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

Arjen said:
I don't know. Do you?
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to sound so rude in my last comment so I apologize for that. Obviously don't know either. All I know is it would be dumb to reinvent the wheel. And that doesn't just apply to China - that applies to all the F35/F-22 mutant babies from all over the world.

So saying it's a copy is only a dangerous idea if you think that copying necessarily implies they can't innovate and haven't improved on whatever they copied from you. It can be copied and it can still be just as good. If you've copied your homework smartly, then it'll work just as well as the kid you copied it from.
Arjen said:
I think the PRC is by now quite capable to develop more. On its own. That will not stop them from further spying though.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agreed. Copy what you don't know or what you want to confirm. Then apply your research to further improve on what you've learned.
 
joshjosh said:
The problem is that if the program is shelved for even a few years, they may come back with an entirely new program, analysis of alternatives, etc. I doubt they will just pick up where they left off.
Click to expand...
True, the new F/A-XX plan does have a use-by date. If the team is kept 'refrigerated' maybe they can go at a low level for a year or two?? Basically Navair can put Boeing on contract to work on stuff that precedes the detail design phase, such as technology risk reduction tasks, modeling & simulation refinement, and various trade studies. Getting the subcontractors fully up to speed and involved also would be beneficial. (Factoid: over the last 40 years prime contractors have typically subcontracted at least 60%, some up to 80%, of the work in major aircraft development programs.)
 
bobbymike said:
Some of the strategic weapons programs he shelved or radically downsized probably extended the Cold War by decades IMHO.
Click to expand...

Then there's the whole Vietnam War strategy. McNamara was hugely influential on how the war was conducted.

It could be argued, he got a lot of Americans, Australians and South Koreans killed in a war with little chance of success.

It could be argued, the outcome might have been different with different people setting policy and strategy.
 
bobbymike said:
Some of the strategic weapons programs he shelved or radically downsized probably extended the Cold War by decades IMHO.
Click to expand...

Except the USSR didn't implode because of external factors. It imploded because of a combination of long running COMECON sanctions cutting off access to Western machine tools and microelectronics, which caused the Era of Stagnation (leading to Gorbachev), and because of a pair of coups d'etat in 1991. If the August Coup hadn't happened or if Rzyhkov had won then it's likely the USSR would still exist as a decentralized democratic confederation, akin to the European Union, today.

The Cold War was an invention that existed in the minds of two paranoid, universalist, post-war superpowers on how to run Germany. Both expected the other to attack, so as long as both sides exist and Germany remains divided, the Cold War continues in perpetuity. Thankfully, it ended in 1989 with the agreement of East and West Germany to reunify peacefully. Which itself was entirely independent from the moral-economic competition between the USA and USSR.
 
Last edited:
Reddington777 said:
You're the one living in a dream if you think the chinese did nothing with the terabytes of terabytes of data hacked from any number of US aerospace programs.

No need to get salty every time someone points out the truth - which is that the chinese really did copy from a number of classified US programs. They just didnt copy blindly. They took what they found was useful and adapted it for their own uses where they saw fit. Both can be true - they copied stuff and they very well did make formidable aircraft from it.

In fact, I'd even argue that the chinese lean into making things seem like they are copies. "Everything you have I also have. Everything you know I also know" is both a solid propaganda message and it keeps your opponent fearful of just how much of their programs you've compromised.
Click to expand...

Corporate espionage doesn't equal "copying"

The J-35 and F-35 are fundamentally different jets, which share not single part, probably not a single common surface and one is a sleek twin engine aircraft possibly optimized for supersonic flight and supercruise. The other is our beloved, chubby battlepenguin
 
EmoBirb said:
Corporate espionage doesn't equal "copying"

The J-35 and F-35 are fundamentally different jets, which share not single part, probably not a single common surface and one is a sleek twin engine aircraft possibly optimized for supersonic flight and supercruise.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone here saying "China copies" is saying they share parts or even has exactly duplicated parts.

They just have similar parts - similar stealth shaping, similar EOTS windows etc. These similar parts, their envisioned functions, similar technologies and probably similar materials aren't always 100% similar just because Chinese engineers magically arrived at the similar solution every single time as their U.S counterparts. Much less so when so many of their new toys take on that trend. The implication still stands - that the aircraft was built at least in part with stolen technology and knowhow.

Sure you can say other countries also made baby F-35 programs without espionage - and I'd be inclined to believe you if it weren't for this trend extending across numerous programs and designs.

So instead of barfing all that out every time, people just say "they copied". Only the people who really have no idea what they are talking about truly truly believe that the J35 is a part for part copy of the F-35.

There's strong evidence of China not copying or deriving parts from existing U.S designs - like the J50's intakes or the J36's intakes or the J20's planform. Just that for the J35 and every other design that looks the way it does, they chose to use something tried and veriafiably true (thanks also in part to espionage) for their plane.
 
Last edited:
joshjosh said:
Well as I mentioned, every clue we have seems to point towards Boeing. If there are any clues pointing to Northrop (other than "the DOD would want to diversify") I would love to hear them.
Click to expand...
Only clue I have is for a serrated edge cockpit
 
Sferrin said:
Then you run into the situation of always hoping for the next thing and never building.
Click to expand...

That's why the design needs to be frozen when it's mature enough to meet the design specifications otherwise you get requirements creep and even gold-plating.

joewee said:
True, the new F/A-XX plan does have a use-by date.
Click to expand...

This! The USN needs to strongly emphasis that its' SH fleet is ageing fast and urgently needs replacement.

Kat Tsun said:
It imploded because of a combination of long running COMECON sanctions cutting off access to Western machine tools and microelectronics, which caused the Era of Stagnation (leading to Gorbachev), and because of a pair of coups d'etat in 1991.
Click to expand...

It wasn't just that, there was also the massive arms buildup in the US initiated by president Carter, the SDI programme (Which the USSR tried to copy), the economic, political and social fallout of the Soviet-Afghanistan war and OPEC massively increasing output of crude-oil to crash the price of crude-oil as a major source of economic revenue for the Soviet Union was export of crude-oil.
 
Ward Carroll has a video of him interviewing Rear Admiral Mike "Nasty" Manazir, USN(retired) about the Pentagon's recent suspension of the F/A-XX programme:


Rear Admiral Mike "Nasty" Manazir, USN (Ret.) rejoins the channel for analysis on the high end fight impact of the Pentagon's recent decision to suspend the U.S. Navy's F/A-XX sixth generation program to focus efforts on the procurement of the U.S. Air Force F-47.
Click to expand...
 
joshjosh said:
Well as I mentioned, every clue we have seems to point towards Boeing. If there are any clues pointing to Northrop (other than "the DOD would want to diversify") I would love to hear them.
Click to expand...
Someone wants to save funding, Air Force wants NG totally concentrated on B-21 - so they kick the can down the road.
 
joewee said:
True, the new F/A-XX plan does have a use-by date. If the team is kept 'refrigerated' maybe they can go at a low level for a year or two?? Basically Navair can put Boeing on contract to work on stuff that precedes the detail design phase, such as technology risk reduction tasks, modeling & simulation refinement, and various trade studies. Getting the subcontractors fully up to speed and involved also would be beneficial. (Factoid: over the last 40 years prime contractors have typically subcontracted at least 60%, some up to 80%, of the work in major aircraft development programs.)
Click to expand...
But the question is, can these ‘refrigerated’ engineers be kept gainfully employed, and inspired over 2 to 3 years? If the can gets kicked even further down the road - what then?

Additionally, can Boeing - if it is the winner - resist using these engineers to navigate bumps in the F-47 programme?

Finally, when the commit date finally arrives - what if a challenge from NG appears, with lawyers in tow, or even the Navy just reconsiders? Two to three years is long enough for technical developments and intel on adversary programmes to alter the balance of the F/A-XX competition metrics.
 
joshjosh said:
Well as I mentioned, every clue we have seems to point towards Boeing. If there are any clues pointing to Northrop (other than "the DOD would want to diversify") I would love to hear them.
Click to expand...
No clues that I've seen, just pure industrial base balancing that the Pentagon should be thinking about at least as much as they consider "who has the best aircraft"
  • LockMart is eyeballs deep in alligators for F-35 Block 4.
  • NG is doing B-21, but a lot of the design work seems wrapped.
  • Boeing Military has Super Hornet production wrapping up this year, and has maybe 4 years production of Eagle IIs left for USAF. Obviously it's been announced that BMAC has won F-47, but can the FAXX team afford to essentially be idle for a couple years?
 
Kat Tsun said:
Except the USSR didn't implode because of external factors. It imploded because of a combination of long running COMECON sanctions cutting off access to Western machine tools and microelectronics, which caused the Era of Stagnation (leading to Gorbachev), and because of a pair of coups d'etat in 1991. If the August Coup hadn't happened or if Rzyhkov had won then it's likely the USSR would still exist as a decentralized democratic confederation, akin to the European Union, today.

The Cold War was an invention that existed in the minds of two paranoid, universalist, post-war superpowers on how to run Germany. Both expected the other to attack, so as long as both sides exist and Germany remains divided, the Cold War continues in perpetuity. Thankfully, it ended in 1989 with the agreement of East and West Germany to reunify peacefully. Which itself was entirely independent from the moral-economic competition between the USA and USSR.
Click to expand...
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=quOI_djS8oc&pp=ygUiaG9tZXIgc3Vic2NyaWJlIHRvIHlvdXIgbmV3c2xldHRlcg%3D%3D
 
NMaude said:
It wasn't just that, there was also the massive arms buildup in the US initiated by president Carter, the SDI programme (Which the USSR tried to copy), the economic, political and social fallout of the Soviet-Afghanistan war and OPEC massively increasing output of crude-oil to crash the price of crude-oil as a major source of economic revenue for the Soviet Union was export of crude-oil.
Click to expand...

It would've been miserable and poor, sure. That hasn't caused any of the current former USSR countries to break up yet.

The existential issues facing the USSR were so entirely endogenous, and mostly hidden to outside observers, to the point that the CIA was literally unaware of them until the day they happened. The USSR simply collapsed because the CPSU had cliques that bungled the transition from a single-party autocracy to a multinational confederated democracy/anocracy. Instead of taking this as an example of why it needs to improve its cultural-political targeting matrices, the USA took a victory lap, and we get the idea that America "beat" the USSR and won the Cold War in 1991.

It actually won the Cold War in 1989 with the bankruptcy of East Germany.

Scott Kenny said:
No clues that I've seen, just pure industrial base balancing that the Pentagon should be thinking about at least as much as they consider "who has the best aircraft"
  • LockMart is eyeballs deep in alligators for F-35 Block 4.
  • NG is doing B-21, but a lot of the design work seems wrapped.
  • Boeing Military has Super Hornet production wrapping up this year, and has maybe 4 years production of Eagle IIs left for USAF. Obviously it's been announced that BMAC has won F-47, but can the FAXX team afford to essentially be idle for a couple years?
Click to expand...

They can probably do minimum baseline funding while Boeing spins up F-47. It's not like they have an F/A-XX plant at idle or anything. It really hinges on how well Boeing can pull off F-47 given how it hasn't been able to pull off Pegasus and barely makes Eagle II workable.
 
Kat Tsun said:
They can probably do minimum baseline funding while Boeing spins up F-47. It's not like they have an F/A-XX plant at idle or anything. It really hinges on how well Boeing can pull off F-47 given how it hasn't been able to pull off Pegasus and barely makes Eagle II workable.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Boeing has not exactly been covering themselves in glory lately, which is why I was favoring NG for FAXX.

The idea is to try to keep 3x fighter design teams working. You do not want to let any industry consolidate to below 3 primes.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You do not want to let any industry consolidate to below 3 primes.
Click to expand...
Three primes with enough work for four - because that way someone can lose a contract. Three primes with work for three means you don't have competition. Either the next contract is awarded on the principle of 'Buggins's Turn', or the competitors get into a knife fight into a phone booth and you wind up losing one.

If your strategic industrial capacity collapses below that level, ditch the 'competition' thing and just nationalise it. You're dealing with the problems of a monopoly either way. Nationalising means you can exert control much more directly and in a way that benefits the state instead of shareholders.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Agreed.

Boeing has not exactly been covering themselves in glory lately, which is why I was favoring NG for FAXX.

The idea is to try to keep 3x fighter design teams working. You do not want to let any industry consolidate to below 3 primes.
Click to expand...
The CCA bidders will grow into the space as well which should broaden at least the pointy end military aviation sector.
 
Has anyone seen this quote anywhere else?

"The project has now been officially discontinued – even if it is said internally that “minimal funds will continue to be made available to maintain development progress”.

militaeraktuell.at

US defense landscape: Boeing F-47 leaves "trail of blood"

The development of the F/A-XX Navy fighter, for example, is being canceled in favor of the development of the Boeing F-47, the 6th generation USAF aircraft.
militaeraktuell.at militaeraktuell.at
 
It may be the reality idea , making 2 6th gen fighters in the same time could be near the impossible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let us end the China copies posts. I think it is nonsense to assume these are direct copies but it is also nonsense that China has not institutionalized espionage on every level of its government and “independent “ corporations. Let us leave it at that or open a new, promptly closed, thread, or agree to take the fight “outside” to another forum.

There is no shortage of suggestions for the latter.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Agreed.

Boeing has not exactly been covering themselves in glory lately, which is why I was favoring NG for FAXX.

The idea is to try to keep 3x fighter design teams working. You do not want to let any industry consolidate to below 3 primes.
Click to expand...

The US doesn't have the contract space to sustain three primes in the tactical fighter space. It might be able to sustain two. Maybe.

It's like how Boeing has a monopoly on tankers and strategic airlift and Northrop has a monopoly on strategic bombers. Tactical fighters has actual competition, but may become Boeing's wheelhouse, while attack aircraft become Lockheed's (F-35) I guess? It's likely that either 5th or 6th gen will be America's last manned aircraft. F-35 is supposed to last until the 2070's anyway so it's got a long road ahead.
 
Fighters should be spread across all three primes, at least for the competition, technology and approaches to a common specification. Yes, Boeing is tankers and potentially cargo. Lockheed is somewhat unique, they have F-22, F-35, probably a successor to RQ-170 and a potential "SR-72". NG has bombers because before and during ATB, Northrop had the best solution hands down against Lockheed (and Boeing) and B-21 evolved from the "RQ-180". And I will say this again, look at most current and new platforms being developed (domestic and foreign) in regards to fighters, bombers/attack and UCAVs, Northrop shaping techniques are apparent and not because I am former NG, friends of mine at LM ADP know this as well, plus NG and LM ADP do collaborate on various programs, more than you think. The USN is in a tough position, F/A-XX on hold and ship building and future ship types in trouble.

NG has always kept it's advanced flight design capabilities even after the loss to the YF-22, a lot was gained and created from YF-23. I hope F-47 is a good program and I hope the USN figures their issues out as well.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Then you run more fighter programs, lower life overall.
Click to expand...

Well, I think that's the idea with DOD actually owning the IP of F-47. It can simply transfer all necessary TDPs to other firms as required.

Block 10 by Boeing. Block 20 by Lockheed. Block 30 split 70/30 to maybe make room for an F-35D/E/F.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Then you run more fighter programs, lower life overall.
Click to expand...

Whats exactly the advantage though, if we're talking about cost for the end user? This isn't the 50s or 60s when combat aircraft were simple and dirt cheap and you had about a dozen different types in operation.

We're talking about highly complex, highly capable and thus highly expensive aircraft. You can regularly replace and upgrade individual subsystems and software. But iteraring on the aircraft itself multiple time or replacing it after 5 years isn't sustainable in this day and age. With drones perhaps, if we're talking about lower or mid end, expandable types.

Otherwise burning through new design after new design every other year just seems like a way to make the contractors even more filthy rich while the military itself has to dump even more cash.

A modern "century series" isn't feasible today and arguably hasn't been feasible since the 70s and 80s. Aircraft have simply become too complex, too costly, need to be too capable and on top of that the US industrial base is a joke compared to what it was during the peak of the cold war.
 
Last edited:
If F/A-XX really was going to boeing, it makes you wonder just what boeing put forth that won it  both programs. Has there ever been a single company with two fighter programs where the two fighters weren't derivatives of each other/ planned to be variants of each other from the start?

Being more advanced and at higher maturity is one possibility.

The other might just be that both services felt the other two contractors had their hands full already.

Or god forbid its a navy aircraft that the airforce has to work with. God help us if its the opposite.
 
Kat Tsun said:
Well, I think that's the idea with DOD actually owning the IP of F-47. It can simply transfer all necessary TDPs to other firms as required.

Block 10 by Boeing. Block 20 by Lockheed. Block 30 split 70/30 to maybe make room for an F-35D/E/F.
Click to expand...
Problem is, you're not getting design teams capable of bringing up a new design that way.
 
EmoBirb said:
Whats exactly the advantage though, if we're talking about cost for the end user? This isn't the 50s or 60s when combat aircraft were simple and dirt cheap and you had about a dozen different types in operation.

We're talking about highly complex, highly capable and thus highly expensive aircraft. You can regularly replace and upgrade individual subsystems and software. But iteraring on the aircraft itself multiple time or replacing it after 5 years isn't sustainable in this day and age. With drones perhaps, if we're talking about lower or mid end, expandable types.

Otherwise burning through new design after new design every other year just seems like a way to make the contractors even more filthy rich while the military itself has to dump even more cash.

A modern "century series" isn't feasible today and arguably hasn't been feasible since the 70s and 80s. Aircraft have simply become too complex, too costly, need to be too capable and on top of that the US industrial base is a joke compared to what it was during the peak of the cold war.
Click to expand...
Neither is only doing a new aircraft design every 50 years.

If it takes 20 years to go from RFP to IOC, you need to be designing planes to have a 20 year life and basically launch the new RFP almost as soon as the previous design hits IOC.
Example, F-15s hit IOC in 1976. ATF RFI was in 1981 and RFP in 1985, DEM/VAL in 1986, YF-22 flew in 1990, F-22 first flew in 1996 and hit IOC in 2005. ​
​
That was a 30 year cycle, aided and abetted by the "Peace Dividend". Had the Cold War continued, I believe that F-22s could have been in service in the 1990s. Partially depends on how long it'd take to get from YF-22 to F-22, and partially on how long it'd take to get from first flight to IOC. Eagle took 3 years from First Flight to Introduction, and IIRC took 15 years to replace all F-4s even the Wild Weasels. F-22s did not fully replace Eagles as originally planned, and now the USAF has 50 year old fighters on the front lines.

Look. The average working life of an engineer is ~45 years. They need to design an airplane at least twice in their career, and a lucky few will get to design 3 if you have a 20 year aircraft life expectancy. You need to be able to get a design from RFP to IOC in 15 years, so that you can have 5 years of operating the New Hotness before you drop the RFP for the Newest Hotness.

Yes, this means some churn. Because the alternative is the utter collapse of your Primes as competent designers!
 
Reddington777 said:
If F/A-XX really was going to boeing, it makes you wonder just what boeing put forth that won it  both programs. Has there ever been a single company with two fighter programs where the two fighters weren't derivatives of each other/ planned to be variants of each other from the start?

Being more advanced and at higher maturity is one possibility.

The other might just be that both services felt the other two contractors had their hands full already.

Or god forbid its a navy aircraft that the airforce has to work with. God help us if its the opposite.
Click to expand...
LM with the F-22/F-35. McDonnell Douglas with the F-15 & F/A-18 (but it was messy how they got there). McDonnell Douglas again with the F-101 / F-4. (The F-4 was not a derivative of the F-101. The F-4 came from the F3 Demon while the F-101 came from the XF-88.)
 
joshjosh said:
Every breadcrumb I've followed leads me to the conclusion that Boeing was the winner of the F/A-XX program.
Click to expand...

Yes I posted this summary 3 months ago.

insidersource said:
Lockheed Martin made the US NGAD demonstrator.
Boeing made the US Navy F/A-XX demonstrator.

The Lockheed demonstrator was the big, long ranged, F-111 sized aircraft everyone was talking about. Most likely powered by two 45,000lb thrust XA100 engines. This was the aircraft that was going to cost "hundreds of millions of dollars"

6 months ago the USAF was talking about buying a cheaper NGAD or an "F-35 Follow-on". The USAF then selected the Boeing demonstrator that was originally designed for the US Navy. This is why this aircraft has canards. Canards are needed to provide lift at the nose so the aircraft stays flat at low speeds during carrier landings. Thrust vectoring is a much better and more stealthy way of improving agility so there is no other reason to add canards besides for carrier landings.

Boeing will then win the US Navy contract so both aircraft will have high commonality and a very large production run that will further reduce unit cost. I would not be surprised if the aircraft costs only $150 million each. People have mentioned that it would be dangerous to out all the eggs in the Boeing basket. But any delays would be covered by extra F-35A and F-35C.
Click to expand...

The F-47 will be similar to the Rafale.

The reason for the USAF version being prioritised also makes sense. If we look at the F-35 program the F-35C became operational last because it required most of the weapons and avionics to be fully operational. The F-35B entered service first despite it being the most mechanically complex. This is because the Marines had a very low standard to replace the Harrier.

In the case of the USAF NGAD and US Navy F/A-XX programs the USAF has a lower standard. The USAF version could enter service with just AIM-120D and a radar with air-to-air mode only. That would dominate the skies. The US Navy version needs to replace the Super Hornet so it needs multiple air-to-ground weapons and air-to-ground sensors. Carrier qualification would also add extra time. It then makes sense to concentrate on the USAF version first.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes, this means some churn. Because the alternative is the utter collapse of your Primes as competent designers!
Click to expand...

I think the solution to that would be to dedicate engineers to dedicated export projects, make distinct aircraft just for export again. Cheaper, lighter, meant for allies in the southern hemisphere, think along the lines of JF-17 and FA-50. As well as large, jet powered drones and more physical proof of concept technology demonstrators. Create a proper schedule where every US main project, Export project, Drone project and Tech demos follow one another, creating less downtime to pencil push.

Another thing would be to encourage civilian competition again, rather than just have Boeing who consolidated the US civilian market (how was that even legal?). Regulate the market, give incentives to NG, LM and newer start ups to enter the civilian market, be it large, widebody airliners or small regional jets.

So work can be created, but just designing mainstays the US has to rely upon to be obsolete within AA short time span and burning through design after design is just not sustainable, the US would bankrupt itself.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom