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

I can think of two reasons why the Pentagon leadership may want to wait on the F/A-XX program, one strategic and one industrial base.

Strategic: this is exactly as tommyjohn said, aircraft carriers do not have a long-range strike capability, say >1250nm or even >1500nm, their combat potential in a Taiwan war will be very limited. There is no reason to expect China's AShBM threat to ever be suppressed and, between that and long-range threats, carriers will have to operate at extremely far distances from mainland China. Without an A-6E replacement, they're only a high-value target when going on the offense.

A single Defiant Battleship will provide more rounds-on-target to the Taiwan Strait than all the current supercarriers combined. At least for the first few weeks, if not the duration of the war. I haven't seen any urgency from the Navy to either address that fact or provide for an equally valuable secondary mission which demands a 6th gen fighter.

Now, carriers are absolutely useful, they've proven necessary against Iran and would invaluable mopping-up overseas Chinese bases and providing rear-area and line-of-communication protection, but those are secondary missions and does not need a 6-th gen fighter right now.

Industrial Base: the USAF F-47 and especially B-21 are important programs which will provide long-range strike. A F/A-XX program awarded to either Boeing or Northrop will potentially divert scarce industrial base talent from those programs. This is especially true if the winner of the F/A-XX is Northrop. The B-21 is a must-have aircraft, the F/A-XX (based on the argument above) is a nice-to-have aircraft. Given that carriers do not provide combat power right now or for the foreseeable future, this would be unacceptable diversion of resources.

I think the better question is: why should the US Navy get a 6th gen fighter, when it doesn't have a sustainable carrier-based long-range strike capability and can only operate on the defensive?
 
DrRansom said:
I can think of two reasons why the Pentagon leadership may want to wait on the F/A-XX program, one strategic and one industrial base.

Strategic: this is exactly as tommyjohn said, aircraft carriers do not have a long-range strike capability, say >1250nm or even >1500nm, their combat potential in a Taiwan war will be very limited. There is no reason to expect China's AShBM threat to ever be suppressed and, between that and long-range threats, carriers will have to operate at extremely far distances from mainland China. Without an A-6E replacement, they're only a high-value target when going on the offense.

A single Defiant Battleship will provide more rounds-on-target to the Taiwan Strait than all the current supercarriers combined. At least for the first few weeks, if not the duration of the war. I haven't seen any urgency from the Navy to either address that fact or provide for an equally valuable secondary mission which demands a 6th gen fighter.

Now, carriers are absolutely useful, they've proven necessary against Iran and would invaluable mopping-up overseas Chinese bases and providing rear-area and line-of-communication protection, but those are secondary missions and does not need a 6-th gen fighter right now.

Industrial Base: the USAF F-47 and especially B-21 are important programs which will provide long-range strike. A F/A-XX program awarded to either Boeing or Northrop will potentially divert scarce industrial base talent from those programs. This is especially true if the winner of the F/A-XX is Northrop. The B-21 is a must-have aircraft, the F/A-XX (based on the argument above) is a nice-to-have aircraft. Given that carriers do not provide combat power right now or for the foreseeable future, this would be unacceptable diversion of resources.

I think the better question is: why should the US Navy get a 6th gen fighter, when it doesn't have a sustainable carrier-based long-range strike capability and can only operate on the defensive?
Click to expand...
The B-21 is already designed. You wouldn't be shorting that program much (if at all) to spin up the F/A-XX design program. And you'd have years to gear up for production. In fact, this is even more reason to give it to NG. They should also get on board, in a big way, with CCAs.
 
Sferrin said:
The B-21 is already designed. You wouldn't be shorting that program much (if at all) to spin up the F/A-XX design program. And you'd have years to gear up for production. In fact, this is even more reason to give it to NG. They should also get on board, in a big way, with CCAs.
Click to expand...

I agree, the industrial base argument loses weight every day that the B-21 program matures. However, someone could have made that argument and it would have been more valid in the past.

joshjosh said:
... what
Click to expand...
36 > 0

More specifically, the anti-ship missile keep-out range should be so extreme, at least 1000nm, if not further, that the current carrier air complement will be unable to deliver a serious long-range attack. You'd have to refuel the F-35C from carrier refueling drones, with the drones themselves operating inside the "at-risk" zone for Chinese aviation, and that might be tight.

And, by the time the anti-ship missile envelope has been pushed back, the war will be practically won and the US be looking to negotiate a cessation to hostilities.
 
