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

I deleted my comment because I think I should frame this differently.

For cruise missiles of any range to be effective, how you carry them and how many you launch are all functions of the range to target.

  • At the stated 500 nm range of the JASSM-ER and LRASM, your likely predators are aerial threats. You could make a case for 4th gen fighters slinging them at 500 - 1000 NMi (for the XR) provided that they have enough cover. At these ranges though, in order for them to make it through, you'd have to launch more.
  • At 100-300 NMi, the enemy would have much less reaction time and necessarily the probability of intercept for cruise missiles drops a bit more so you necessarily would need to launch less. I would expect regular interdiction to be performed at this range with LRASMs and for anything sub 150NMi, then use SiAW carried internally. I find it doubtful that you could perform regular sorties and regular interdictions with bombers like the B-21 and the B-2. At least in my impression, having them loiter around for regular strikes at even 200 - 300 nmi is a bad idea. The only time you'd want them launching is to wipe out an amphibious landing. You'd want something maneuverable (compared to a bomber) that can internal carry a JASSM-ER. Currently that's the gap that exist
Sure you can sling out a few hundred from the back of a few C-130s and 4th gen fighters from far far away, but that seems ill advised and not sustainable for regular attacks. You want to have a platform operating at near stand in ranges to perform timely, short reaction time attacks to take the best advantage of the munition.

@Sferrin Yeah sure J-36s are the ideal thing to do the kind of job, but that only works for China because China doesn't have basing limitations, doesn't need to operate out of remote bases and the J-36 isn't flying itself off a carrier. The J-36 is also what it is because it's "stand in" mission set requires it to operate in an area where China will be hard pressed to sustain deployment of CCAs & dense aerial sensor nets (yet).

It would be ideal for a stand in strike capable platform to carry 4 AAMs and 2 A2S munitions for a good mix if you assume it's operating alone. Depending on how many A2A munitions it has to give up to carry JASSMs, it'd be much more preferable to have an upgraded / longer range SiAW size factor weapon. But with CCA support, maybe carrying JASSMs is sustainable enough. The argument could go either way.
 
Last edited:
Reddington777 said:
I deleted my comment because I think I should frame this differently.

For cruise missiles of any range to be effective, how you carry them and how many you launch are all functions of the range to target.

  • At the stated 500 nm range of the JASSM-ER and LRASM, your likely predators are aerial threats. You could make a case for 4th gen fighters slinging them at 500 - 1000 NMi (for the XR) provided that they have enough cover. At these ranges though, in order for them to make it through, you'd have to launch more.
  • At 100-300 NMi, the enemy would have much less reaction time and necessarily the probability of intercept for cruise missiles drops a bit more so you necessarily would need to launch less. I would expect regular interdiction to be performed at this range with LRASMs and for anything sub 150NMi, then use SiAW carried internally. I find it doubtful that you could perform regular sorties and regular interdictions with bombers like the B-21 and the B-2. At least in my impression, having them loiter around for regular strikes at even 200 - 300 nmi is a bad idea. The only time you'd want them launching is to wipe out an amphibious landing. You'd want something maneuverable (compared to a bomber) that can internal carry a JASSM-ER. Currently that's the gap that exist
Sure you can sling out a few hundred from the back of a few C-130s and 4th gen fighters from far far away, but that seems ill advised and not sustainable for regular attacks. You want to have a platform operating at near stand in ranges to perform timely, short reaction time attacks to take the best advantage of the munition.

@Sferrin Yeah sure J-36s are the ideal thing to do the kind of job, but that only works for China because China doesn't have basing limitations, doesn't need to operate out of remote bases and the J-36 isn't flying itself off a carrier. This beckons the question of how many JASSMs or LRASMs to carry, how much range and loiter time F/A-XX would have while carrying them, which air to air munitions would be given up and where their A2A cover comes from.
Click to expand...
If we had the one on the left. . .
25695-8662132fc767fff66a9fafbdabaf946f.jpg
 
So true Sferrin, I only wish that Northrop Grumman were chosen for the ATA instead of General Dynamics and McDonell Douglas, that way we could have had it in service right now. Yet another big what IF scenario's.
 
Sferrin said:
View attachment 788150
Click to expand...
I hate this photoshop, every article uses it and it artificially lengthens the weapons bay for what reason? The J-36 already has a 7m Center line bay, this makes it look like it’s 9m long. The Real J-36 bay ends at the end of the main gears. People need to stop spreading it around.
 
The USN really needs a new fighter for the naval mission which protects the battle group. I assume NAVAIR has planning for a new, pure strike aircraft and I'm sure trading off manned vs. unmanned but that's way down the road. Look how long its been taking for the MQ-25 for a purpose-built CV tanker but I think MQ-25 has been picking up the pace just due to necessity. In regards to a new strike aircraft (whether CCA, large manned, unmanned, etc) and by the time that happens, I'll be yelling at my Wife asking, "Is it soup yet, where's the soup!"
 
Sferrin said:
If we had the one on the left. . .
Click to expand...
ATA, A/F-X, NATF...so many ambitious and in many cases promising USN programs have come and gone without results. It's quite unfortunate how poor the track record has recently been. Makes one wonder if the Navy would even have stealth aircraft nowadays if the USAF didn't back the F-35 as well.
 
Avimimus said:
I'd personally prefer to have a survivable early warning and air defense asset... strikes can come later, survival comes first.
Click to expand...
MQ-9Bs + E7/E2Ds + Satellite AMTI can be enough for multistatic AEW.

Meaningful and long loiter time AEW doesn't exactly lend itself to survivable/cheap/replaceable platforms even just as a sensing node devoid of any C2 capability.

A WZ-9 isn't exactly a cheap or survivable AEW asset by itself, but it certainly won't be flying anywhere outside of the Chinese area denial bubble. E-7/E-2D could be survivable enough if it's operating with other AEW assets like MQ-9Bs well forward of it's position while it's operating over well protected areas. You can get more distributed, but even with space AMTI, it's debatable whether large (and therefore not survivable alone) aircraft are ever going away, as the scan volume and loiter time requirements necessarily lends itself to large, costly and non-manuevering platforms.

@dark sidius @EmoBirb

We probably aren't going to hear anything until this government shutdown is over. Maybe I'm seeing things, but I'm fairly certain the reporting regarding military systems has dropped significantly since the government shut down began (which shouldn't be surprising). Most everything I've scroll past since then have been regurgitations, speculations or just fuming - no actually useful information on anything.

It's probably worth keeping in mind too the ... context of all this, which is that there hasn't been urgency or need for an attack aircraft that the F-18 couldn't take care of for the past 20 years. People might disagree with me, but urgency as we know it today really didn't produce any tangible action or concern from anybody until maybe 6 - 7 years ago...
 
Last edited:
EmoBirb said:
ATA, A/F-X, NATF...so many ambitious and in many cases promising USN programs have come and gone without results. It's quite unfortunate how poor the track record has recently been. Makes one wonder if the Navy would even have stealth aircraft nowadays if the USAF didn't back the F-35 as well.
Click to expand...

Time to dust off Kelly Johnson's 15th rule again:

Starve before doing business with the damned Navy. They don't know what the hell they want and will drive you up a wall before they break either your heart or a more exposed part of your anatomy.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It'd be a pain to wrangle, but a conversion kit to stick the SM6 booster (Mk104? Mk72) onto the back end of a BLU-109 would be hilarious.
Click to expand...

When you mentioned your idea in another thread I thought a bit about it and it occurred to me that you could use the whole SM-3 Block-II airframe (Emphasis on the airframe) where you use the Mk-72 booster with the with the tail control-fins used to control its' trajectory after the Mk-72 has burned-out. But the Mk-104 and Mk-136 rocket-motor casings (No propellant, liner and fore and aft propellant domes), autopilot casing and nose-ogive are just an aerodynamic-shell in which the Blu-109 is mounted inside with a JDAM GCU (repackaged if necessary) and maybe a terminal seeker (Either a modified AGM-88E terminal-seeker or modified AIM-9X seeker) for aim-point selection.​
 
Josh_TN said:
The idea of carrying AGM-158s is stupid. It’s a weapon that exists in the hundreds that has a long range such that internal carriage is not necessary, and while width might be AARGM-ER, height/depth most certainly is not. I also would not assume AARGM is a prereq either.

Talk of 5000 lb penetrators is simply insane.

I would assume something like four 2000 lb class GP/penetrators, or alternatively 16 SDB as internal payload, since less than that does not improve much on F-35 (perhaps four mk83 as a fallback position). I also would assume a modestly sized cruise missile (say Baracuda 500) and/or a high speed direct attack missile (what ever equates to the ACME study) was also an option, though not necessarily AGM-88G given the width issues. I still think a healthy number of pylons would be present for light stand off weapons (MACE ish), ideally ejectable with low RCS penalty post jettison.

That I think would give you a well rounded strike fighter that still could extend range. Four largish weapons internally for direct attack, or 16 small diameter bombs, and maybe four pylons for four more 2000 lb class weapons or a pair of something smaller on a random ejector. About a dozen 1000 lb class bombs/cruise missiles on the heavy payload end.
Click to expand...
This is a pretty mediocre payload for naval strike? Though everyone in this thread seems to forget about JSM and the drag issues with external stores to long range. If you want to punch to 1000nmi then having external stores isn't great.
 
FA-XX will not carry four large weapons or have double the payload volume of the F-35C. The heaviest aircraft to operate from a carrier is only 25% heavier than the F-35C.

Increasing range, cruising speed or internal payload volume will result in increased empty weight compared to the F-35C.

F/A-XX has already been reported to have a 25% improvement in range over the F-35C. That range increase alone would see F/A-XX get near the carrier weight limit. Doubling the payload volume over the F-35C would see it easily exceed the carrier weight limit.

The only way an aircraft could land on a carrier with four 2000lb class internal weapons would be if it was a subsonic aircraft like the A-3 Skywarrior.

There hasnt been any magically material invented since the F-35C that will allow a bigger aircraft without weight penalty.
.
 
Tomcat_to_Bombcat_top-860x481.jpg


;)
 
whatismoo said:
This is a pretty mediocre payload for naval strike? Though everyone in this thread seems to forget about JSM and the drag issues with external stores to long range. If you want to punch to 1000nmi then having external stores isn't great.
Click to expand...

If your external stores add 500 nmi/1000 km to your strike range, you can afford a major loss in endurance. An F-18E probably can still hit 300-400 miles with ten Baracuda 500s under its wings and a centerline drop tank; that still pushes the strike range to nearly a thousand miles, more with a modest refueling effort. I suspect FA-XX will have modestly more internal storage than F-35 for direct strike with JDAM/JDAM-ER/SDB, but also be able to carry the newer generation of smaller long range and direct attack weapons both internally and externally (whatever comes from the MACE and ACME RFI/paper). I doubt anyone is building a plane around 3-4 million dollar oversized munition like LRASM. The solution will just be to use smaller weapons or carry LRASM externally. Longer ranged versions are already in or about to enter production (C2/C3).

Range for FA-XX seems far more modest than F-47; I do not think a 1000 nmi is on the table based on previous statements and the fact adaptive engines are off the table.
 
Touching on internal stores again, it would not surprise me if there was one central bay with four mk83 sized pieces of ordnance and the length of the F-35 bay for cross compatibility of new weapon types. That should allow for a healthy sized internal direct attack, JSOW, SDB (x16), and whatever future small sized subsonic and supersonic cruise missiles are developed. I do not think AGM-88G has a very long future (replaced with whatever fills the ACME concept) and in any case the F-35s can carry it.

The main sticking point I see with the above is that the USN would not be able to carry 2000 lb class penetrators, though perhaps two could still be carried in place of four other weapons.

I still see a heathy amount of external hard points with ejectable pylons) for heavy SOW loads, either as prep for penetration or along with the internal weapons, in place of penetration.
 
insidersource said:
FA-XX will not carry four large weapons or have double the payload volume of the F-35C. The heaviest aircraft to operate from a carrier is only 25% heavier than the F-35C.
Click to expand...
Again, an aircraft with a ~40klb empty weight works out. 12,000lbs of ordnance and 28,000lbs of internal fuel. ~80,000lbs MTOW.

Big, but roughly F-14 to A-3 sized.




Josh_TN said:
Touching on internal stores again, it would not surprise me if there was one central bay with four mk83 sized pieces of ordnance and the length of the F-35 bay for cross compatibility of new weapon types. That should allow for a healthy sized internal direct attack, JSOW, SDB (x16), and whatever future small sized subsonic and supersonic cruise missiles are developed.
Click to expand...
Why would you want to go down to a ~14" deep bay? Most of the newer weapons are bigger than that. Crud, JSMs are 19" deep.


Josh_TN said:
I do not think AGM-88G has a very long future (replaced with whatever fills the ACME concept) and in any case the F-35s can carry it.
Click to expand...
IIRC the AARGM-ER doesn't fit into F-35 bays, it's too wide.


Josh_TN said:
The main sticking point I see with the above is that the USN would not be able to carry 2000 lb class penetrators, though perhaps two could still be carried in place of four other weapons.
Click to expand...
? If the bay is the same length as the F-35 (and deep enough), it'll be able to carry 2000lb weapons.



Josh_TN said:
I still see a heathy amount of external hard points with ejectable pylons) for heavy SOW loads, either as prep for penetration or along with the internal weapons, in place of penetration.
Click to expand...
So do I, but I've been picturing the primary mission design as ~12klbs internal carriage, not external.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Why would you want to go down to a ~14" deep bay? Most of the newer weapons are bigger than that. Crud, JSMs are 19" deep.
Click to expand...

I made my case already, see above. If you want to increase range and payload at the same time, you are not going to get a lot of either. Choose one or accept modest increases, because the maximum take off and recovery weight are written in stone.
 
Josh_TN said:
Range for FA-XX seems far more modest than F-47; I do not think a 1000 nmi is on the table based on previous statements and the fact adaptive engines are off the table.
Click to expand...
Range is mission profile dependent for both. F-47 officially has been described as having a combat radius of 1,000 nmi +. Combat radius targets with NGAP will probably exceed 1,000 nmi by some margin. FA-XX could have some supercruise requirement given its longer reach relative to both F-35C and F/A-18E and need to cover distance and generate sorties. An internal fuel only subsonic combat radius of 800 - 1,000 nmi for F/A-XX is probably a good estimate in some sort of air to air or a mix load of weapons.
 
Last edited:
The ATA never made it into service Scott Kenny so we will never know how heavy it was supposed to be unfortunately.
 
FighterJock said:
The ATA never made it into service Scott Kenny so we will never know how heavy it was supposed to be unfortunately.
Click to expand...
We know the design payloads, which is what I have been talking about.
  • 2x Harpoon, 2x GBU-15, and 2x AMRAAM; or
  • 10x Mk83s plus 2x AMRAAMs.
Also, the NG proposal was 70,000lbs MTOW while the MDD proposal was 80,000lbs MTOW.
 
It is interesting to see that the McDD/GD ATA example is much heavier than the NG variant Scott Kenny, did that have anything to do with the final decision that went McDD and General Dynamics way?
 
FighterJock said:
It is interesting to see that the McDD/GD ATA example is much heavier than the NG variant Scott Kenny, did that have anything to do with the final decision that went McDD and General Dynamics way?
Click to expand...

Northrop and Grumman (years before Northrop-Grumman merge) withdrew from the contest (judging - wisely - that the program wasn't realistic), MDC/GD was a choice by default.
 
Thanks Manuducati, so both Northrop and Grumman saw the light, I think that was a wise choice by both manufacturers before things started to go downhill rather quickly.
 
there is a UUGE amount of info on both groups proposals in this forum.

One big takeaway is that capability creep adds weight and cost, no matter how sweet your technology is. For naval aircraft, the limits are reached very quickly.

I’ve seen demands for very long range, massive internal payloads, super cruise, some dogfighting capability. I hope the USN gets all of them and more in F/A-XX, but suspect they will not, but am deeply curious about their trades and what that says about the future of US carrier borne strike.
 
Josh_TN said:
So something that never existed.
Click to expand...

And would have been a subsonic flying wing. Which tend to have vastly better payload/range characteristics compared to supersonic fighters.
Better compare F-XX* to other supersonic carrier borne fighters with internal weapon bays for more realistic results. I.e. F-35C.

* Ditch the irregular F/A designation. :p
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom