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

Hull down said:
One competitor hasn’t executed a clean sheet fighter program in decades and the other has their hands full with the F-15EX and F-47.
Click to expand...
Don't you mean both competitors haven't executed a clean sheet fighter program in decades... When was the last non MDD fighter build by Boeing? Any MDD knowledge and experience has long ago left the building.
 
Josh_TN said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ugh. WW2 experience is that 10k ship takes several dozens of above surface 8" hits to fully put it out of action. Less is ineffective even if lucky. 100lb is more of 6" shell, those were effective only via really lucky hits.
Fast incapacitation of 10k combatants began with 250kg(500lb)/11" warhead, but better really 500kg/1000lb. That's LRASM.

That is all, of course, if crew does tenacious DC.
Scott Kenny said:
Not for a few months, no.
Click to expand...
That also depends. Same tech that made USVs possible moves in direction, when critical hits on single combatant become less critical.
Unit with disabled part of sensor suit, or even bridge/CIC can maintain at least some functionality even immediately.

Restoring some of it after some time (emergency repairs/workarounds) is often possible even without that.
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
Ugh. WW2 experience is that 10k ship takes several dozens of above surface 8" hits to fully put it out of action. Less is ineffective even if lucky. 100lb is more of 6" shell, those were effective only via really lucky hits.
Fast incapacitation of 10k combatants began with 250kg(500lb)/11" warhead, but better really 500kg/1000lb. That's LRASM.
Click to expand...

It also took dozens of bombers to bomb a single factory in WWII. I wonder if that has changed?
 
16_incher said:
Literally what good reason can they have not to go forward with the program, too much money? It’s adversaries don’t have one yet? Not worried about non homeland defense? Sometimes it seems like they just want to cancel stuff just to get it off their back.
Click to expand...
I think the f-47s range and the amount of airbases in the pacific will allow the F-47 to serve its purpose well (hit two birds w one stone) for the time being. I would also assume the adaptive engines coming out might have constraints when it comes to navalization so the development may take longer. this is a hot take but they may also be planning around a future where the Capitol ship is too vulnerable to precision strike and saturation. But if the supercarrier is vulnerable so are airbases so who knows. Also range depends on tankers which are just as vulnerable to denial munitions.
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
Ugh. WW2 experience is that 10k ship takes several dozens of above surface 8" hits to fully put it out of action. Less is ineffective even if lucky. 100lb is more of 6" shell, those were effective only via really lucky hits.
Fast incapacitation of 10k combatants began with 250kg(500lb)/11" warhead, but better really 500kg/1000lb. That's LRASM.

That is all, of course, if crew does tenacious DC.
Click to expand...
The question is probably whether you believe a combatant today is more or less likely to be able to recover from a hit. Luck clearly plays a part but from where I sit it was easier to repair and recover 80 years ago when it was generally just a matter of bending metal and a set of standard parts. Tolerances are a lot tighter these days and systems are far more integrated than they were.

Falklands experience showed us that British surface vessels taking hits from one or two unexploded bombs were in most cases sent out of theatre. A 100lb warhead exploding probably does more damage than an unexploded bomb that in many cases passed through the vessel.

Hence maybe not hull losses but certainly good chance of a mission kill which is probably enough.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
It also took dozens of bombers to bomb a single factory in WWII. I wonder if that has changed?
Click to expand...
Honestly, per Ukraine/Yemen and even apparently Iran, it didn't all that much.

As soon as wartime dispersal changes original layout, precision dreams dilute in dozens of structures, where you just don't know what's where exactly.

Clean rooms and really unique equipment suffer, but otherwise...
 
16_incher said:
Literally what good reason can they have not to go forward with the program, too much money? It’s adversaries don’t have one yet? Not worried about non homeland defense? Sometimes it seems like they just want to cancel stuff just to get it off their back.
Click to expand...
Boeing had submitted a bid for both NGAD and F/A-XX programs. The production plans for each bid most likely did not have taken into account Boeing winning both programs. While winning both programs was always a possibility I think the highest probability was Boeing winning only one program.

The US Navy was most likely planning to select Boeing. The USAF selected Boeing first and this would clearly change the proposal and schedule for the Navy. This is why we had multiple reports of "industry capacity concerns".

Boeing attempting to develop and produce both the USAF and Navy aircraft in parallel has high risk and might suffer delays. They have clearly made the USAF aircraft a higher priority.

It is highly likely that the radar, avionics, software and many systems for the Boeing F-47 would be used for a Boeing fighter for the Navy. If the Navy contract award is delayed by a year it doesn't mean the entry to service date will then be delayed by a year.
 
Ainen said:
Honestly, per Ukraine/Yemen and even apparently Iran, it didn't all that much.

As soon as wartime dispersal changes original layout, precision dreams dilute in dozens of structures, where you just don't know what's where exactly.

Clean rooms and really unique equipment suffer, but otherwise...
Click to expand...

Th US has rather more luck in hitting structures in its more resent conflicts and I would not compare a tunnel with an above ground building even if I did have sufficient information to judge the effectiveness of those strikes. But my point was that 8” shells are not guided to a specific point on a ship the way you could expect a missile to be, and ships are much more fragile now. Sinking a combatant would probably still take numerous hits, but making one defenseless would be relatively easy. A hit to the forward superstructure would probably remove the sensors, combat system, communications, and even navigation from a medium sized surface combatant.

Not pick, while 100 lbs is more 152/155mm in weight, the warheads in air dropped munitions are closer to 50/50 HE by weight, plus’s the mass of missile body. Add in unburnt fuel and a 500# weapon is probably closer to a very energetic 8”, though with lower armor penetration properties.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
Th US has rather more luck in hitting structures in its more resent conflicts and I would not compare a tunnel with an above ground building even if I did have sufficient information to judge the effectiveness of those strikes.
Click to expand...
Success depends. For example, Yemen (long since exposed to bombing, and, as such, hardened) wasn't a prticular success, despite significant effort.
Josh_TN said:
But my point was that 8” shells are not guided to a specific point on a ship the way you could expect a missile to be, and ships are much more fragile now.
Click to expand...
This is not necessary true!
Armored ships of the past were more survivable only up to the point nothing got through their protection. Otherwise, their inevitably high concentration (armored volume is a very premium commodity) led to crippling consequences, should the defense actually fail.
It's true that modern anennas and aerials are vulnerable, but (1)the way modern ships are designed more and more, hits /should/ result only at rather partial loss of functionality more often than not: arrays come in high digits(3?4? 8 for DBRs?), are spread all over the ship. They're AESAs, i.e. splinter damage to array doesn't necessarily put it out of action, even if with loss of performance.
Finally, emerging trends(digital multipurpose arrays, mixing, for example, EW with detection; hemispherical fuzed optical coverage with ranging; data fusion from different sources in interests of broader FC) develop that further and further - and those will inherently benefit China's shipbuilding more, just because they introduce new classes.
Josh_TN said:
A hit to the forward superstructure would probably remove the sensors, combat system, communications, and even navigation from a medium sized surface combatant.
Click to expand...
I think you're of overly high opinion of 100 and even 200 lb projectile destructive radius(if explosion is internal), or ability of light splinters to propagate throught the ship(if it's proximity), as well as how much damage they actually do: cut wiring,cooling tubing or TRMs is just not permanent damage.
And at an age, where starlink-mini(sneaked in by a seaman to watch porn) gives you rather extreme performance - we may have to reevaluate things. To truly put ship out of action, we may still have to actually let enough water inside.
 
Ainen said:
Success depends. For example, Yemen (long since exposed to bombing, and, as such, hardened) wasn't a prticular success, despite significant effort.
Click to expand...

Was that specifically because ordinance failed to hit or destroy its target? Do you have specific information on that matter?



Ainen said:
This is not necessary true!
Armored ships of the past were more survivable only up to the point nothing got through their protection. Otherwise, their inevitably high concentration (armored volume is a very premium commodity) led to crippling consequences, should the defense actually fail.
It's true that modern anennas and aerials are vulnerable, but (1)the way modern ships are designed more and more, hits /should/ result only at rather partial loss of functionality more often than not: arrays come in high digits(3?4? 8 for DBRs?), are spread all over the ship. They're AESAs, i.e. splinter damage to array doesn't necessarily put it out of action, even if with loss of performance.
Finally, emerging trends(digital multipurpose arrays, mixing, for example, EW with detection; hemispherical fuzed optical coverage with ranging; data fusion from different sources in interests of broader FC) develop that further and further - and those will inherently benefit China's shipbuilding more, just because they introduce new classes.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that is where things are going, but it does not seem like where they are. Moving antenna around goes back as least as far as the Ticos, but the CIC and the processors for the combat system are still AFAIK centrally located without backups. Perhaps the latest PLAN designs avoid this, but the alternative might be as simple as attacking the forward and aft VLS systems if that is the case. I consider the difference between one crippling hit and several significant but not especially game changing.


Ainen said:
I think you're of overly high opinion of 100 and even 200 lb projectile destructive radius(if explosion is internal), or ability of light splinters to propagate throught the ship(if it's proximity), as well as how much damage they actually do: cut wiring,cooling tubing or TRMs is just not permanent damage.
And at an age, where starlink-mini(sneaked in by a seaman to watch porn) gives you rather extreme performance - we may have to reevaluate things. To truly put ship out of action, we may still have to actually let enough water inside.
Click to expand...

I am assuming a penetrating hit; I believe modern ships (USN anyway) use splinter protection (Kevlar or similar) around the most fragile areas. But a penetrating hit provides the kinetic energy of the missile and unburnt fuel on top of the warhead, and the warhead can have its fragment size optimized for deck/bulkhead/conduit penetration. I suspect you would want something larger and more jagged than you would for anti material/personnel purposes. As for lethality: I believe a Tico suffered damage when a target drone failed to pull off in a live firing exercise and that the collision alone disabled the aegis system. That kind of damage is hardly permanent, but it probably would require tactically significant amounts of downtime time at the low end or dockside repairs at the high end.

This is not a replacement for actually sinking ships certainly, but on the other hand historically air delivered bombs/missikes were rather abysmal at the task. I do not think bombs alone managed to kill a single carrier cruiser, or battleship.

ETA: two I can think of, USS Arizona and Roma, though both involved magazine hits and rather special combat circumstances.
 
Ainen said:
I think you're of overly high opinion of 100 and even 200 lb projectile destructive radius(if explosion is internal), or ability of light splinters to propagate throught the ship(if it's proximity), as well as how much damage they actually do: cut wiring,cooling tubing or TRMs is just not permanent damage.
And at an age, where starlink-mini(sneaked in by a seaman to watch porn) gives you rather extreme performance - we may have to reevaluate things. To truly put ship out of action, we may still have to actually let enough water inside.
Click to expand...
You are aware that a 16" HE shell only had 154lbs of HE as the bursting charge, right?
 
Bounce said:
lol F-55? What on earth.
Click to expand...
Maybe LM managed to put money in the ... wrong places .... that is in the commander in chief & friends pockets.

Congress itself is bad enough with it's bullshit. Now we have to deal with further bullshit from from the DoD? What makes Hegseth let alone Trump himself think they know better than the people who are doing the fighting? This clown show is about as bad as when Elon said manned fighters were obsolete.

It's hard to stay positive. And we're barely a year in.

I can justify delaying F/A-XX but I can't justify not having it.
 
Last edited:
donnage99 said:
Hegseth on an interview before he became secretary made a comment about all our carriers would be wiped out by chinese hypersonic missiles in 20 mins. This could indicate a cause rooted in his mistrust of aircraft carriers in peer conflict.
Click to expand...
There is surely a reason, they don't delay the FA/XX by pleasure , or there is something else than FA/XX in the work in classified.
 
bobbymike said:
This article is behind a paywall so this is speculation.

I think we really need to restrain ourselves with anything the media says about what Hegseth thinks about something.
Click to expand...
Not speculation. In the article:

"In a previously undisclosed letter to lawmakers on Nov. 18, Hegseth said he remains concerned about the defense industry’s ability to develop two so-called sixth-generation jets at at the same time.

The Pentagon “strongly supports its original fiscal 2026 request reevaluating the F/A-XX program due to industrial base concerns of two sixth-generation programs occurring simultaneously,” Hegseth wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by Bloomberg News.""

The only hope remains is that this pentagon is such vibe based and a revolving door of interns taking key positions that anything can change by next month. Here's a scathing editorial letter by Mitch McConnell describing the lack of math and clear coherent direction from the pentagon budgetary planning:

 
dark sidius said:
There is surely a reason, they don't delay the FA/XX by pleasure , or there is something else than FA/XX in the work in classified.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. I also heard that the navy doesnt have the money to pay for it until the 2026 budget is passed. They have more of a squeeze compared to the Air Force and have to choose between modernizing their planes and their ships.
 
dark sidius said:
There is surely a reason, they don't delay the FA/XX by pleasure , or there is something else than FA/XX in the work in classified.
Click to expand...

Everyone in the current administration is incompetent, so no, there does not have to be a reason for an FA-XX delay. At least not a good one. Hegseth’s claim to fame was being on Fox News, not his service as a NG major. He ran two veteran nonprofits into the ground.
 
donnage99 said:
Hegseth on an interview before he became secretary made a comment about all our carriers would be wiped out by chinese hypersonic missiles in 20 mins. This could indicate a cause rooted in his mistrust of aircraft carriers in peer conflict.
Click to expand...
Yeah but was that informed? Or just something he said in his capacity as a reporter at Fox News? F/A-XX made past several layers of reviews at the DOD (across multiple administrations) to get to where it is now. Those would have been led by technical experts fully read into and informed into the threat and the future of the carrier.

Also, if carriers will be wiped out and F/A-XX is a waste why are we spending billions on carriers annually under Hegseth's budgets? And why spend hundreds of millions to billions replacing EMALS with steam based on the upcoming presidential executive order announced a few weeks back?
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
Everyone in the current administration is incompetent, so no, there does not have to be a reason for an FA-XX delay. At least not a good one. Hegseth’s claim to fame was being on Fox News, not his service as a NG major. He ran two veteran nonprofits into the ground.
Click to expand...
There's no way this is correct. I was assured we were bringing meritocracy back, which means that Hegseth must be supremely qualified. Same with Phelan - I'm sure he must have a decorated Naval career under his belt, allowing him to lend his subject matter expertise to the decisions to cancel Constellation and F/A-XX. If these two juggernauts of Defense strategy say that we don't need to buy any ships or any planes, I trust them. Goddamn it feels good to be winning again!
 
donnage99 said:
The only hope remains is that this pentagon is such vibe based and a revolving door of interns taking key positions that anything can change by next month. Here's a scathing editorial letter by Mitch McConnell describing the lack of math and clear coherent direction from the pentagon budgetary planning:
Click to expand...
Don't forget the ongoing legal issues. Who knows how long he'll even be on the job. When he isn't going for PT runs.
 
donnage99 said:
This could indicate a cause rooted in his mistrust of aircraft carriers in peer conflict.
Click to expand...
The thing is, you drastically increase carrier survivability by placing them further away from the source of potential harm. Yet removing them further and further away from the hot zones diminishes how effective they will be able to contribute to the effort.

How do you solve this issue? By having a very capable, survivable, long range strike aircraft that can be launched from the carrier and be supported by carrier borne aerial refueling. F/A-XX and in a sense also MQ-25, together with E-2D are what help a carrier to remain effective as a means of delivering strikes while being as far away from any potential harm as possible.

That's why, if one heavily relies on carriers, investing into potent carrier capable fighters is not only mandatory, it also just complements the inherent aspects of the aircraft carrier.

And there is no substitute for that, it's that easy. Any usable airfield that's in range of Chinese missiles and drones will be turned completely unusable very quickly in a direct conflict, so land based fighters in the region are not truly viable. The most versatile and survivable option remains the CVN, armed with powerful strike fighters, launching airborne early warning and aerial refueling aircraft, supported by several vessels completely dedicated to anti-air and anti-missile operations targeting the carrier above all else and submarines lurking beneath.

It is ultimately much harder for an adversary to bring assets into play that can reliably engage a carrier strike group, which is maneuvering, actively interfering with offensive efforts against it and protected by a multilayered defense against air, surface and subsurface threats.

I do not think the aircraft carrier is invincible, I also wouldn't give them high survival rates when deployed against an adversary like the PLA. But the amount of missiles, drones, aircraft, ships and submarines it will take to "melt" through the escorts and their arsenal, the airwing and lastly the carrier may turn this exchange into something more favorable, if not at least equally hurtful for both sides. It's not necessarily about the USN hoping to curbstomp the PLAN, PLAAF and PLARF, nor the PLA curbstomping the USN and USAF long range aviation. It's more so about making your particular adversary bleed so much that the cost of continued conflict becomes untenable. This will most likely mean that your own forces will suffer heavy losses too, so it's about who "bleeds out" first relative to their willingness to commit to an all out total war.

And the F/A-XX is one of many individual pieces in a machine that is intended to hurt an opponent as much as possible, as effectively and safely as possible while minimizing the own risk. Risk to itself due to being designed according to envisioned next generation designs, but also reducing risk to it's host vessel by allowing it through it's own distinct capabilities to operate from safer areas. And because of this F/A-XX and super carriers are irreplaceable for the USN if they want to remain competitive. A restart, long pause or cancelation of the F/A-XX would ultimately make US forces more vulnerable and deny them of enhanced offensive capabilities. And if one thinks about the prospect of a Chinese naval next generation fighter, be it 'J-50' or something else, all of the advantages recounted above would fall into their side of the court. US carriers would be at higher risk, their airwings would be less effective and and escorts and their stockpiles could be depleted quicker before closing in further on relevant positions.
 
bring_it_on said:
Yeah but was that informed? Or just something he said in his capacity as a reporter at Fox News? F/A-XX made past several layers of reviews at the DOD (across multiple administrations) to get to where it is now. Those would have been led by technical experts fully read into and informed into the threat and the future of the carrier.

Also, if carriers will be wiped out and F/A-XX is a waste why are we spending billions on carriers annually under Hegseth's budgets? And why spend hundreds of millions to billions replacing EMALS with steam based on the upcoming presidential executive order announced a few weeks back?
Click to expand...
He believes in carriers as power projection tool against 3rd world country yes. The thing is DoD always have multiple factions. It just takes one secretary with some stubborn bias to start choosing who he wants to listen to.

You would assume a reasonable politician would defer to the experts but here we are, after the admirals repeatedly told trump to the contrary, he's switching back to steam catapult while china pushes ahead with their EMALS
 
donnage99 said:
You would assume a reasonable politician would defer to the experts but here we are, after the admirals repeatedly told trump to the contrary, he's switching back to steam catapult while china pushes ahead with their EMALS
Click to expand...
Reminds me of over eight years ago, when I thought ...
Arjen said:
In the meantime, ignore what the man says. Check.
Click to expand...
Groundhog Day.

Nothing to see here, moving right along.
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6NQcO9KTBY
 
Last edited:
I believe it has less to do with the survivability and effectiveness of the F/A-xx and more to do with contract negotiations and acquisition malpractice. There have been open talks about avoiding another f-35 situation as well as instances of primes like Lockheed martin backing out of contracts because the DoD or whoever didnt agree with their terms about IP. I think the real bad guys here are the corporate grifters who see this as an opportunity to please shareholders and increase long term revenue. If i had to guess hegseth and whoever else also have something to do with it.
“We’re not going to repeat the — what I think, quite frankly, was a serious mistake that was made in the F-35 program … I spent years struggling to overcome acquisition malpractice, and we’re still struggling with that to some degree.”
Click to expand...
“We’re not going to do that with NGAD.” (referring to avoiding the same mistakes that beset the F-35, including excessive concurrency and lack of data-ownership by the government)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
baseball801802 said:
I believe it has less to do with the survivability and effectiveness of the F/A-xx and more to do with contract negotiations and acquisition malpractice.
Click to expand...
While we are all entitled to our beliefs, but what evidence specific to the Navy's NGAD effort have you reviewed that would warrant such a conclusion?
baseball801802 said:
There have been open talks about avoiding another f-35 situation as well as instances of primes like Lockheed martin backing out of contracts because the DoD or whoever didnt agree with their terms about IP.
Click to expand...

I believe Lockheed was eliminated from F/A-XX during the source selection process leaving two viable contenders still in place.
 
bring_it_on said:
While we are all entitled to our beliefs, but what evidence specific to the Navy's NGAD effort have you reviewed that would warrant such a conclusion?


I believe Lockheed was eliminated from F/A-XX during the source selection process leaving two viable contenders still in place.
Click to expand...
Everything i said was speculative. I do however have those quotes. I also used Lockheed as an example- i speculated that other primes may behave similarly. all I know is that the DoD has changed its acquisition practices with the NGAD. Boeing may have been more eager to accept the DoDs terms given their current reputation and a need for a win.
 
baseball801802 said:
Everything i said was speculative. I do however have those quotes. I also used Lockheed as an example- i speculated that other primes may behave similarly. all I know is that the DoD has changed its acquisition practices with the NGAD. Boeing may have been more eager to accept the DoDs terms given their current reputation and a need for a win.
Click to expand...
The quotes pertain to Navy's F/A-XX exactly how? Do they describe what the claimed contract and/or acquisition malpractice was ?

Lockheed Martin participated in both the Air Force and Navy NGAD efforts. As did Boeing and Northrop Grumman. Lockheed was a finalist on the Air Force program and as per the services' previous Secretary could have won it. So it looks like they were in it to win it and made the final cut down to two. While Lockheed didnt make the final cut on the Navy program they were eliminated again showing that it was interested. Northrop Grumman and Boeing remain and one of them already has F-47. Looks like both programs had ample competition and no drama with contractors not wanting to bid or invest in the program because of any terms or acquisition malpractice.

There is zero evidence to suggest that acquisition malpractice or contracting issue has anything to do with the F/A-XX delay. The program has selected the path forward and all indications have been that OSD has held up the announcement for what seems like personal opposition to the Navy pursuing a next gen fighter or because of any perceived industrial base concerns or other reasons. OSD has exercised similar veto over the service on other programs. Like the E-7 for example..where the service chief had to publicly clarify that he was not in the loop on that decision at all...it appears that on the E-7 they not only used OSD powers to cancel the path the AF had chosen but also used OSD analysis (CAPE) to suggest an alternative (E-2D) without any direct SecAF or CSAF or service agency input.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom