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

TsrJoe said:
26 pages ... I get it that folks get excited, but just one article of real hard news is worth 100 posts of 'woulda, shoulda, coulda' speculation
Click to expand...

I would be tempted to agree, but I find these types of posts to be generally full of interesting stuff related to vaguely related or adjacent stuff. So I welcome every bit of vaguely related technical discussion tbh.
 
TsrJoe said:
26 pages ... I get it that folks get excited, but just one article of real hard news is worth 100 posts of 'woulda, shoulda, coulda' speculation
Click to expand...
Most of the "real hard news" comes from media who attend military events such as the yearly Air, Space & Cyber Conference. This event in 2024 is where Boeing unveiled their land based MQ-25 variant. Thousands of employees from military contractors and tier 2 suppliers attend events like this. The best insider sources are forum members who attend such events.
 
B2Blain said:
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/ge-pentagon-adaptive-engine-tech/

"GE Aerospace CEO H. Lawrence Culp is urging the Pentagon to press on with the Navy F/A-XX fighter program, arguing that it will further the development of adaptive engine technology—which faces delays in the Air Force’s latest budget."

huh.
Click to expand...
The US Navy suddenly going adaptive engines for F/A-XX further confirms that the USAF selected the Boeing F/A-XX design. Now that the USAF is funding an adaptive engine it makes perfect sense for the US Navy to share the same engine. We had dozens of reports over multiple years stating F/A-XX will use an existing engine. Now that the USAF selected the Boeing design we have our first evidence from GE itself that F/A-XX will be using adaptive engines.

The may 2024 NGAD pause and the "cheaper NGAD". The Skunk Works declaring a reach-forward loss in Q4 2024 right after the pause suggests an order cut. The F-47 selection followed by a massive reach-forward loss confirms a rapid order shift from Lockheed to Boeing.
 
Reddington777 said:
@insidersource well it looks like maybe I was wrong.

I dont know if thats conclusive evidence yet, but it certainly looks like maybe someone in the navy is thinking twice about those engines.
Click to expand...
It is hard to take the engine manufacturers statement beyond that he wants more investment in engines and especially in the engine that he will get the most income from.

It could be accurate but we need some additional sourcing that isn't a vendor to corroborate.
 
"Without a replacement for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler, the Navy will be forced to retrofit 4th generation aircraft and increase procurement of 5th generation aircraft to attempt to compete with the new 6th generation aircraft that the threat is already flying,” Adm. Daryl Caudle told lawmakers.

defensescoop.com

CNO nominee Adm. Caudle warns F/A-XX delays could jeopardize Navy’s air superiority

Adm. Daryl Caudle, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be chief of naval operations, told lawmakers that the sea service needs to field a sixth-generation fighter jet as quickly as possible or risk losing its edge over adversaries.
defensescoop.com defensescoop.com
 
allendoc said:
"Without a replacement for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler, the Navy will be forced to retrofit 4th generation aircraft and increase procurement of 5th generation aircraft to attempt to compete with the new 6th generation aircraft that the threat is already flying,” Adm. Daryl Caudle told lawmakers.

defensescoop.com

CNO nominee Adm. Caudle warns F/A-XX delays could jeopardize Navy’s air superiority

Adm. Daryl Caudle, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be chief of naval operations, told lawmakers that the sea service needs to field a sixth-generation fighter jet as quickly as possible or risk losing its edge over adversaries.
defensescoop.com defensescoop.com
Click to expand...
You missed the best part...

To maintain this striking power, the CVN must have an air wing that is comprised of the most advanced strike fighters. Therefore, the ability to maintain air superiority against peer competitors will be put at risk if the Navy is unable to field a 6th Generation strike fighter on a relevant timeline.

 
defensescoop.com

CNO nominee Adm. Caudle warns F/A-XX delays could jeopardize Navy’s air superiority

Adm. Daryl Caudle, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be chief of naval operations, told lawmakers that the sea service needs to field a sixth-generation fighter jet as quickly as possible or risk losing its edge over adversaries.
defensescoop.com defensescoop.com

"Without a replacement for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler, the Navy will be forced to retrofit 4th generation aircraft and increase procurement of 5th generation aircraft to attempt to compete with the new 6th generation aircraft that the threat is already flying,” Adm. Daryl Caudle told lawmakers.
Click to expand...

“Nothing in the Joint Force projects combat power from the sea as a Carrier Strike Group, which at the heart has a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (CVN). To maintain this striking power, the CVN must have an air wing that is comprised of the most advanced strike fighters. Therefore, the ability to maintain air superiority against peer competitors will be put at risk if the Navy is unable to field a 6th Generation strike fighter on a relevant timeline. Without a replacement for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler, the Navy will be forced to retrofit 4th generation aircraft and increase procurement of 5th generation aircraft to attempt to compete with the new 6th generation aircraft that the threat is already flying,” Caudle wrote in his response.
Click to expand...

Navy officials have said the F/A-XX is expected to be extra stealthy, have significantly longer range than the fighter jets that are currently in the fleet, and incorporate AI capabilities.
Click to expand...
 
Which would be a bad mistake for the US Navy, they should bite the bullet and anounce the winner now and be done with it instead of having the Super Hornets soldier on for another few years.
 
My simplistic take: If they announced the winner then they would lose some corporate advocates for the program, and maybe turn them into foes.

As it stands now, elements of the USN and BA, NG, RTX, GEA & a host of other small corporates are all pushing in the same direction, which is to green light the program.
 
It would be in the region of $18 Billion dollars total In_A_Dream according to a quick search on Google, considering that each air wing would cost $5-10 Billion dollars or more. So not good news if a Ford class aircraft carrier that was ever sunk in a future war.
 
Ford class aircraft carriers delays may be one of the reasons why the navy holds back on announcing the winner of the F/A-XX competition why do you need 6th gen plane when your flat tops are still nonexistent and delayed for almost a decade more
 
Personally, I believe that if we're in full-scale war where CVNs are being sunk things are in a situation worse than where the monetary cost of the CVN and airwing is the primary concern. At that point you need WWII levels of investment and national participation if you hope to win.
 
quellish said:
The best insider sources are the ones actually directly involved in the program. Like, inside the program.
Click to expand...
No. Anyone who is inside these programs risk going to jail and losing their job if they post on forums. If they did have a private account they would have to post generic like a star sign horoscope. Members would find this actually more annoying than beneficial.

The people working inside these programs are at the industry events such as Air, Space & Cyber Conference. For example Boeings John Scudi head of the MQ-25 program was taking questions at the event. Any answer can be assumed to be unclassified and can posted on the forum with confidence.
 
insidersource said:
No. Anyone who is inside these programs risk going to jail and losing their job if they post on forums. If they did have a private account they would have to post generic like a star sign horoscope. Members would find this actually more annoying than beneficial.
Click to expand...

An "insider source" is literally someone who is "inside" a program. You seem to be arguing the best "insider source" is someone "outside "the program.

Persons inside a program may or may not have access to confidential, classified, or proprietary information. Those that do have access to that information are well informed as to what they can and cannot talk about or disclose. Many members of this forum have been inside various programs and talk about them. For example, @F119Doctor and @mkellytx were "inside" different programs and talk about them while mindful of the boundaries of what they can and cannot talk about.

It seems that there is a widespread misconception that if a program is not talked about much by DoD components that it is classified, or all aspects of it are classified. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Using F/A-XX as an example, the volume of unclassified, reachable information on this program is staggering. I have obtained records totaling over 2GB simply by asking for them. In some cases DoD has.... erroneously claimed records are classified - because they share this misconception. Information cannot be classified by the wave of a magic wand or just a statement by a delegated "classification authority". For something to be classified requires an extensive paper trail, which often does not exist. In some cases like information disclosed to Congress there may be both classified and unclassified versions.

But lately I see that a lot of people are not actually asking for this information from DoD, etc. and instead just make their own claims of classification, secrecy, etc. and create fantasies or speculation about these programs that have no basis in fact.

This was not always the case. In the past - the Before Time - forum members regularly did their own independent research and shared it with others. Documents from DTIC, from various archives, etc. Members shared expertise and enthusiastically engaged in fact-based conversations. They did not engage in practices like attempting to annoy or attack a fellow member until the member did research on their behalf or provided information.

I prefer the Before Time.

For those who are interested in the F/A-XX program, I would recommend they ask the relevant DoD components and Congress for the specific information they are interested in, particularly records that are known to have been disclosed. If someone does this they will find that the program is very different than what has been discussed in the bulk of this thread.

It's a strike aircraft, not an interceptor. Get over it, people.
 
quellish said:
But lately I see that a lot of people are not actually asking for this information from DoD, etc. and instead just make their own claims of classification, secrecy, etc. and create fantasies or speculation about these programs that have no basis in fact.
Click to expand...

My FOIA requests just get ignored. I'm sure there are tricks to this, but I suppose I just don't know the tricks.
 
joshjosh said:
My FOIA requests just get ignored. I'm sure there are tricks to this, but I suppose I just don't know the tricks.
Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean by ignored. You have received no response at all, or you received a final response indicating they were not going to provide records?
 
insidersource said:
No. Anyone who is inside these programs risk going to jail and losing their job if they post on forums.
Click to expand...

In working on F-16, C-17, F-22 (briefly), AC-130U (incredibly briefly!), Eurofighter and Tornado, I've never not been posting on aviation fora. I've just been selective about what I post. And I'm still covered by the Official Secrets Act even though I'm effectively retired. Yet here I am, still posting.

insidersource said:
The people working inside these programs are at the industry events such as Air, Space & Cyber Conference.
Click to expand...
The only conference I ever got to was the BCS Config Management SIG, I could talk about it at length, but I really don't think people will be interested.
 
Someone who’s smarter than me, most of the members probably, what is the estimated incremental improvement from G5 to G6 because from open source information, excluding excessive hyperbolic adjective usage, it seems far less than from G4 to G5 by a lot.

Once you are VLO with the latest avionics and A2A weapons G5 seems pretty darn close to G6 or am I way off?

Like what’s an F-15 to an F-4 2x better? An F-22/35 to an F-15 3x better? F-47 to F-22/35 how many x times better?
 
I do not think there is any way to to make any definitive statements outside of direct comparisons of specific aircraft types. The entire idea of aircraft generations is ill defined.

Even when comparing specific aircraft, it likely depends on what upgrades and external load options are specified, the particular organization employing the aircraft and their maintenance and training, and the greater system of systems the aircraft is utilized in.
 
Josh_TN said:
I do not think there is any way to to make any definitive statements outside of direct comparisons of specific aircraft types. The entire idea of aircraft generations is ill defined.

Even when comparing specific aircraft, it likely depends on what upgrades and external load options are specified, the particular organization employing the aircraft and their maintenance and training, and the greater system of systems the aircraft is utilized in.
Click to expand...
I think the buyers would want you to try don’t you?

How much better? Well we can’t really say. Ok we’re not buying any until you can tell me.

Ok well we can’t be definitive.

How about you give me some idea you want me to spend that much money
 
bobbymike said:
Someone who’s smarter than me, most of the members probably, what is the estimated incremental improvement from G5 to G6 because from open source information, excluding excessive hyperbolic adjective usage, it seems far less than from G4 to G5 by a lot.

Once you are VLO with the latest avionics and A2A weapons G5 seems pretty darn close to G6 or am I way off?

Like what’s an F-15 to an F-4 2x better? An F-22/35 to an F-15 3x better? F-47 to F-22/35 how many x times better?
Click to expand...

Honestly, your question is kind of like asking for a comparison between several famous athletes.... and then comparing that to an all-star team . Like comparing Michael Jordan vs. the 1992 basketball "dream team".

The things that are coming down the pipeline ("6th gen") are so completely different from what has been done previously that most of the comments and speculation on NGAD, etc. on the forum are way off.
 
bobbymike said:
I think the buyers would want you to try don’t you?

How much better? Well we can’t really say. Ok we’re not buying any until you can tell me.

Ok well we can’t be definitive.

How about you give me some idea you want me to spend that much money
Click to expand...
The buyers, in this case, dictate the specs and determine how classified these must be, so not really relevant to what you're making out to be.
 
yeetmahboi said:
The buyers, in this case, dictate the specs and determine how classified these must be, so not really relevant to what you're making out to be.
Click to expand...
The buyers, is that the services or congress the only ones that can fund anything? If the services don’t they have to be able to get the money out of congress first? Doesn’t congress need something?

I really think my simple question, from a simple man, is being made overly complex for complexity sake.

Maybe as I said below there’s no way yet to quantify these things.
 
quellish said:
Honestly, your question is kind of like asking for a comparison between several famous athletes.... and then comparing that to an all-star team . Like comparing Michael Jordan vs. the 1992 basketball "dream team".

The things that are coming down the pipeline ("6th gen") are so completely different from what has been done previously that most of the comments and speculation on NGAD, etc. on the forum are way off.
Click to expand...
Well this at least gives me some additional information as to capabilities that maybe aren’t yet quantitative because they are beyond that at this point of development.

If I’m understanding the second paragraph.
 
bobbymike said:
The buyers, is that the services or congress the only ones that can fund anything? If the services don’t they have to be able to get the money out of congress first? Doesn’t congress need something?
Click to expand...
SASC gets a dumb down explanation of what the services needs, how they plan to achieve that, how far along are the new stuff and how they rationalize next year spending.
bobbymike said:
Maybe as I said below there’s no way yet to quantify these things.
Click to expand...
Exactly, hence the complications. Of course I could just ask mods to pin "we don't know yet" but that kinda discourage participation in this forum kinda?
 
piko1 said:
Ford class aircraft carriers delays may be one of the reasons why the navy holds back on announcing the winner of the F/A-XX competition why do you need 6th gen plane when your flat tops are still nonexistent and delayed for almost a decade more
Click to expand...
As if the USN doesn't have 10 Nimitz class floating around... *snort*
 
quellish said:
An "insider source" is literally someone who is "inside" a program. You seem to be arguing the best "insider source" is someone "outside "the program.

Persons inside a program may or may not have access to confidential, classified, or proprietary information. Those that do have access to that information are well informed as to what they can and cannot talk about or disclose. Many members of this forum have been inside various programs and talk about them. For example, @F119Doctor and @mkellytx were "inside" different programs and talk about them while mindful of the boundaries of what they can and cannot talk about.

It seems that there is a widespread misconception that if a program is not talked about much by DoD components that it is classified, or all aspects of it are classified. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Using F/A-XX as an example, the volume of unclassified, reachable information on this program is staggering. I have obtained records totaling over 2GB simply by asking for them. In some cases DoD has.... erroneously claimed records are classified - because they share this misconception. Information cannot be classified by the wave of a magic wand or just a statement by a delegated "classification authority". For something to be classified requires an extensive paper trail, which often does not exist. In some cases like information disclosed to Congress there may be both classified and unclassified versions.

But lately I see that a lot of people are not actually asking for this information from DoD, etc. and instead just make their own claims of classification, secrecy, etc. and create fantasies or speculation about these programs that have no basis in fact.

This was not always the case. In the past - the Before Time - forum members regularly did their own independent research and shared it with others. Documents from DTIC, from various archives, etc. Members shared expertise and enthusiastically engaged in fact-based conversations. They did not engage in practices like attempting to annoy or attack a fellow member until the member did research on their behalf or provided information.

I prefer the Before Time.

For those who are interested in the F/A-XX program, I would recommend they ask the relevant DoD components and Congress for the specific information they are interested in, particularly records that are known to have been disclosed. If someone does this they will find that the program is very different than what has been discussed in the bulk of this thread.

It's a strike aircraft, not an interceptor. Get over it, people.
Click to expand...
Working in Melbourne, FL, and NOT cleared to the program on this thread. A LOT of us come to threads like this as anyone who would know can not say and we know not to ask. I had a career in Naval Aviation, and I HOPE for an award here, although I would bet they will be made in St. Louis if I had to bet using my own money reading this thread... Maybe only those in DC truly know?

Reminds me of being on cruise in VAQ-141/CVN-71 in 95, and woke up to the sun on the wrong side of the carrier for that days sorties.... We all went to watch CNN to find out why we were no longer going to Palma, and back to Haifa.... Saddam's brother defected to Jordan.

So here I watch and hope for information, and analysis of the tea leaves.
 
nationalsecurityjournal.org

F/A-XX: The U.S. Navy's 6th-Generation Fighter Is Almost 'Dead'

The Pentagon has effectively killed the Navy's next-gen F/A-XX fighter, prioritizing the Air Force's F-47 and leaving America's carriers at risk.
nationalsecurityjournal.org nationalsecurityjournal.org

"The ultimate fate of the F/A-XX program remains unclear, with a final decision pending. However, with numerous other new programs on the horizon for the Pentagon, the budget is becoming increasingly stretched thin."
 
FighterJock said:
If the F/A-XX does get cancled then that will leave the US Navy without a successor to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
Click to expand...
Yes.

Choosing to not proceed with the F/A-XX program now would force the U.S. Navy to retrofit more older aircraft and increase production of F-35s to try to compete with new fighters China is already producing, the pick to be the service’s next chief argues.
Click to expand...

U.S. Navy Chief Nominee Adds Support To Continuing F/A-XX | Aviation Week Network

Adm. Daryl Caudle, the nominee to be the U.S. Navy's next Chief of Naval Operations, has warned against not proceeding with the F/A-XX fighter program.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom