fact that the Navy it terminating buys of its custom version of the Joint *Standoff* Weapon would tend to undermine the premise of the article.