USAF/USN 6th Gen Fighters - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS News & Analysis [2008- 2025]

[jsport]

https://www.defensenews.com/breakin...ru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dfn-breaking

 

[Josh_TN]

CCA bullshit can't replace a plane like the F-22, it is like fighting a jet with piston engine. Musk is saying bullshit, he want to sell is starlink service for the drone fleet , but soon the conflict will be in space, to shot down the CCA fleet shoot the Starlink satellite detonate a nuclear weapon in orbit an bye bye the marvelous drone fleet. There is nothing better than a human in a real fighter , they must look at the Ukraine war carefully with no dominance in the air no win. Musk is a genious for Space but know nothing about military aviation.

Musk is clear out of his depth on this topic, but the goal of CCA is not replacement. If you think of it more as an over sized decoy that can shoot back, perhaps that will sit better.

I would not assume this administration would adopt any specific policy; only about a half dozen policies have been explicitly stated post election and if his previous administration is anything to go by, those are fungible. Best to wait and see.

 

[Airbus A340]

What way is there to beat China? Ask the Chinese source who said "To win without fighting is best." Maybe wait until China's demographics make it unable to fight. When is the window of opportunity and when does it close? Will NGAD deploy in numbers before the window closes? When was the last time China fought competently in a war? That was the Korean War. They took soldiers and generals who knew how to overthrow a government and they used them as cannon fodder to keep a communist buffer between China and a US client. They fought well compared to most Chinese armies historically. The Chinese know history and take the long view. They were conquered time and again by forces that, on paper, were weaker. They cannot have any belief in the willingness of their troops to fight and fight effectively. The US needs to focus on AA/AD to keep China bottled up. Is an NGAD part of that? I don't see the need for a piloted 60 ton Mach 2 supercruise plane that will cost 300 million each. It would still be cool to have one though.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What way is there to beat China? Ask the Chinese source who said "To win without fighting is best." Maybe wait until China's demographics make it unable to fight. When is the window of opportunity and when does it close?

Don't forget that China also has a vote in this as well.

And they can read their upcoming demographic implosion at least as well as we can.

I would not be surprised if they launch an attack/expansion at more or less the last point they can still fight and have a chance of winning

 

[quellish]

Musk is clear out of his depth on this topic, but the goal of CCA is not replacement. If you think of it more as an over sized decoy that can shoot back, perhaps that will sit better.

I would not assume this administration would adopt any specific policy; only about a half dozen policies have been explicitly stated post election and if his previous administration is anything to go by, those are fungible. Best to wait and see.

The goal of CCA is to reduce costs. With the CCA they can reduce the requirements (and costs) of the manned NGAD.

Acting SECAF Roth, ( June 2021 )

Mr. ROTH. Propulsion is a key cost driver for attritable aircraft. The Department of the Air Force is working on limited-life engine technologies, prioritizing cost opti- mization over performance. Overall, the Department of the Air Force is pursuing digital designs, low-cost manufacturing techniques, and modular open system archi- tectures to ensure these aircraft are produced at a price point that enables sufficient mass to deter, and if necessary, defeat peer adversaries. The Air Force is pursuing programs such as the manned-unmanned teaming of attritable systems with fighter aircraft to provide an operational benefit to the warfighter at a lower cost. While we do not have specific analysis that compares risk to 5th Gen Fighter Operations operating with or without attritable systems, our wargaming and analysis indicates that attritable aircraft can be a force multiplier in some of the most difficult sce- narios we anticipate the Joint Force may confront in a future operating environment that is highly contested.

General Brown (2022):

Mr. SCOTT. What must be done to ensure that Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) will not be a high demand, low density platform?
General BROWN. Because of the high expected unit cost of the NGAD platform, there is a risk that needed numbers may not be affordable. As a result, the Air Force is pursuing uncrewed combat aircraft that would be controlled by an NGAD platform and provide an overall more affordable air dominance capability. The Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Family of Systems (FoS) is foundational to the Air Force’s air superiority capability in the future fighter force structure. Replacing the F–22, NGAD FoS will be the Air Force’s primary air superiority capability in the highly contested environment and will have the ability to engage air and surface based targets and threats."

SECAF Kendall, (April 2023):

We also have a very serious challenge on the basis of afford- ability. The aircraft that we currently have in production, both the EX and the F–35, are costing on the order of $85 million to $100 million apiece. The NGAD platform, the Next Generation Air Domi- nance manned platform, is going to cost multiple times those num- bers.
So, we are introducing the CCAs that we were talking about ear- lier, the Collaborative Combat Aircraft, to get a unit-cost item into the fleet that is very cost-effective and improves our ratio of capa- bility on an affordability and a cost-effectiveness basis. So, that is the mix that we are looking at.

Andrew P. Hunter, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force and Lt. Gen. Richard G. Moore Jr., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff ( March 2023 ) :

Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA)
While the NGAD crewed fighter will give us an exquisite edge, it will be unaffordable to purchase these in sufficient quantities to provide the necessary mass on a threat-relevant timeline. CCA provide affordable and capable mass by teaming with the NGAD crewed platform as well as numerous other current and future generation platforms across the joint force. CCA development unites the parallel disciplines of autonomy and low-cost air vehicle construction previously funded under Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) Skyborg Vanguard program. We have learned a great deal through analysis and experimentation in the Skyborg program, and in our ongoing concept refinement studies. The FY24 PB requests $392 million for competitive concept refinement, design, and development of a first-generation CCA. Additionally, we request $119 million to fund supporting activities that will accelerate platform-agnostic autonomy development, and explore the optimal operations, maintenance, and sustainment concepts for these novel platforms. Our extensive analyses show that CCA are a force multiplier that will allow us to achieve air superiority affordably and at scale. Continued investment in the NGAD Family of Systems will ensure our ability to secure the air against proliferating threats to support future joint operations anytime, anywhere.

(and dozens more)

 

[quellish]

Expected, but I still think it's going to try to get the BARCAP/Fleet Air Defense role back as well.



That greatly surprises me.

This is the problem. None of this should be surprising considering DoD has been stating this for years, yet the "news" outlets that are most often read and cited here do not report on them.

Frankly, most of our forum members do a better job of reporting the news on these topics than those sites do. Which... is why... those places... keep using material from the forum.

I mean, have you seen the pictures of the Eagle 2s with double rails EVERYWHERE? 8x AMRAAMs on the CFTs, and maybe 8 more on the wings. Plus 4x AIM9s for fun. Or another 4x AMRAAMs, for a total of 20 missiles.

Hold my beer....

 

[red admiral]

The goal of CCA is to reduce costs. With the CCA they can reduce the requirements (and costs) of the manned NGAD.

So to me then all those statements simply talk to buying fewer NGADs rather than reducing the requirements of NGAD? i.e. a team of higher/lower capability systems appears more cost-effective

 

[quellish]

So to me then all those statements simply talk to buying fewer NGADs rather than reducing the requirements of NGAD? i.e. a team of higher/lower capability systems appears more cost-effective

With CCAs the requirements for the manned aircraft may be reduced. For example, the size of weapons bays may be reduced, which drives many other requirements and costs.

The CCAs themselves may have reduced life cycle costs. Most often are kept in a box until there is a conflict. They don’t have to be constantly flown like a manned aircraft.

 

[Josh_TN]

Even if "drone swarms" were something which could realistically be addressed by treaty, half the American political class thinks "treaty" is a dirty word.

More over it seems exceedingly unlikely the PRC would be bound by treaty, especially in any field it felt it had dominance in. If you you think you are inheriting the world, you do not tie your hands.

 

[Josh_TN]

The goal of CCA is to reduce costs. With the CCA they can reduce the requirements (and costs) of the manned NGAD.

Acting SECAF Roth, ( June 2021 )



General Brown (2022):



SECAF Kendall, (April 2023):





Andrew P. Hunter, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force and Lt. Gen. Richard G. Moore Jr., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff ( March 2023 ) :




(and dozens more)

My post was a polite way of dealing with a broken record.

 

[quellish]

My post was a polite way of dealing with a broken record.

The public record is clear and at odds with the narrative espoused by “news” sources such as “Twz’ Sandboxx etc

I remember factual information. The War Zone / The Drive does not. Do you remember facts?

 

[Scott Kenny]

More over it seems exceedingly unlikely the PRC would be bound by treaty, especially in any field it felt it had dominance in. If you you think you are inheriting the world, you do not tie your hands.

Exactly.

And to not put too fine a point on it, the American "Empire" is almost 250 years old now. That's getting close to the expected life of any given empire.

While the current ruling dynasty of the Chinese Empire is only 70.

 

[dark sidius]

What way is there to beat China? Ask the Chinese source who said "To win without fighting is best." Maybe wait until China's demographics make it unable to fight. When is the window of opportunity and when does it close? Will NGAD deploy in numbers before the window closes? When was the last time China fought competently in a war? That was the Korean War. They took soldiers and generals who knew how to overthrow a government and they used them as cannon fodder to keep a communist buffer between China and a US client. They fought well compared to most Chinese armies historically. The Chinese know history and take the long view. They were conquered time and again by forces that, on paper, were weaker. They cannot have any belief in the willingness of their troops to fight and fight effectively. The US needs to focus on AA/AD to keep China bottled up. Is an NGAD part of that? I don't see the need for a piloted 60 ton Mach 2 supercruise plane that will cost 300 million each. It would still be cool to have one though.

And you will fight with what if China realise the hypersonic dream to have mach 4/5 fighter ?USAF will stay in status quo with F-16/F-35? Do you think it is possible to win if the ennemy is running very fast like China ? It is time to go on NGAD , hypersonic etc.... Stop the bla-bla-bla and build a new fleet of Bomber fighter , ISR Hypersonic and new X-37 successor , and there is no years away of China will dominate the space sector too.

 

[Moose]

No CCA is going to use adaptive turbines, and USN has already walked away from them for cost reasons. So that's an entire generation of turbines technology in the bin.

 

[Airbus A340]

At some point it's diminishing returns on air power. Read martin van Creveld's The Age of Airpower. It makes one question when Airpower would get too expensive for what it offers. it looks like we're there.

 

[_Del_]

The CCAs themselves may have reduced life cycle costs. Most often are kept in a box until there is a conflict. They don’t have to be constantly flown like a manned aircraft.

And smaller, cheaper CCAs (compared to manned aircraft) means it is easier, faster, and cheaper to surge production if the balloon goes up.
Hence "seni-attritable". They don't want to throw them away, but having something cheap and reusable that you can produce in a hurry for much cheaper than a manned aircraft means you can send it places to enable "the family of systems" which you wouldn't want to send other assets.

It's paradigm shifting, so it's not surprising that many people are focused on the individual "less capable" pieces, and not the abilities as a whole.

 

[_Del_]

It is time to go on NGAD , hypersonic etc.

You may or may not have noticed that our debt service now exceeds the defense spending. Perhaps you've noticed the resulting devalued dollar at the store?

 

[FighterJock]

Looks like the Death Spiral is quickly becoming reality, where the next generation costs more thant the last thus fewer fighters get purchased than before. Look at what happened to the F-22 for example, that was what the F-35 was ment to solve.

 

[_Del_]

No CCA is going to use adaptive turbines, and USN has already walked away from them for cost reasons. So that's an entire generation of turbines technology in the bin.

You're too pessimistic on this point, but the first generation of CCA will certainly not be the so equiped.

 

[kqcke for you]

I don't think adaptive engine wont be a think given that there advantage is obvious but i would guess that they look at maturing the technology even more. There also other developments like RDE which may are looked at for NGAP

 

[Josh_TN]

The public record is clear and at odds with the narrative espoused by “news” sources such as “Twz’ Sandboxx etc

I remember factual information. The War Zone / The Drive does not. Do you remember facts?

I was addressing a different poster who tends to repeat the same position ad nauseam; I am not disputing your analysis of twz at all.

 

[quellish]

Navy Aviation Vision 2030-2035

https://media.defense.gov/2021/Oct/27/2002881262/-1/-1/0/NAVY AVIATION VISION 2030-2035_FNL.PDF

 

[Brett Davidson]

Looks like the Death Spiral is quickly becoming reality, where the next generation costs more thant the last thus fewer fighters get purchased than before. Look at what happened to the F-22 for example, that was what the F-35 was ment to solve.

I think some time in the 90s someone looked at the rising costs of fighters and calculated that by 2050 or thereabouts, the entire defence budget could buy one plane. The Air Force could use it on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, the Navy could use it on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and the Marines could have it on weekends.

 

[books]

Digital Century series is dead for manned NGAD, has been for a number of years. It was less the big contractors won and more that PPBE just wasn't flexible enough for that to happen. Portions of it remain with CCA.

Nope, far from dead. As of early summer it was very much alive. USAF wants to produce small numbers at a time and constantly iterate. 3-6 years for each airframe iteration, with 8-16 year service life.

Each iteration could be made by a different contractor. They want to get away from “winner take all” and use CCA to incubate new contractors.

I think Ozair's comment was true for a while, but now is in a superposition of being indeterminate.

When control of NGAD reverted to Frank Kendall in later 2021, he began a process of narrowing down the official plans until he arrived at what became the terms of the 2023 RFP. During this time, he decided that the USAF would do only one crewed sixth gen fighter and, by all appearances, that it would be the large Battlestar version. With a unit price of 300m, it very much appears to be a durable asset of high capability, with ownership costs and modernization handled by the pre-Roper approach of MOSA, gov owned IP, competitive sustainment, and agile software development. That is, it appears that Kendall did not embrace Roper's interest in applying CCA lifecyle management approaches to crewed fighters. Rather than Roper's approach of avoiding modernization and sustainment, Battlestar aimed to excel at them, cheaply.

However, things spun out of control late last year with Sentinel and the BCA, and suddenly Kendall was being controlled by events rather than vice versa. Since then, Roperized crewed aircraft are back on the table as an option, while CCAs, whose rapidly improving AI was previously just considered as gravy, are now in the running to become the new meat & potatoes as well. But NO approach can currently be described as The Plan, which won't exist until the incoming officeholders make their choices over the next couple years. It is NOT true that Roperized crewed aircraft have replaced Battlestar, but they are contenders again, and could. Many people think they have more momentum, and fit the budget better.

Not for nothing, CJCS Brown is a fan of light fighters (MR-X) and CSAF Allvin has Roperish inclinations. But neither they nor the study participants will make the call. It might be the next Secretary of the Air Force, or the new SecDef, or Congress that decides -- only time will tell who delegates and who the choice falls to.

 

[TomS]

I think some time in the 90s someone looked at the risings costs of fighters and calculated that by 2050 or thereabouts, the entire defence budget could buy one plane. The Air Force could use it on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, the Navy could use it on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and the Marines could have it on weekends.

Augustine's Laws (1984)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine's_laws

XVI. In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3-1/2 days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

In related news, OpenAI, developers of ChatGPT, has partnered with Anduril for counter-UAS applications, but one has to wonder if the partnership will eventually cross over to their CCA effort.

https://www.anduril.com/article/and...cial-intelligence-leadership-and-protect-u-s/

 

[dark sidius]

4 years of Kendall for nothing, I hope new administration do the job of NGAD.

 

[dark sidius]

In related news, OpenAI, developers of ChatGPT, has partnered with Anduril for counter-UAS applications, but one has to wonder if the partnership will eventually cross over to their CCA effort.

https://www.anduril.com/article/and...cial-intelligence-leadership-and-protect-u-s/

I still don't see how this company can do a job in air dominance with their design?https://ir.kratosdefense.com/news-r...-reports-third-quarter-2023-financial-results Why don't chose Kratos who seem to be more serious in term of air dominance concept ?https://www.twz.com/air/former-trum...out-the-future-of-big-ticket-defense-programs

 

[jsport]

Navy Aviation Vision 2030-2035

https://media.defense.gov/2021/Oct/27/2002881262/-1/-1/0/NAVY AVIATION VISION 2030-2035_FNL.PDF

The advanced carrier based power projection capabilities resident in F/AXX will maintain CVN relevance in advanced threat environments..

once again..how about relevance in A2AD environments ie not self-licking ice cream cones who are more about comcerned about threats to itself than relevance to theaters. If ur gonna pay for a floating city it sure ..better be focused on the theatre not itself..a culture gone to short termism.

 

[Josh_TN]

I still don't see how this company can do a job in air dominance with their design?https://ir.kratosdefense.com/news-r...-reports-third-quarter-2023-financial-results Why don't chose Kratos who seem to be more serious in term of air dominance concept ?https://www.twz.com/air/former-trum...out-the-future-of-big-ticket-defense-programs

Fury and XQ-58 are similar in MTOW, however Fury appears to be higher thrust:weight / performance. Also it appears conventional landing was a requirement of Incr1.

 

[Airbus A340]

About carriers and NGAD. It is abundantly clear from history that weapons that are not expendable, attritable, riskable, are not viable weapons. Look at battleships. They did very little in WW1. Destroyers, cruisers, raiders, submarines, and even battlecruisers saw more action. I have posted this before. Read about the use of CVs in the Guadalcanal campaign. Hornfischer's book on Guadalcanal is at the library and on Amazon used. There were too few carriers to risk them and they Japanese air and subs could sink carriers. So, the carriers hung back far away. In Desert Storm the carriers stayed 300nm away from Iraq until the Iraqi air was crushed, then hey went into 200nm away. (van Creveld, Age of Airpower). 300nm away because of a handful of Mirage F1s with Exocets. What about Iceman and Maverick in their F-14s? What about Aegis, Seasparrow, Standard, and Phalanx? Chaff and ECM? 300nm because of the Mirage F1 and the Exocet that could only penetrate 70mm of armor when carriers have more. How far back do they keep the carriers against China?

What about NGAD? How far back does a piloted plane stay from air defenses? We are going to see drones, etc. replace piloted planes simply because the piloted plane is not cost effective. They need piloted aircraft to be close enough to have commo line of sight to the drones. The drones send the picture to the human and the human makes the decisions. The drones carry out the decisions. The piloted plane will need some combination of speed, stealth etc. but will mostly hang back.

Both the carrier and the fighter are built to beat up on failed states and weak countries like Iraq 1991. That is the ideal, that's what they are built to do. When they have to fight insurgents, the two systems are overkill when wargames are run to see how they do against competence they fail. They are for beating up Saddam's Iraq in 1991. that's what they do. Maybe they can beat up Iran. China? no.

 

[Ainen]

Both the carrier and the fighter are built to beat up on failed states and weak countries like Iraq 1991.

Carriers are built to bring airpower to the fight. Not more, not less. Carriers can(and imho - should) be made cheaper, that's for sure, because last true carrier experience was of them being the single most expendable large asset, not some unsinkable fortress. That's fine.
Because if you want to fight a naval war without air - well. Good luck.

What about NGAD? How far back does a piloted plane stay from air defenses? We are going to see drones, etc. replace piloted planes simply because the piloted plane is not cost effective.

Drones aren't cheap, though. Also, drones are still aircraft, they have to take off and land somewhere.
Kind reminder that 2.5 reapers w/o armament is 1 f-35. And reaper is a a glorified pest fighter with long wings.
Autonomy doesn't come for free.

How far back do they keep the carriers against China?

It depends, carriers can move. Fast.
But carriers can be effective from longer distance than any other surface asset, and they're harder to pin down than any land asset.
Current carriers are short ranged(shortest reach since early 1950s, but that's not a norm, and that's something to be changed.

 

[Josh_TN]

I would argue that a CSG has a strike range of ~1000 miles quite easily against opponent vessels with minimal refueling using stand off weapons. That would put it outside the range of most PRC assets with notable exceptions of DF-26, H-6, and perhaps YJ-21. It also puts it outside unrefueled opponent fighter cover and a week+ cruise for SSKs. The primary ISR threat at this range is probably orbital.

That said, a CVN is a huge number of eggs in one basket.

 

[Josh_TN]

As for USN CCAs, it looks like the thinking is that eventually they will be the majority of the air wing and have lifespans measured in the hundreds of hours/dozens of traps.

 

[Ainen]

I would argue that a CSG has a strike range of ~1000 miles quite easily against opponent vessels with minimal refueling using stand off weapons. That would put it outside the range of most PRC assets with notable exceptions of DF-26, H-6, and perhaps YJ-21. It also puts it outside unrefueled opponent fighter cover and a week+ cruise for SSKs. The primary ISR threat at this range is probably orbital.

That said, a CVN is a huge number of eggs in one basket.

All carrier strategic bombers exceeded that by a big margin. A-6 did too.

Because range is both security and reach into "World island", and that matters against Asiatic land powers.

That's before taking into account rising importance of desperate bloody khornefest called carrier duels. Where reach and range, is among the most decisive.

Conclusion (surprise), in big power competition, strike range is paramount.

Enemy vulnerability matters too - as 1980s shown, extreme range strike capability, apart from primary purpose, was seen as a fine way to bait response (backfires) beyond escort range, right into hands of several barriers of tomcats, hornets and potentially whatever can take off with amraam.

And, vise versa, flankers with their stupid a2a range were breaking the game. They still are, courtesy of superbug decks.
Plus, during our time, any additional shots against hypersonics(which just won't give surface ships second engagement chances) are of vital importance - as early and as far from csg(or 3rd protected asset!) as possible.

Finally, while b-21 is close expectation, so is H-20. Searching the old way may be necessary.

Tldr: carrier(and naval in general) fighter range is just as decisive. Two main naval fighter aircraft roles(timely intercept and escort, aca local air superiority)hinge on range.

=
I am like 80% sure naval NGAD will go all in to getsomething like ~1500 nmi refueled strike range(and potentially 900-1000 unrefuelled/extended cap). +JASSM-XR and SM-6 on top.

 

[Airbus A340]

The key Ainen identified is expendable asset. The most capable expendable asset is what is most useful. Cruisers at Guadalcanal were more capable than DDs but still riskable. A CVN is not riskable, neither is a 300 million dollar aircraft.

 

[Ainen]

The key Ainen identified is expendable asset. The most capable expendable asset is what is most useful. Cruisers at Guadalcanal were more capable than DDs but still riskable. A CVN is not riskable, neither is a 300 million dollar aircraft.

True, but expendables have nasty side to them: you usually can't stock them.

They grow outdated faster than anything, because it's small products with superiority carved through margins, and not floating cities that can be just made bigger for the same effect.

Expendable assets are top-grade, mass-produced industrial goods with low life at the top of food chain, and quite often, low expected lifecycle in general(allowing even more performance).
As a result, they're products which you develop during peacetime, but produce only when you're expecting a war. They are not a way to build up your advantage.

The way for established power to accumulate power is investing into capital assets, i.e. those that can't be easily obtained during war (reminder that even US failed to build a single battleship began after their entry into war).
The very fact they're irreplaceable is their biggest plus - they establish relative position of forces in the first place, before the conflict.
And it's a weight of industrial, defense and institutional investment over many decades, one that emerging power may find very hard to match.

P.s. 300 mil fighters are certainly riskable. Just riskable in the same way as frigates, not as smaller aircraft.
And it's probably the single big reason why USAF has to change trail.

 

[Josh_TN]

All carrier strategic bombers exceeded that by a big margin. A-6 did too.

Because range is both security and reach into "World island", and that matters against Asiatic land powers.

That's before taking into account rising importance of desperate bloody khornefest called carrier duels. Where reach and range, is among the most decisive.

Conclusion (surprise), in big power competition, strike range is paramount.

Enemy vulnerability matters too - as 1980s shown, extreme range strike capability, apart from primary purpose, was seen as a fine way to bait response (backfires) beyond escort range, right into hands of several barriers of tomcats, hornets and potentially whatever can take off with amraam.

And, vise versa, flankers with their stupid a2a range were breaking the game. They still are, courtesy of superbug decks.
Plus, during our time, any additional shots against hypersonics(which just won't give surface ships second engagement chances) are of vital importance - as early and as far from csg(or 3rd protected asset!) as possible.

Finally, while b-21 is close expectation, so is H-20. Searching the old way may be necessary.

Tldr: carrier(and naval in general) fighter range is just as decisive. Two main naval fighter aircraft roles(timely intercept and escort, aca local air superiority)hinge on range.

=
I am like 80% sure naval NGAD will go all in to getsomething like ~1500 nmi refueled strike range(and potentially 900-1000 unrefuelled/extended cap). +JASSM-XR and SM-6 on top.

The shorter range of modern carrier aviation when compared to previous embarked bombers is lamentable, but the A-3 and A-6 were never heavily represented in the air wing. F-4/F-14 definitely had some endurance advantages as well, but again in comparatively smaller numbers compared to even a modern CVWs fighter wing (though it does remove any strike capacity to use the air wing that way).

I still think a thousand mile anti shipping strike range is rather relevant, and a CSG can achieve a high density subsonic strike rather easily with MALD-N, AGM-158C1/2/3, and Tomahawks.

 

[Ainen]

I still think a thousand mile anti shipping strike range is rather relevant, and a CSG can easily achieve a high density strike subsonic strike rather easily with MALD-N, AGM-158C1/2/3, and Tomahawks.

While feasible, it requires significant information and air superiority. Subsonic missiles will take over two hours to get to 1000 miles: they need ota targeting updates, or they can simply miss entirely. They also need escort/air sweep just like any other aircraft.

IMHO, it's better for 1st tier navies to either fight safely with intermediate platform (I. e. deckloads and submarine action), or just go decisive and close in for SM-6(HQ-9) action.
It ensures maximum dual-purpose magazine depth for all situations, i.e. best defensive (I e sea superiority/sea control) capability.

For 2nd tier navies - hypersonic salvo warfare with minimal dead time (and this lower information and coordination requirement) are the way.

 

[Forest Green]

Exocet that could only penetrate 70mm of armor when carriers have more. How far back do they keep the carriers against China?

A 165kg warhead only penetrates 70mm of armour?