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

[Ainen]

Don't see obvious reasons for such aversion of action over open sea.
Attacking force will have advantage over outer CAP by the virtue of initiative. CAP can be meaningfully reinforced only closer to target anyway.

Outranging aircraft with internally carried munitions(inside aircraft of the same class) is path to nowhere.

Significant stand off desired - external carriage (external may mean "detached", aka drones, if necessary). Setting overly high bars for internal munitions in by default limited aircraft is outright crippling.

 

[Josh_TN]

Agree with the above. If we are talking about carrier groups in the open ocean, why wouldn’t the blue force simply engage opponent fighters? It is unlikely they are more numerous than the attacking force. A better penetration argument could be made for actually striking targets on land - in that case the defenders will almost certainly have overwhelming numerical superiority to a striking carrier force. But I would argue that carrier based strikes against the mainland simply are not realistic anymore and that no FA-XX design should be focused on that target set.

 

[Josh_TN]

I also think that in the future the USN will develop smaller subsonic and supersonic weapons more suitable to interior carriage. If it came down to two LRASM or four Barracuda 500s, I would pick the latter in most scenarios.

 

[bring_it_on]

If it came down to two LRASM or four Barracuda 500s, I would pick the latter in most scenarios.

Will you be stacking those Barracuda 500's one on top of the other? CMMT-X is the only air vehicle that I've seen that may allow for double the payload but then its designed more as a non kinetic effect as opposed to an anti ship cruise missile or land attack wepon. That said, if you are trading 1000 lb payload for a 100 lb payload and are fine with that then that's a good reason to probably stop asking for 1000 lb payload weapons. Or other volume and performance.

Also, I am yet to see a single customer set a 100 lb Wh anti ship missile as a baseline weapon to standardize around. Probably not going to happen unless this thing is a hypersonic cruising vehicle with high Mach terminal velocity.

 

[Josh_TN]

I cannot find exact measurements that I trust (a quick search says 8”x9” but I think that cannot be correct). But I am confident that munition is a much smaller height/width than AGM-158. I think you could fit four in a much smaller bomb bay volume than LRASM without going nose to tail.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Future LRASMs will be C3s with a range similar AGM-158B. Why would you need to carry a 500 mi range missile internally?

Time on target strikes. Because sending missiles to loop around 90 to 180deg off either side of the threat vector means your 500nmi missiles can't reach a target at 300nmi.

 

[Seragina]

I cannot find exact measurements that I trust (a quick search says 8”x9” but I think that cannot be correct). But I am confident that munition is a much smaller height/width than AGM-158. I think you could fit four in a much smaller bomb bay volume than LRASM without going nose to tail.

From the drawings the Barracuda-500 is about 13.14 ft long and 1.4 ft in diameter. So no you stack it in any fighter IWB.

Time on target strikes. Because sending missiles to loop around 90 to 180deg off either side of the threat vector means your 500nmi missiles can't reach a target at 300nmi.

Yeah, waypoint looping courses is mostly for ships to hide their location. Range reduction could be as much as 50%.

https://imgur.com/tXxgych

Fighters don't really have that issue but do that themselves for to protect the carrier's location. So range reduction isn't necessarily as bad.

 

[Scott Kenny]

From the drawings the Barracuda-500 is about 13.14 ft long and 1.4 ft in diameter. So no you stack it in any fighter IWB.

Oof. Yeah, that's a big thing if it's 17" diameter!

Yeah, waypoint looping courses is mostly for ships to hide their location. Range reduction could be as much as 50%.

https://imgur.com/tXxgych

Fighters don't really have that issue but do that themselves for to protect the carrier's location. So range reduction isn't necessarily as bad.

I was thinking in terms of forcing a carrier group to lose their CEC, since ships on the far side of the formation would no longer be able to throw rounds at the incoming in support of their friends.

 

[Josh_TN]

I meant four abreast, not stacked. 1.4 feet/17” is significantly less height and width than AGM-158.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I meant four abreast, not stacked. 1.4 feet/17” is significantly less height and width than AGM-158.

AGM-158 is 18" deep and 22" wide. You're not packing 4 of those into a space that was sized around 2x AGM-158s.

 

[Josh_TN]

AGM-158 is 18" deep and 22" wide. You're not packing 4 of those into a space that was sized around 2x AGM-158s.

My mistake, I thought it closer to 25”. But my point is that you can build a smaller bomb bay around four weapons with less depth and width and probably save a fair amount of volume and mass. The Barracuda probably still fits into a more mk83 x 4 friendly internal carriage situation than AGM-158. And the shorter length is also a thing. When you add all those volumes up in every dimension, I bet there’s quite a lot of savings if you dump any AGM-158 requirement.

 

[Scott Kenny]

My mistake, I thought it closer to 25”. But my point is that you can build a smaller bomb bay around four weapons with less depth and width and probably save a fair amount of volume and mass. The Barracuda probably still fits into a more mk83 x 4 friendly internal carriage situation than AGM-158. And the shorter length is also a thing. When you add all those volumes up in every dimension, I bet there’s quite a lot of savings if you dump any AGM-158 requirement.

A bay 55" wide by 25" deep by 33ft long is big but isn't big when you put it between the engines. It's basically the size of the Tunnel on an F-14 (F-14 engines are 9ft between centerlines)

 

[Josh_TN]

Volume of the weapons bay is still volume taken regardless of the layout. I think a bay designed around a pair of AGM-158 would be only modest smaller than four low end cruise missiles. The difference in volume between 18” x 22” and 17x 17 is already a 25% reduction, ignoring the longer length of LRASM.

 

[insidersource]

I thought it closer to 25”. But my point is that you can build a smaller bomb bay around four weapons with less depth and width and probably save a fair amount of volume and mass. The Barracuda probably still fits into a more mk83 x 4 friendly internal carriage situation than AGM-158. And the shorter length is also a thing. When you add all those volumes up in every dimension, I bet there’s quite a lot of savings if you dump any AGM-158 requirement.

The Barracuda 500 is also AMRAAM sized. The F-22 main weapon bay for instance could carry 4 Barracuda 500. The F/A-XX could then definitely carry 4 Barracuda versus the 2 JASSM/LRASM.

While you can't fit two Barracuda 500 in the space of one JASSM. You can fit three Barracuda 500 in the space of two JASSM.

 

[VTOLicious]

The Barracuda 500 is also AMRAAM sized. The F-22 main weapon bay for instance could carry 4 Barracuda 500. The F/A-XX could then definitely carry 4 Barracuda versus the 2 JASSM/LRASM.

While you can't fit two Barracuda 500 in the space of one JASSM. You can fit three Barracuda 500 in the space of two JASSM.

Do you happen to know the dimensions of B 500?
It looks wide... Wouldn't it consume the same volume as two AMRAAM next to each other?

 

[Ozair]

Do you happen to know the dimensions of B 500?
It looks wide... Wouldn't it consume the same volume as two AMRAAM next to each other?

This link says it is the following,

Unlike the 100 and 250, the Barracuda M-500 can carry a 100-pound warhead to targets more than 500 nautical miles (~575 miles) away. This much larger weapon stretches a full 13 feet, with an 8-9 inch diameter and a total weight of around 400 pounds.

Not saying that is definitive, National Interest and Alex Hollings aren't primary sources.

 

[bring_it_on]

Barracuda 500 is described by Anduril as a 12 foot long roughly 10 inch diameter form factor. That's quite a lot of volume for a 100 lbs warhead effect even considering the range. Perhaps better utility in non kinetic payloads but still not something you can bill as a 'staple' and design/optimize a tactical fighter aircraft bay around. Not sure you can pack these side by side in the same volume as a single JASSM or LRASM. But the argument that any bay for a F/A-XX would be built around internal carriage of LRASM is pretty much not going to pan out. There are other current and future weapons that those bays will support and internal carriage of LRASM is probably not even a serious consideration unless it is enabled due to other weapon carriage requirements.

 

[Josh_TN]

I do not see any reason Baracuda 500 could not be carried internally in decent numbers; even the largest diameter number being presented is smaller than JAASM. But I was only specifying this weapon as an example because it has a stated similar range; there are a half dozen different weapons in this class on the market that we know of. Presumably the USN has very specific ideas about internal carriage, and I consider it extremely unlikely AGM-158 is a major consideration considering how modestly they have bought it - the USAF has 15-20x as many.

 

[bring_it_on]

Of course these weapons would be able to be carried internally on some platforms. JSM, and SiAW are carried internally. They are bigger weapons then this. Even the 13 ft long, 13 inch diameter MAKO can be carried internally on the F-22 and F-35. The only weapon or air vehicle in this class that seems to be designed for increasing magazine size is the CMMT-X which appears have been sized so that two can be carried in place of one JASSM.

 

[Josh_TN]

Red Wolf is also in that size range, and Barracuda 250 appears to have SDB dimensions.

AGM-158 is just about the chunkiest store there is though, yes.

 

[insidersource]

Do you happen to know the dimensions of B 500?

I've seen the model at a trade show. I would estimate 10inch wide and 10 foot long.

The numbering system is meant to be 500lb, 250lb and 100lb class. The 500 easily fits in the AMRAAM envelope and the 250 fits in the SDB envelope. Pretty logical solution.

Weapon bays sized for AMRAAM can then mix and match various combinations.

Red Wolf is also in that size range, and Barracuda 250 appears to have SDB dimensions.

AGM-158 is just about the chunkiest store there is though, yes.

Indeed. It makes no sense to build a weapon bay for four AGM-158. It seems manufacturers will just make missiles and bombs to suit the AMRAAM envelope.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Indeed. It makes no sense to build a weapon bay for four AGM-158. It seems manufacturers will just make missiles and bombs to suit the AMRAAM envelope.

Then what anti-ship weapon is the F/A-XX going to carry in place of Harpoon?

JSM is only 2" narrower than AGM-158!

 

[bring_it_on]

Red Wolf is also in that size range, and Barracuda 250 appears to have SDB dimensions.

AGM-158 is just about the chunkiest store there is though, yes.

I mean at this rate we're so far away from actual apples to apples comparison that we might as well compare LRASM/JASSM to a quadcopter or something of a new mission class with a sub 15 lb payload with a 1000 mile range.

For internal bays, there needs to be a good reason for something to be carried internally or for bays to be capable of supporting carriage of things internally. For A2A missiles the trades are obvious. For air to surface, high speed / short time of flight is a good reason and we see that in weapons like SiAW and MAKO. Same for direct attack weapons. For those cruise missile / loitering munition hybrid class weapons or those really heavy LRASM types you have external stores or adjuncts like MQ-25 and CCAs.

 

[Josh_TN]

Then what anti-ship weapon is the F/A-XX going to carry in place of Harpoon?

JSM is only 2" narrower than AGM-158!

The USN is not purchasing JSM AFAIK.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The USN is not purchasing JSM AFAIK.

I'm surprised, but okay.

Again, what AShM is FAXX going to carry if not AGM-158?

 

[Ozair]

I'm surprised, but okay.

Again, what AShM is FAXX going to carry if not AGM-158?

6th gen aircraft will hopefully have 6th gen weapons so perhaps something as bring it on stated that is smaller but fast and very lethal.

The USN could easily expect that AGM-158 mass will come from the F/A-18E/F fleet and the F-35C until and perhaps even after the F/A-XX arrives. By the time F/A-XX is actually being tasked with ASW then a CCA of some version should be available to carry it and leave F/A-XX for the stand in fast and lethal munitions.

My suggestion remains though that the weapons bays will be able to accommodate AGM-158 (amongst others), they just don't need to go all the way to four weapons internal.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The USN could easily expect that AGM-158 mass will come from the F/A-18E/F fleet and the F-35C until and perhaps even after the F/A-XX arrives. By the time F/A-XX is actually being tasked with ASW then a CCA of some version should be available to carry it and leave F/A-XX for the stand in fast and lethal munitions.

Ignoring that the Super Hornets are on their way out, Super Bugs would only carry 2 weapons each due to range. I also suspect that the F-35C would be carrying 2 weapons.

My suggestion remains though that the weapons bays will be able to accommodate AGM-158 (amongst others), they just don't need to go all the way to four weapons internal.

And I think the plane will be built around a pair of SiAW and a pair of AShMs or bombs, internal. It's just that SiAW and the typical AShMs are the same size. Well, same width.

 

[Josh_TN]

I'm surprised, but okay.

Again, what AShM is FAXX going to carry if not AGM-158?

Whatever comes out of the MACE RFI. They are looking for something smaller and dramatically cheaper. There are a half dozen flight tested options in the 250-500# range with 200+ nmi range. There also was the ACME document, which seemed to call for a cost effective highly supersonic AShCM as a replacement for the cancellation of HALO. I think the issue with JSM is that while it is smaller, it is still almost as expensive as LRASM.

Neither of these are Programs of Record, in fact I am not even sure what you would call the ACME…proposal? I don’t think it was an official RFI even. But the intent seems pretty clear: smaller, cheaper AShCMs that can rapidly increase inventory and ideally also the salvo size (MACE for instance mentioned 2x per F-35 bay as an objective). I think LRASM will stay in production, since it mostly just piggy backs on JAASM anyway, but I think it will no longer be the primary AShM in inventory by end of decade, let alone when FA-XX enters service.

 

[Ozair]

Ignoring that the Super Hornets are on their way out, Super Bugs would only carry 2 weapons each due to range.

Even if F/A-XX was awarded tomorrow F/A-XX is not hitting the fleet until at least 2033 and more likely 2035. Meanwhile Boeing is upgrading dozens of SH every year with an additional 4k of airframe life. The SH is here until the mid to late 2030s

I also suspect that the F-35C would be carrying 2 weapons.

Yes.

And I think the plane will be built around a pair of SiAW and a pair of AShMs or bombs, internal. It's just that SiAW and the typical AShMs are the same size. Well, same width.

As Josh_TN has said other weapons are on the way. LRASM has always been an interim weapon and will probably continue in limited numbers for years. Irrespective of LRASM loading up F/A-XX with big heavy holes isn't the smartest way to optimize an aircraft that will serve alongside CCA that can provide munition depth for its entire service life.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Whatever comes out of the MACE RFI. They are looking for something smaller and dramatically cheaper. There are a half dozen flight tested options in the 250-500# range with 200+ nmi range. There also was the ACME document, which seemed to call for a cost effective highly supersonic AShCM as a replacement for the cancellation of HALO. I think the issue with JSM is that while it is smaller, it is still almost as expensive as LRASM.

I just flat doubt the effectiveness of an AShM much smaller than LRASM/JASSM or JSM.

HARM/SiAW can probably get you mission kills, but mission kills won't necessarily win the war.

 

[Josh_TN]

I just flat doubt the effectiveness of an AShM much smaller than LRASM/JASSM or JSM.

HARM/SiAW can probably get you mission kills, but mission kills won't necessarily win the war.

Eating a 100 lb warhead along with the rest of the missile body and unburnt JP5 is probably like taking an 8” / 203mm howitzer round at the low end. I doubt even Type 55 is doing anything of note after that, and there’s no reason you can’t mix LRASM with a pile of those if you want an engineering or hanger deck kill.

 

[Ozair]

Eating a 100 lb warhead along with the rest of the missile body and unburnt JP5 is probably like taking an 8” / 203mm howitzer round at the low end. I doubt even Type 55 is doing anything of note after that, and there’s no reason you can’t mix LRASM with a pile of those if you want an engineering or hanger deck kill.

With a decent enough guidance kit you can also target key points on the vessel, as the LRASM and NSM/JSM also do today, and increase the chance a mission kill becomes a hard kill.

 

[Josh_TN]

With a decent enough guidance kit you can also target key points on the vessel, as the LRASM and NSM/JSM also do today, and increase the chance a mission kill becomes a hard kill.

I was assuming a hit to the forward superstructure; all the LRASM and JSM tests I’ve seen look like they attempt to target the bridge/CIC/combat system equipment in this area. Something like a delayed fuse howitzer round worth of shrapnel and HE should be a mission kill. Weapons, fuel, and engineering could be alternative targets.

 

[Training_Dummy]

As quellish constantly reminds me there are things in the EW pipeline that will turn heads, but absent knowing those details I could see the capability to carry two large weapons like JASSM-D internally being quite valuable. Release of HiJENKS-equipped JASSM-D could be an extremely potent effect in its own right, to say nothing of its value in a TOT mixed effector attack. With satellite tasking and AI enabled target recognition exquisite enough to enable back-door HPM attacks on multiple targets, that would be pretty slick and maybe even cost effective.

 

[bring_it_on]

Eating a 100 lb warhead along with the rest of the missile body and unburnt JP5 is probably like taking an 8” / 203mm howitzer round at the low end. I doubt even Type 55 is doing anything of note after that, and there’s no reason you can’t mix LRASM with a pile of those if you want an engineering or hanger

What can a 100 lb warhead do there that a 75 lb warhead cannot? Why the overkill with that 100 lb warhead? Don't want to make the same mistake they made on LRASM.

 

[Sferrin]

What can a 100 lb warhead do there that a 75 lb warhead cannot? Why the overkill with that 100 lb warhead? Don't want to make the same mistake they made on LRASM.

What mistake did they make on LRASM? 100lb vs 75lb? Not much difference. 1000lb vs 75lb? The difference between possibly sinking a ship and inconveniencing them. Unless you can aim for specific points on the ship, 75lbs isn't going to do much unless you get a lucky hit.

 

[bring_it_on]

What mistake did they make on LRASM? 100lb vs 75lb? Not much difference. 1000lb vs 75lb? The difference between possibly sinking a ship and inconveniencing them. Unless you can aim for specific points on the ship, 75lbs isn't going to do much unless you get a lucky hit.

The mistake here would have been that they chose to go with a 1000 lb warhead when what they apparently needed to basically achieve a mission kill was a 100 lbs warhead.

 

[Josh_TN]

What mistake did they make on LRASM? 100lb vs 75lb? Not much difference. 1000lb vs 75lb? The difference between possibly sinking a ship and inconveniencing them. Unless you can aim for specific points on the ship, 75lbs isn't going to do much unless you get a lucky hit.

The WDU-36’s thousand pound weight is mostly eye wateringly expensive titanium penetrator that does not really bring anything to the anti ship role; IIRC it is just 240 lbs of AFX-757 (though that does have a high energy density). Not really a mistake as much as a shortcut to use as much of the off the shelf AGM-158B as possible. I have wondered if the LrASM-ER will just substitute a harpoon warhead and use the extra volume for fuel?

 

[Sferrin]

The mistake here would have been that they chose to go with a 1000 lb warhead when what they apparently needed to basically achieve a mission kill was a 100 lbs warhead.

I'd think you'd need to have aimpoint selection to ensure a mission kill. There are probably a lot of places on a Type 055 that could take a 100lb warhead and still keep fighting. Does LRASM have that? Also, I think the 1000lb warhead was because that's what JASSM already carried and it would minimize the modifications necessary. It would suck to swap out the 1000lb warhead for a 100lb warhead and 900lbs of ballast for example.

 

[Training_Dummy]

You guys don’t like HiJENKs?

2025/2026 Bingo Card:
- unmanned, check
- stand-off range, check
- AI enabled, check
- stealthy, check
- attritable, check
- cyber, check
- non-ageist bc can be carried by 4/5th gen, check
- Rapid Dragoning a volume of parachute delivered microwave popcorn that arrives to front line Marines for morale-on-demand? Check
- conceal carry / 2nd Amendment, check ( assuming for this discussion 2 or more fit internally within F/A-XX)

What am I missing?