DrRansom said:
Strategic: this is exactly as tommyjohn said, aircraft carriers do not have a long-range strike capability, say >1250nm or even >1500nm, their combat potential in a Taiwan war will be very limited. There is no reason to expect China's AShBM threat to ever be suppressed and, between that and long-range threats, carriers will have to operate at extremely far distances from mainland China. Without an A-6E replacement, they're only a high-value target when going on the offense.
Click to expand...
The A-6 only had an 800nmi combat radius with 4x2000lb.

A-5s had a combat radius of ~975nmi, A-3s had a combat radius of about 800nmi (1825nmi range normally, and listed ferry range is only 2500nmi so the range listed is in fact a one-way distance).

The only way the USN had strike ranges past 1000nmi was by refueling A-6s at significant distances away from the carrier. Trying to reach 1500nmi would involve refueling on the way there at around 800nmi, and having ~10,000lbs of fuel offload per A-6 carrying bombs. The surviving planes from that strike would then need to refuel again at around 800nmi from the carrier or even further out if they had taken damage and were leaking fuel. Requiring another ~10,000lbs of fuel offload per plane. Fortunately, you could rotate your tankers back to a closer refueling point to top up and then back out to meet the surviving strikers.



DrRansom said:
A single Defiant Battleship will provide more rounds-on-target to the Taiwan Strait than all the current supercarriers combined. At least for the first few weeks, if not the duration of the war.
Click to expand...
LOL, NO.

A battleship might pack 12-36x CPS and 64x Tomahawks. That is "opening night of the war". A single carrier group is intended to carry twice that many Tomahawks. And would likely have at least as many CPS available between Virginia-Vs and Zumwalts.

And then this battleship gets close enough for railgun HVPs on surface targets? So it's within 110-250nmi of whatever it's shelling? Deep inside the A2AD bubble?

It had better have better stealth than the Sea Shadow for that!
 
On a side note APM could double stack TLAM for 14 each or 56 instead of 12 CPS. But this requires changing out the top and canisters. I imaging a shorter version could be used for smaller ships....
 
Scott - where do you get the A-6 numbers from? The Wikipedia linked spec-sheet says 6 Mk-83s out 1000nm, that's enough to carry a useful number of low-cost cruise missiles or air launched hypersonic missiles.

But the rest of the argument stands, the US Navy has wasted it's time getting a carrier-based long range strike capability. It had a capability, in some form, understandably divested of it during the 1990s, but hasn't sought to rebuild it.

There almost has to be a A-X program before a F/A-XX program.

As for the rest
Scott Kenny said:
LOL, NO.

A battleship might pack 12-36x CPS and 64x Tomahawks. That is "opening night of the war". A single carrier group is intended to carry twice that many Tomahawks. And would likely have at least as many CPS available between Virginia-Vs and Zumwalts.

And then this battleship gets close enough for railgun HVPs on surface targets? So it's within 110-250nmi of whatever it's shelling? Deep inside the A2AD bubble?

It had better have better stealth than the Sea Shadow for that!
Click to expand...


I would like to thank you for proving my argument, I did not say Battleship versus Carrier + Escorts, I said Battleship versus Carrier. To take your argument to the logical conclusion, a Battleship + Carrier's Escorts out-shoots a Carrier + Escorts, so we might as well swap the Carrier with a Battleship to increase firepower.

I also never said the Battleship would use it's guns, neither guns nor Tomahawks are useful in this scenario.

To back that last statement, recent combat experience in Ukraine shows that subsonic cruise missiles might get a 25% hit rate, at best, when shooting at defended targets. That's with the diminished air defenses in Ukraine, not the heart of the Chinese Navy. A hundred Tomahawk salvo could hit fewer targets than the 36 CPS rounds...
 
DrRansom said:
I would like to thank you for proving my argument, I did not say Battleship versus Carrier + Escorts, I said Battleship versus Carrier.
Click to expand...
but....ya kinda did:
A single Defiant Battleship will provide more rounds-on-target to the Taiwan Strait than all the current supercarriers combined. At least for the first few weeks, if not the duration of the war.
Click to expand...
DrRansom said:
There almost has to be a A-X program before a F/A-XX program.
Click to expand...
Its been said here and discussed a lot that F/A-XX is a strike oriented platform. In the same conversation not thay far back I beleive it was mentioned that the navy wants a strike CCA or UCAV too (cant remember which it was for).


DrRansom said:
That's with the diminished air defenses in Ukraine
Click to expand...
Thats also with the complete lack of air support, distributed jamming or generally an absence of any aerial fighting above typical drone altitudes. Its not to say necessarily that a peer war where the above things do exist will see higher hit rates, but all of these things arent just singularly evaluated in a vacuum. This is the same as people saying tanks, air craft carriers and stealth are obsolete. They need to be evaluated in context of the other parts of the system if we are to evaluate somethings utility within a system of systems war. The same applies to F/A-XX.

There simply needs to be aerial presence in a peer fight. There are places particularly in the pacific where it simply isnt sustainable relying on land based aircraft alone. No amount of ships and shipboard missiles can supplant the loiter and area control of a CSG.
 
DrRansom said:
Scott - where do you get the A-6 numbers from? The Wikipedia linked spec-sheet says 6 Mk-83s out 1000nm, that's enough to carry a useful number of low-cost cruise missiles or air launched hypersonic missiles.
Click to expand...
Someone posted the A-6 flight manual with load/range tables. I don't appear to have saved it myself.

Pretty sure it's posted in the ATA or A-12 threads.



DrRansom said:
But the rest of the argument stands, the US Navy has wasted it's time getting a carrier-based long range strike capability. It had a capability, in some form, understandably divested of it during the 1990s, but hasn't sought to rebuild it.
Click to expand...
Correct, it has.


DrRansom said:
There almost has to be a A-X program before a F/A-XX program.
Click to expand...
Why? Make the Attack plane one of the carrier CCAs.



DrRansom said:
I would like to thank you for proving my argument, I did not say Battleship versus Carrier + Escorts, I said Battleship versus Carrier. To take your argument to the logical conclusion, a Battleship + Carrier's Escorts out-shoots a Carrier + Escorts, so we might as well swap the Carrier with a Battleship to increase firepower.
Click to expand...
Uhm.

A Nimitz has an aviation ordnance capacity of roughly 1900tons. But that does include AAMs. Most AAMs are 200-350lbs. So let's say that the total A2G bomb/missile load is 1500tons.

And a Nimitz can exhaust that in less than a week.



DrRansom said:
I also never said the Battleship would use it's guns, neither guns nor Tomahawks are useful in this scenario.
Click to expand...
So you're comparing 12-36 CPS shots to what the carrier can do?

Let's assume that CPS impacts at 3km/s, roughly mach 10. That's the speed at which the kinetic energy of an object equals its weight in TNT. IIRC the LRHW's Common Hypersonic Glide Body has a 175lb Tungsten penetrator for a warhead, and weighs ~1000lbs all up.

Which makes the LRHW more or less the equal of a BLU-109 bunker buster.

So you're claiming that a Battleship can do more damage than a carrier, when a battleship carries the equivalent of maybe 36x BLU-109 bunker busters.

How many bunker busters do you think a carrier typically loads?
 
Seragina said:
On a side note APM could double stack TLAM for 14 each or 56 instead of 12 CPS. But this requires changing out the top and canisters. I imaging a shorter version could be used for smaller ships....
Click to expand...
Only if you extend the APM to ~44ft deep. The Virginia-class APMs aren't deep enough.

Otherwise you could stack 28x Tomahawks in place of 12x CPS (4x APMs). Or 84x Tomahawks in place of 36 CPS (12x APMs)



Desertfox said:
A battleships is a damn expensive way of carrying 36 CPS, when an Ohio class can carry 72 and even a LCS can carry a handful.
Click to expand...
Yes and no.

The USN still needs large ships to haul BMD-sized radars, which would happen to also have space for some number of APMs or new VLS. They'd also happen to be large enough to trivially hold the AAW Flag and all the planning spaces needed for that job.

Also, the Ohios are out of hull life and will never carry CPS.

LCS would lose their helo deck to carry CPS.
 
Seragina said:
On a side note APM could double stack TLAM for 14 each or 56 instead of 12 CPS. But this requires changing out the top and canisters. I imaging a shorter version could be used for smaller ships....
Click to expand...
Always wondered why they never did this. It seems like an obvious upgrade, but you do need to come up with a removable something to protect the bottom rounds from the exhaust blast of the top ones.
 
joshjosh said:
... what
Click to expand...
Scott Kenny said:
So you're claiming that a Battleship can do more damage than a carrier, when a battleship carries the equivalent of maybe 36x BLU-109 bunker busters.
Click to expand...
If the carriers and their aircraft don't have the protection to fight within DF-21 range or the range to strike from outside it, they aren't getting anything into the Taiwan Strait. Not even Tomahawks have enough range for that.
 
What is the problem with the FA/XX award ? I am sure the Navy now very well wich company will build the New fighter, so it is time now.
 
Not James Stockdale said:
If the carriers and their aircraft don't have the protection to fight within DF-21 range or the range to strike from outside it, they aren't getting anything into the Taiwan Strait. Not even Tomahawks have enough range for that.
Click to expand...
Who's to say they don't? Also, China will have to decide if it's worth attacking a US carrier knowing theirs will certainly fall under attack in response. I suspect US SSNs would be creaming their shorts to be let loose in the South China Sea.
 
Too right dark sidius, I just wish that the US Navy would come to their senses and reveal the winner of the F/A-XX now. I wonder what are the issues at the back of the delay? :rolleyes:
 
timmyjohn said:
No clue to Feinberg's thinking, but there's no reason to believe he has a pea-brain or a lazy work ethic. According to Wikipedia, his father was a steel salesman, so DEPSECDEF seems to be a self-made man (bonus points from me). I was once told that the grapevine says he sees Michael Payne as a trusted advisor, especially while Feinberg was learning his way around the Pentagon, aka the five-sided puzzle palace.
Click to expand...

Stepping back to the previous administration, we had some public commentary from Frank Kendall in which he said that while he couldn't close the case for AF NGAD and thus effectively left it for the incoming administration to decide, the Navy was having its own issues inside OSD in terms of carrier survivability and suitability as far as future investments were concerned. Not sure if that carried over to the current administration but unless we completely abandon the aircraft carrier the Navy needs something to replace the Super Hornet and absorb the technologies and capabilities it and the AF has been developing over the last several decades. Broadly speaking, if we are going to pursue battleships costing 3x or more of current Burke's then something will have to give way to pay for those. I doubt that it would be submarines which leaves the carrier and its air wing as a potential bill payer (easier to take one large slice then find dozens of smaller efforts).
 
bring_it_on said:
Stepping back to the previous administration, we had some public commentary from Frank Kendall in which he said that while he couldn't close the case for AF NGAD and thus effectively left it for the incoming administration to decide, the Navy was having its own issues inside OSD in terms of carrier survivability and suitability as far as future investments were concerned. Not sure if that carried over to the current administration but unless we completely abandon the aircraft carrier the Navy needs something to replace the Super Hornet and absorb the technologies and capabilities it and the AF has been developing over the last several decades. Broadly speaking, if we are going to pursue battleships costing 3x or more of current Burke's then something will have to give way to pay for those. I doubt that it would be submarines which leaves the carrier and its air wing as a potential bill payer (easier to take one large slice then find dozens of smaller efforts).
Click to expand...
Until they can find a way to throw a 2000lb bomb as far and as cheaply as a carrier, I don't know what you'd replace it with. Even if you get it down to SDB-sized we still have a long, LONG ways to go.
 
flateric said:
Can you return to F/A-XX
Click to expand...
To not only agree with this but also offer a solution, that stuff may be better for:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/are-aircraft-carriers-too-vulnerable.32603/

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/usn-missions-around-taiwan.48372/

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/surface-ships-need-more-offensive-punch-outlook.23259/

So @ALL it may be appropriate to discuss this there (as it doesn't exclude tangentially discussing the value of F/A-XX as a whole) and may also provide some other insights. You could also ask staff to move your previous comments.
 
bring_it_on said:
Broadly speaking, if we are going to pursue battleships costing 3x or more of current Burke's then something will have to give way to pay for those. I doubt that it would be submarines which leaves the carrier and its air wing as a potential bill payer (easier to take one large slice then find dozens of smaller efforts).
Click to expand...
Training_Dummy said:
The Powers That Be hated CVNs before OEF; they hate them more after. F/A-XX is a subroutine that nests within the CVN framing. Perhaps this makes more sense if you consider Defiant class vs more Fords + F/A-XX as a choice.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Had the same thought 8 months ago.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/us-navy-6th-gen-fighter-f-a-xx.45777/post-863335

Update: with the nomination of Hegseth ally Hung Cao for Navy Secretary, it's now more apparent to me that the Trump-class battleship notion was pretty much Phelan kissing POTUS's backside. With F/A-XX dead, I'm still trying to figure out what the future holds for additional Ford-class carriers (with or without EMALS). From what I've read the Hegseth-Feinberg-Cao troika is bullish on unmanned vessels in quantity.
 
Last edited:
AWST article now unlocked:

https://aviationweek.com/defense/ai...-fa-xx-award-comes-soon-august-deadline-nears

• CNO does not know exact status -- Navy has made recommendations
• there will probably be a POTUS event at the White House
• might or might not be this month

While the Admiral might possibly be expressing uncertainty only about schedule, his vibe seems more like not knowing who will win, due to the possibility that Trump might pick the "losing" team from the Navy's analysis, i.e. decide the slower schedule is ok, the losing bidder's plans looks better, etc.

On the other hand, while the article mentions the budget quandaries, it does not really say anything that would elevate worries that F/A-XX might get rejected altogether. Not sure we're safe from that yet, but at least the article was more about who/when than whether.
 
Last edited:
Sferrin said:
Who's to say they don't? Also, China will have to decide if it's worth attacking a US carrier knowing theirs will certainly fall under attack in response. I suspect US SSNs would be creaming their shorts to be let loose in the South China Sea.
Click to expand...
"If your war boner lasts longer than 4 hours go see the Doc."


EmoBirb said:
The last Super Hornet has yet to roll off the assembly line, the F/A-18E/F has still plenty of life left
Click to expand...
Airframe life != airframe still able to fight effectively
 
Reddington777 said:
Its been said here and discussed a lot that F/A-XX is a strike oriented platform. In the same conversation not thay far back I beleive it was mentioned that the navy wants a strike CCA or UCAV too (cant remember which it was for).
Click to expand...

The Navy intends for the bulk of carrier air power to be unmanned platforms. They are participating in the USAF CCA programs for now, and learning how to operate from carriers with the MQ-25.

Their timelines for the transition to unmanned platforms does not necessarily match the pace of the known components.
 
quellish said:
The Navy intends for the bulk of carrier air power to be unmanned platforms. They are participating in the USAF CCA programs for now, and learning how to operate from carriers with the MQ-25.

Their timelines for the transition to unmanned platforms does not necessarily match the pace of the known components.
Click to expand...
The USN also has their own CCA program running, awarding conceptual design contracts last year alongside LM for their UMCS/MDCX system.

The US Navy has awarded contracts to four major aerospace prime contractors — Anduril, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and General Atomics — for “conceptual designs” for a carrier-based autonomous combat drone, according to a Navy document obtained by Breaking Defense.

Additionally, Lockheed Martin is under contract for the drone’s “common control,” according to a slide on Collaborative Combat Aircraft from the Navy’s program executive office for unmanned aviation and strike weapons, dated Aug. 20.
Click to expand...
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/09...ce-primes-to-design-autonomous-drone-wingmen/
 
quellish said:
The Navy intends for the bulk of carrier air power to be unmanned platforms. They are participating in the USAF CCA programs for now, and learning how to operate from carriers with the MQ-25.

Their timelines for the transition to unmanned platforms does not necessarily match the pace of the known components.
Click to expand...
From recent reading, it seems the USN is planning on adding strike capability to the MQ-25 which I think is a bad idea, just leave it as a fleet aerial tanker especially if the USN is now pinging four contractors (Boeing, NG, Anduril and GA) for carrier-based CCAs. Would hate to see another RAH-66 Comanche debacle related too installing every piece of equipment available and oh by the way, the helo now cannot perform it's intended mission then the program gets cancelled.
 
Hydroman said:
From recent reading, it seems the USN is planning on adding strike capability to the MQ-25 which I think is a bad idea, just leave it as a fleet aerial tanker especially if the USN is now pinging four contractors (Boeing, NG, Anduril and GA) for carrier-based CCAs. Would hate to see another RAH-66 Comanche debacle related too installing every piece of equipment available and oh by the way, the helo now cannot perform it's intended mission then the program gets cancelled.
Click to expand...
Would be par for the course for the USN. If they want to make a modified variant as a stop gap, sure, but don't try to make your tanker aircraft drop bombs too.
 
Seems to be that way FlyGuy369, disappointing really was really looking forward to seeing who had won the F/A-XX. But now I suppose we will just have to wait a little while longer I think.
 
Let's wait and see nn8734, I would like downselect to happen now in September after the no show in August but I am certainly not holding my breath.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom