US Navy 6th Gen Fighter - F/A-XX

Meanwhile china is going to have 4 stealth platforms? I wish the navy would make their own thing; the f-14 turned out to be an impressive machine, too bad they never gave it the upgrades it needed; it could have been an incredible machine.
 
Scott Kenny said:
More for Fleet Air Defense than for strictly air superiority, but yes.

And the FAXX will be doing the Fleet Air Defense role, loitering at long range from the carrier, looking for incoming bombers and missiles.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t you agree that the fleet defense and Air to Air mission sets would determine the design more than the strike role? Especially if F35C can’t do that job sufficiently.
 
Last edited:
Deezy said:
Wouldn’t you agree that the fleet defense and Air to Air mission sets would determine the design more than the strike role? Especially if F35C can’t do that job sufficiently.
Click to expand...

The USN does not seem to agree regardless of what Scott Kenny thinks. And I believe the reason is because most of the current PRC threats to the CSG are simply outside the scope of any Outter Air battle.
 
Deezy said:
Wouldn’t you agree that the fleet defense and Air to Air mission sets would determine the design more than the strike role? Especially if F35C can’t do that job sufficiently.
Click to expand...
I think we can generally agree that its a strike fighter that is also capable of conducting air superiority missions, but until you post evidence or the end result proves otherwise, I'm not inclined to believe it is an air superiority fighter.
 
It is also reasonable to assume that it will be better at the air superiority and fleet defense roles than the F-35C, and certainly better at these roles than the Super Hornet. Thus, fielding F/A-XX will improve the fleet's ability to project air superiority and defend itself, and not fielding F/A-XX will have the inverse effect. What are the odds that F/A-XX will be worse than the Super Hornet at the interceptor role? Low, surely.
 
Scott Kenny said:
And the FAXX will be doing the Fleet Air Defense role, loitering at long range from the carrier,
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for that assertion or are you speculating?
 
AGS-1787 said:
Meanwhile china is going to have 4 stealth platforms?
Click to expand...
Yes. J-20 and J-35 as 5th Generation, J-36 and J-50 as 6th. Oh, and eventually the H-XX stealth bomber to replace all their ancient H-6s.

So technically 5 stealth platforms.


Deezy said:
Wouldn’t you agree that the fleet defense and Air to Air mission sets would determine the design more than the strike role? Especially if F35C can’t do that job sufficiently.
Click to expand...
No. Internal carriage of strike weapons determines the size of the weapons bays, and bay size drives overall size, plus engine power etc as a function of wetted area.

The current guesstimate I have for bay size is:
  • two main bays, each one ~65" (at least) wide by ~25" deep by ~200" long.
    • That is large enough to carry 2x AGM-158s, 2-3x 2000lb JDAMs, or 1x AARGM and 1x other ordnance. I need specs for how big 500lb bombs are on TERs/MERs, I don't know if you could pack 6x 500lbs into a 25x25x200 box. That's for strike missions.
    • Each bay could also carry 2x AIM-174Bs, or at least 4x AMRAAM/JATMs and more likely 6x on something equivalent to the F-35 Sidekick racks. With some custom racks, it would be possible to fit 8x AMRAAM/JATMs per bay, the missiles physically fit into a box that size but dropping them would take some engineering. That's for air-to-air missions.
  • two AAM bays, each one sized to hold at least one AMRAAM-sized weapon.
Each main bay is nearly the width and is at least 6" deeper than the F-22's weapons bay!


quellish said:
Do you have a source for that assertion or are you speculating?
Click to expand...
My source is every one of yours saying that the FAXX is the replacement for the Super Bug.

"Replacing the Super Bug" means taking over the missions that the Super Bug performs, does it not?

Also, if the FAXX isn't doing BARCAP and Outer Air Battle things, what is?
Yes, CCAs could do the job and be a lot farther out than the FAXX and/or E-2s. But the Navy has not mooted air-to-air CCAs that I have seen, and said CCAs are at least a decade from service.​
​
If you're going to assert that the Navy is abandoning BARCAP and OAB, I want sources!
 
The F-35C will be antiquated by the time the sixth gen becomes operational dark sidius. No matter what upgrades they put on it sadly.
 
Reddington777 said:
I think we can generally agree that its a strike fighter that is also capable of conducting air superiority missions, but until you post evidence or the end result proves otherwise, I'm not inclined to believe it is an air superiority fighter.
Click to expand...
The A-12 would have been a true strike platform with not so great air superiority capability. There’s a reason this thing starts with an F, and isn’t an A/F-XX. FIGHTER first.
 
Naval AirSup got handed over to DDGs for much of the 2000s already. Tomcat culture exists no more than practices, reality is far more pilots fly strike than CAP. No reason to stray from that, fixing the problem would be a multi-admin struggle.
 
dark sidius said:
The Navy need air dominance , they have nothing to opposite to J-36 or J-50 or J-20
Click to expand...

Ships today have more powerful radars and missiles than ever. Realistically they would deal with airborne threats. The F/A-XX, as a strike fighter, would target installations and ships with stand off munitions. Obviously like the Super Hornet it would replace, it could defend itself and hold it's own against peers. But generally speaking anything that flies would be dealt with by the DDGs and CGs.

At least if I understand the roles within the Navy correctly.

Think of F/A-XX as an SSGN in naval terms, it's a stealthy strike platform first and foremost.
 
USN fighter doctrine is based around self escort strike. It is what the Hornet was built to do but that doesn't mean that SH, and when they still operated the classics, didn't conduct intercept, BARCAP and fighter sweep missions. It is a multi-role platform and therefore capable of completing all those mission roles. USN VFA squadrons train for the air superiority/supremacy mission set, including WVR and BVR, the same way they train for the strike and ground attack mission sets and any squadron/air wing rotating through NAWDC for Air Wing Fallon exercises works through those mission sets.

We can also go back to the RFI issued in 2012 to understand what the USN initially sought from the platform;

"The intent of this research is to solicit Industry inputs on candidate solutions for CVN [nuclear-powered aircraft carrier] based aircraft to provide air supremacy with a multi-role strike capability in an anti-access/area denied (A2AD) operational environment," the RfI reads. "Primary missions include, but are not limited to, air warfare (AW), strike warfare (STW), surface warfare (SUW), and close air support (CAS)."
Click to expand...

US Navy issues F/A-XX RfI - The DEW Line

The US Navy has issued a Request for Information (RfI) for a new fighter to replace the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler in the 2030s.
web.archive.org

The USN themselves defined F/A-XX as providing air supremacy with a multi-role strike capability... Do we need to argue about semantics any further?
 
Scott Kenny said:
USAF does use A-for-Attack, see the A-10.
Click to expand...
Unwillingly I would say. The A designation is mainly a Navy thing. See A-3 / B-66 for example.
In the case of the A-10, not even the most optimistic pilot would call it a fighter, and it's not SAC so not a bomber. ;)
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes. The F-35 radar does not have the sheer range like the Tomcat did. This means that for purposes of Outer Air Battle, the F-35 needs to fly the BARCAP farther out from the carrier in order to have the same standoff to detect Tu22Ms etc before they drop their AShMs.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I'm skeptical of that.
APG-81 has roughly the same range as Zaslon-AM
For comparison, AWG-9 can detect target with RCS of 5 m2 from roughly 213 km
Screenshot 2025-06-09 121652.png


Scott Kenny said:
Then, we're talking AIM-120Ds instead of Phoenix, so there's another 20nmi farther from the carrier to have the same standoff to engage incoming bombers before they can launch their AShMs. (Note that AIM-260 JATMs address this issue)
Click to expand...
Does AIM-120D-3 really have shorter range than AIM-54 though?. There is also AIM-260 which I'm about 99% sure that have longer range than the AIM-54, beside, they can always put AIM-174 on F-35 if absolute necessary
 
Ronny said:
Honestly, I'm skeptical of that.
APG-81 has roughly the same range as Zaslon-AM
For comparison, AWG-9 can detect target with RCS of 5 m2 from roughly 213 km
Click to expand...
AWG-9/APG-71 is limited by the antenna design to ~370km. The backend can track targets at 750km, and did so when multiple Tomcats would datalink together.



Ronny said:
Does AIM-120D-3 really have shorter range than AIM-54 though?. There is also AIM-260 which I'm about 99% sure that have longer range than the AIM-54, beside, they can always put AIM-174 on F-35 if absolute necessary
Click to expand...
AMRAAM-Ds have roughly the same range as Phoenix-A/B missiles.

Since they've been saying that AMRAAM-Ds more-or-less reach the threshold requirement for the AIM-260 RFP, I'd guess that the actual AIM-260 has a range close to that of the Phoenix-C missile. (with some pretty wide error bars on that guess!)
 
It would be far more relevant to discuss the threat and whether current systems are adequate or not than reference a system from decades ago that addressed an environment that no longer exists. It seems very unlikely that anyone attempts a mass bomber strike with cruise missiles against a CSG - it would be nearly suicidal even with heavy escort. On the flip side, ballistic missiles launch from multiple domains (including bombers) is very much on the table. What combination of fighters and ordnance can address that? Alternatively, what other targets would help interrupt the kill chain?
 
donnage99 said:
Worse, if reliable sino watchers are to be believed, there is reason to believe J-35 will eventually be their low end naval fighter alongside the high end 6th gen j-50.
Click to expand...
Well, I can't remember the last time I accused the USN of brilliance, so it tracks.
 
So with the potential cancelation of this program to divert funding to the F-47, I am potentially reaching on this again but is there such an idea that the Navy could use the F-47 as the F/A-XX as a purely shore based air asset like the P-8? With the range and potential to be based in the island chains or even allied nations, is it possible that we will see a shore based fighter component for the Navy? Once again, pure speculation but it's an odd suspicion.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
potential cancelation of this program
Click to expand...
I dont think this program is going to get canceled. Having a 6th gen carrier fighter is an eventuality rather than a choice here (and unless thats the case, the vay is 100% screwed). If thats the case then there's little reason to scrap this program for a less robust option since you are going to have to put forth the money for this sooner or later.

But to explore the idea more, I think the F-47 would already be covering part of this mission set if things get hot because operating in the west pacific would require the air force and navy to work together to dismantle PLA defenses. Not one single service can do that alone.

The downside of using the F-47 would be that you essentially tether the navy to a radius within range of land based locations. You also dont have any compatibility between navy refueling and air force aircraft. Even if you use DDGs to secure air space and use air force assets to refuel, you have to rely on base availability. ACE implies we have a much more complex resupply situation and your bases may or may not be constantly available to sortie from since theres constant threat from ABMs.

There are upsides though. One would be that you could probably do away with large aircraft carriers and instead have more DDGs and FFGs. You can use your ships to do the strike portion and the F-47 and its CCAs to guide in these long range fires. You can also get the navy to adopt CCAs and launch them from smaller flat tops, but they wont substitute the eyes in the sky though. You'll still have to rely on land based platforms to be your eyes in the sky and if they arent available for one reason or another, you are kinda screwed.
 
Last edited:
FighterJock said:
The F-35C will be antiquated by the time the sixth gen becomes operational dark sidius. No matter what upgrades they put on it sadly.
Click to expand...

Antiquated is way too strong of a word.

The F-35 simply won't be the top dog of naval aviation as it currently is. But being "last gen" doesn't make it obsolete or antiquated, just not the tip of the spear anymore.
 
And that is what I fear EmoBirb,the F-35 loosing the tip of the spear status and having to be escorted by the F/A-XX especially when the J-36 and J-50/J-XDS come out armed with long range missiles.
 
bring_it_on said:
There was also the case of the F/A-22A which the AF called it for a hot minute in the early 2000s to see if it could squeeze a few additional aircraft by highlighting its a2g capabilities..before it reverted back to F-22A.
Click to expand...
Yes, the AF did use that nomenclature for a couple of years. But to protect the program, more so than to increase the buy size.
Here's the F-22 air-to-ground backstory...
 
FighterJock said:
And that is what I fear EmoBirb,the F-35 loosing the tip of the spear status and having to be escorted by the F/A-XX especially when the J-36 and J-50/J-XDS come out armed with long range missiles.
Click to expand...

That has always been inevitable, the F-35 isn't even fully designed to take on contemporary fighters on equal terms, let alone next generation fighters. It's merits are sensors, networking and being a modern strike fighter to dismantle surface and ground threats. The only reason it was the tip of the spear of naval aviation for a while to begin with was that there wasn't a comparable aircraft anywhere else. The J-35 entering PLANAF service will already contest it. The J-50 will most likely outmatch it. But that still doesn't mean it's antiquated or obsolete. The F-15 didn't became either just because the F-22 arrived, after all, for example.
 
Ozair said:
We can also go back to the RFI issued in 2012 to understand what the USN initially sought from the platform;


US Navy issues F/A-XX RfI - The DEW Line

The US Navy has issued a Request for Information (RfI) for a new fighter to replace the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler in the 2030s.
web.archive.org

The USN themselves defined F/A-XX as providing air supremacy with a multi-role strike capability... Do we need to argue about semantics any further?
Click to expand...

Ah, 2012. I remember it well - low rise jeans were still in style, "Gangnam Style" was a global phenomenon and the "Twilight" movies came to an end. The idea of a "quarterback" aircraft for unmanned minions was still 5 years away from being "a thing".
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom