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

Training_Dummy said:
Perhaps someone in the USN should be having very intense conversations with Boeing and critical subs about what it would take to keep the Hornet line hot for another decade, as insane as that sounds.
Click to expand...
Why would it be insane? The SH is adequate as it is with the envisioned new blocks. I'd rather spend more money to have a fallback option.
 
I bet Lockheed will offer a F-35C+ or else a KF-21 carrier version (since they helped design it)(F-55...) and the US will have to go with it, since there won't be anything else...
 
Training_Dummy said:
Perhaps someone in the USN should be having very intense conversations with Boeing and critical subs about what it would take to keep the Hornet line hot for another decade, as insane as that sounds.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's insane at all. After all comparable aircraft like the Rafale M or J-15 are also still in production, intended to serve for many years to come and receiving steady upgrades. The Super Hornet is still a very useful asset to maintain and new and further improved SHs don't seem tremendously silly. One only has to look towards the advanced Eagles, the Eurofighter, Flankers etc. to see that there is still a place for advanced and capable non-stealth aircraft.
 
Desertfox said:
I bet Lockheed will offer a F-35C+ or else a KF-21 carrier version (since they helped design it)(F-55...) and the US will have to go with it, since there won't be anything else...
Click to expand...
This idea is tempting. But aside from the fact that this KF-21 variant doesn't exist, I doubt it would offer superior capabilities compared to the F-35C. Furthermore, I can't imagine that LM has any interest in creating a competitor to the F-35.
 
It is a perfectly logical and feasible option. Just as Lockheed offered a modified T-50 for the T-X.
A naval variant of the KF-21 does not exist, but it could exist very soon and cheaply, including IWB and F414 EPE with a total thrust of over 230 kN and a useful supercruise.
There is no doubt that the LM has such a capability.
And...although "LM has no interest in creating a competitor to the F-35", the design of the KF-21 is their work.
 
Last edited:
You may be criminally insane if you think developing KF-21 for carrier ops would be "easy" "cheap" or "quick" when in reality such a program would likely go 0 for 3.

To say nothing of the fact that the USN doesn't want KF-21 nor KF-21 actually adding much to an Air Wing that a Block III SH can't do, besides a lower observability - Korean designed for Korean needs, lower payload, no -174B or JA-260A integration, no Growler variant, no buddy tanking, lower bringback... c'mon guys.
 
Training_Dummy said:
Because if carrier refits gate the conversion to F-35C (regardless of how TR3 is progressing), then spiking in a new type in the form of a putative F/A-XX just exacerbates this dynamic; if important new aircraft systems (like XX, realize -25 doesn’t fit this bill) require a carrier to be refitted then those long ago planned refit schedules impose a best case cadence of new airframe adoption - all things being equal and static.
Click to expand...
It's not clear that F/A-XX would require the carriers to be modified like F-35 does? That 'if' is very load bearing.
 
Geo said:
It is a perfectly logical and feasible option. Just as Lockheed offered a modified T-50 for the T-X.
A naval variant of the KF-21 does not exist, but it could exist very soon and cheaply, including IWB and F414 EPE with a total thrust of over 230 kN and a useful supercruise.
There is no doubt that the LM has such a capability.
And...although "LM has no interest in creating a competitor to the F-35", the design of the KF-21 is their work.
Click to expand...
So's the J-35 but I doubt we'll be trying to buy those either. ;)
 
Geo said:
It is a perfectly logical and feasible option. Just as Lockheed offered a modified T-50 for the T-X.
A naval variant of the KF-21 does not exist, but it could exist very soon and cheaply, including IWB and F414 EPE with a total thrust of over 230 kN and a useful supercruise.
There is no doubt that the LM has such a capability.
And...although "LM has no interest in creating a competitor to the F-35", the design of the KF-21 is their work.
Click to expand...
I think it’s illogical even silly, but agree it’s possible, maybe feasible, since in the end engineering problems need only time and money.

My original post, if you reread it, was about how quickly the USN could flow through a new airframe into the fleet even if it didn’t need a single mod from a -35 capable.

But I in turn seem to be missing your point: what specific capabilities would a navalized US KF-21 bring to the fight that a Block 4 C wouldn’t?
 
Geo said:
And...although "LM has no interest in creating a competitor to the F-35", the design of the KF-21 is their work.
Click to expand...

Nope, "their work" is an exaggeration...

"...Lockheed Martin agreed with South Korea on transfer of 25 technologies to KAI under an offset trade agreement linked to a contract to acquire 40 F-35As. However, the U.S. later disapproved the transfer of four core technologies—Active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, infrared search and track (IRST), electro-optical targeting pod (EO TGP), and radio frequency jammer (RF jammer) technology—requiring South Korea to develop these capabilities domestically. For the rest of 21 technologies, the U.S. government approved the transfer to South Korea in December 2015, including avionics operational flight program (OFP) software, head-mounted displays (HMD), and aerial refueling control units. Despite its previous partnership on the T-50 design, Lockheed Martin’s role in the KF-21 Boramae program was limited. While the company provided guidance to KAI's engineers during the KF-21's development and testing, Lockheed does not possess any design rights to the fighter jet..."
 
Scott Kenny said:
That "IF the FAXX also needs an overhaul" is a pretty big one.

Remember that a Carrier has a minor refit every 18 months, so there is a bit of scheduling involved.
Click to expand...
Maybe maybe not. F-35 required the installation of a new ODIN based maintenance and support infrastructure, airframe specific tools and equipment related to armament loading, as well as bespoke SCIF facilities for mission planning etc.

To trivialize these things invites peril, in my view.
 
Training_Dummy said:
Maybe maybe not. F-35 required the installation of a new ODIN based maintenance and support infrastructure, airframe specific tools and equipment related to armament loading, as well as bespoke SCIF facilities for mission planning etc.

To trivialize these things invites peril, in my view.
Click to expand...
Yeah but people aren't unaware of the problem and there's no indication that it couldn't piggyback off the F-35 spaces or something else lower profile? You're inventing issues to ascribe a technical explanation to a political (small p, so not necessarily partisan) problem. As was said earlier in the thread someone in OSD doesn't like F/A-XX and is preventing it moving forwards. The Navy, Industry, pilots, even congress all want it, say it's ready and should move forwards.
 
Training_Dummy said:
Maybe maybe not. F-35 required the installation of a new ODIN based maintenance and support infrastructure, airframe specific tools and equipment related to armament loading, as well as bespoke SCIF facilities for mission planning etc.

To trivialize these things invites peril, in my view.
Click to expand...
Not trivializing, reminding people that there's a 6month long refit every 18 months where you can install this stuff.
 
whatismoo said:
Yeah but people aren't unaware of the problem and there's no indication that it couldn't piggyback off the F-35 spaces or something else lower profile? You're inventing issues to ascribe a technical explanation to a political (small p, so not necessarily partisan) problem. As was said earlier in the thread someone in OSD doesn't like F/A-XX and is preventing it moving forwards. The Navy, Industry, pilots, even congress all want it, say it's ready and should move forwards.
Click to expand...
Twas me who said that
 
Desertfox said:
I bet Lockheed will offer a F-35C+ or else a KF-21 carrier version (since they helped design it)(F-55...) and the US will have to go with it, since there won't be anything else...
Click to expand...
Won't be anything else? How about a carrier version of the F-47?

It is pretty crazy that the obvious solution is staring everyone right in the face and people are proposing a carrier version of the KF-21.

Geo said:
A naval variant of the KF-21 does not exist, but it could exist very soon and cheaply, including IWB and F414 EPE with a total thrust of over 230 kN and a useful supercruise.
Click to expand...
So making a naval variant of the KF-21 could exist soon and be cheap. Why does this not also apply F-47?

The F-47 will have more range than the KF-21.
The F-47 will have a bigger IWB than the KF-21.
The F-47 will supercruise faster than the KF-21.

It seems the Boeing F-47 is much closer to the F/A-XX requirement.

Boeing expects the F-47 first flight to be before the Korea expects their KF-21 to fly with IWB.
 
Im not saying KF-21 is the best option, heck Im not saying its a good option, all I am saying is based on this administrations harebrained ideas like BBG(X) and the FFG(X) fiasco, and with Trump's "restarting F-22 and twin Ferrari F-35 called F-55" talk, the only semi-logical way to meet that is a Lockheed KF-21 version. I can see the administration forcing something like that...
 
Don't remember if I mentioned this before.

overscan (PaulMM) said:
The Sukhoi book doesn't include any details of dimensions or weights.

Piotr Butowski gives these estimates:

Wingspan 14.1m (46ft 3in)
Length 20.1m (66ft)
Height 4.6m (15ft 1in)
Empty weight 18,000kg (39,683lb)
Nominal take-off weight 25,000kg (55,116lb)
Maximum take-off weight 35,000kg (77,162lb)
Maximum speed Mach 2.0
Supersonic cruising speed Mach 1.3
Maximum supersonic range 810 nautical miles (1,500km)
Maximum range 1,890 nautical miles (3,500km)
Click to expand...
This does kinda track with what I've been thinking for FAXX.

roughly same size weapons bays (okay, half a meter too short), not unreasonable weights if we assume US experience in making composite structures would allow 10% lighter structure and then a ~12% gain in weight due to naval modifications.
 
How are we so confident that the reason its been nixed is because someone in OSD doesn't like it. Genuinely not trying to be devisive or question anyone's expertise(or maybe theres some user lore im not privy to), but how do we know for sure? I could see hegseth moving in that direction- but it seems so counterintuitive when the only likely potential p2p conflict of the next 50 years will place take over the pacific ocean.
 
Josh_TN said:
Hegseth does not believe carries survivable against the PRC, so it is way to see him pulling the plug of FA-XX and using it for one of his pet projects.

Click to expand...

I thought he already said he was? Did I dream it? Something about Trump blessing a different plane.
 
Josh_TN said:
Hegseth does not believe carries survivable against the PRC, so it is way to see him pulling the plug of FA-XX and using it for one of his pet projects.

Click to expand...
That's short-sighted on his part. I mean we could debate the survivability of carriers close to China but that isn't the only kind of conflict or scenario that the US could encounter against China or other actors for that matter. I mean, 6th gen stealth fighter cover for MPA aircraft might be useful out at sea for instance, or to stop aerial attack against carriers or other ships by adversary stealth fighters.
 
Last edited:
Bounce said:
I thought he already said he was? Did I dream it? Something about Trump blessing a different plane.
Click to expand...

There was pomp and circumstance over the F-47, but that was a separate project for the USAF. Two different fighters were to be purchased.
 
Forest Green said:
That's short-sighted. I mean we could debate the survivability of carriers close to China but that isn't the only kind of conflict or scenario that the US could encounter against China or other actors for that matter. I mean, 6th gen stealth fighter cover for MPA aircraft might be useful out at sea for instance, or to stop aerial attack against carriers or other ships by adversary stealth fighters.
Click to expand...

I was not condoning the position, merely pointing out that Hegseth personally seems to be anti carrier. Canceling Ford is probably more or less impossible for a number of legal and practical reasons, but simply stalling the FA-XX program, which as a carrier aircraft he likely has no interest in, is relatively easy to do.
 
Deino said:
Yes, he babbled something about a twin-engined F-35 - a F-55 - … Most likely he forget to take his medicine again.
Click to expand...
Without Trump their was no F-47 , remember the Kendall show... And you don't know what He was speaking about with the F-55, it could be the Ferrari F-35....
 
Hegseth's basic position seems to be that the F/A-XX will not protect carriers from Chinese ASBMs and will not have the range to operate from outside the ASBM envelope. On the other hand, there are 15 runways (and many more taxiways) in the Marianas that cannot be sunk by ballistic missiles, and a lot of Seabees and RED HORSE to keep them operational under fire, which provides NGAD with a better argument. This is also the reason why the Navy wants CPS shooters as a large part of the surface force. At this point, it looks like China is all that matters in terms of procurement.
 
Not James Stockdale said:
On the other hand, there are 15 runways (and many more taxiways) in the Marianas that cannot be sunk by ballistic missiles, and a lot of Seabees and RED HORSE to keep them operational under fire, which provides NGAD with a better argument.
Click to expand...
Those same airfields can service UMSC/ navy squadrons flying F/A-XX too in addition to the MQ-25. The range difference of 200 - 300 NMI can be somewhat alleviated by MQ-25s and standoff munitions anyway. If it were the case that they plan on relying only on the F-47 and cancelling F/A-XX, buying a meager 200 is not going to be enough. But despite the troubles with F/A-XX, there's been no intention yet to buy more F-47s.

If we really have to go down the compromise/variant route, then F-47 doing strike work is probably a little more likely than modifying some naval design for air superiority. The F-47 doesn't necessarily need to be modified or carry the A2G munitions to be useful against surface targets either. It just needs to be able to produce quality tracks on surface targets in order for it to be useful in that role.

To me the logic of delaying F/A-XX may make some sense, but to cancel it out right makes no little sense.
 
Last edited:
Reddington777 said:
Those same airfields can service UMSC/ navy squadrons flying F/A-XX too in addition to the MQ-25. The range difference of 200 - 300 NMI can be somewhat alleviated by MQ-25s and standoff munitions anyway. If it were the case that they plan on relying only on the F-47 and cancelling F/A-XX, buying a meager 200 is not going to be enough. But despite the troubles with F/A-XX, there's been no intention yet to buy more F-47s.

If we really have to go down the compromise/variant route, then F-47 doing strike work is probably a little more likely than modifying some naval design for air superiority. The F-47 doesn't necessarily need to be modified or carry the A2G munitions to be useful against surface targets either. It just needs to be able to produce quality tracks on surface targets in order for it to be useful in that role.

To me the logic of delaying F/A-XX may make some sense, but to cancel it out right makes no little sense.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't think a few hundred miles is going to matter much for the OSD if the carriers are at risk while they are still east of Hawaii. Hegseth seems to thinks the carriers are at the point where the amount of investment they need to survive (if that's even possible) would make them too valuable to risk. https://news.usni.org/2025/12/26/ch...able-of-reaching-u-s-west-coast-pentagon-says
 
Would a presumably ABMS friendly F-47 need bespoke hardware to speak USN CEC / NIFC-CA?
 
Not James Stockdale said:
I honestly don't think a few hundred miles is going to matter much for the OSD if the carriers are at risk while they are still east of Hawaii. Hegseth seems to thinks the carriers are at the point where the amount of investment they need to survive (if that's even possible) would make them too valuable to risk. https://news.usni.org/2025/12/26/ch...able-of-reaching-u-s-west-coast-pentagon-says
Click to expand...
You'd think he'd never considered that carriers have gone into danger since WW2. Sounds like he's never heard of things like Bears, Backfires, Oscars, Victors, Alphas, Kh-22s, P-500/700/1000, etc. etc. etc., either.
 
Sferrin said:
You'd think he'd never considered that carriers have gone into danger since WW2. Sounds like he's never heard of things like Bears, Backfires, Oscars, Victors, Alphas, Kh-22s, P-500/700/1000, etc. etc. etc., either.
Click to expand...
I think there are political-strategic factors at play in the China scenario that were not there either in World War II or the Cold War that may make losing the war (or not fighting it) a better option than losing carriers.

First, US domestic political support for a war against China, even in the case of an overt invasion of Taiwan, is unlikely to be as strong as support for the war effort post-Pearl Harbor or in a full-scale Article V scenario in the 1980s. Like the Tet Offensive, heavy casualties and the perception of enemy superiority could create enough domestic political pressure to threaten the war effort regardless of the actual situation, and it would only be worse if the US was legitimately losing, which is not out of the realm of possibility. In 1991, the plan for the Gulf War was carefully calibrated to give President Bush off-ramps to partial mission success in case the Iraqis managed to inflict serious casualties on US forces (probably at the level of ~500 KIA, which was very low considering how large the forces were, how heavily armed the Iraqis were, and the threat of chemical weapons). After spending six months in the desert facing the Iraqis, the Army had a good idea that resistance would be minimal, but the China scenario would basically require a full-scale war effort from Day 1, with no time actually set those kinds of expectations.

Second, even a successful operation to defeat a Chinese invasion or blockade could create serious, long-term ramifications for US power projection. Even if an invasion is defeated, neither side can seriously threaten the other's homeland with an invasion or occupation. As a result, even a successful defense of Taiwan would probably end as a rather uneasy ceasefire with the Chinese government intact and in control of the mainland, very similar to the end of the Iran - Israel War and certainly without any sort of unequal post-war arms limitations. If the Navy loses two or three carriers and a proportional number of surface combatants and submarines, replacing them could easily take 20 - 30 years. Even if the Chinese suffered relatively heavier casualties, the size of their shipbuilding and shiprepair sector would almost certainly allow them to rebuild their fleet faster than the US. If the Chinese then try again in ten years, their new fleet would be facing survivors of the last war except for a handful of new destroyers and submarines, and their numerical advantage would be even stronger than it is today. In the Cold War scenario, there was significantly more feeling that at least one bloc would not survive the war intact. Even if that happened, US shipbuilding had a significant advantage over Soviet shipbuilding in terms of volume and speed, so the US would be in position to replace lost ships faster than the Soviets, which is the opposite of the situation with regards to China.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom