F/A-XX and F-35D

[Rule of cool]

Merging a couple of things I've seen lately.

The Navy's 6th Gen fighter F/A-XX has been delayed a few times, unlike the USAF's F47 the F/A-XX isn't actually in he development phase. Apparently a reason is that industry isn't capable of developing two 6th Gen fighters simultaneously, and presumably other reasons. I've even seen that the USN thinks stealth is overrated and aren't fully on board with adaptive cycle engines.

Another thing I've seen is talk of an F35D 'Ferrari' version of the much beloved and totally controversy free F35, apparently this could deliver 80% of the 6th gen capability for 50% of the cost. This might include some different shaping around the inlet and exhaust and new coatings to improve stealth, stealthy drop tanks, a new IRST and other things. There is even suggestions that if the G limit was reduced other reshaping could occur, and of course new engines are already available. LM is looking into this stuff for the export market.

Putting 1 and 1 together might a much upgraded F35 be a substitute for a cancelled or extremely delayed F/A-XX programme? Apparently the USN isn't going to be a massive F35 operator, but maybe a different version might be attractive in lieu of the F/A-XX?

 

[Sferrin]

Merging a couple of things I've seen lately.

The Navy's 6th Gen fighter F/A-XX has been delayed a few times, unlike the USAF's F47 the F/A-XX isn't actually in he development phase. Apparently a reason is that industry isn't capable of developing two 6th Gen fighters simultaneously,

No, that's an a baseless assumption. God, I hate politicians. Even if it were true, the way to get the capability back isn't by not trying. @#$@#!! idiots.

 

[Rule of cool]

Whatever the reason, the reality is that F/A-XX development isn't funded but the B21 and F47 are.

Expanding the thought bubble the USN has cancelled the Constellation class due to cost blow-outs and the Light Amphibious Warship for the same reason in favour of the COTS LSM-100. In that light 80% of the capability for 50% of the cost doesn't seem too unreasonable l.

 

[Training_Dummy]

Couple of random points that I think about on this topic:

- I believe that at a certain high level Boeing probably has the better solution (after all, the USAF and USN went into the NGAD bar and the USAF ended up going home with Boeings ostensibly Navy offering).
So I think one specific concern is how much additional F-47 execution risk is incurred by awarding F/A-XX to the same prime, as well as the additional risk to F/A-XX itself.

- When I say at a high level, there are obviously extremely different operation realties for naval vs land based aviation that make this kind of a silly thing to say after some thought. The USN might prize LO surfaces that are robust & durable across all environments the Navy flies in and easily corrected, even if that meant greater observability.
If F/A-XX is strike oriented as has been stated in this forum, then the IWB and landing gear need to be able to accommodate loading very heavy or voluminous weapons & their dollies to wheel them into position, on a potentially heaving or slippery flight deck, at night. This might mean a layout very different to F-47, potentially. We have already seen the USN publicly eschew adaptive, three-stream engines, whereas the USAF believes them to be a core F-47 enabling technology, not only for propulsion related performance gains, but also cooling.
Then of course there are the planform trades needed for such and such AoA limits at such and such speed for a trap, with X bring-back, etc etc.

- although little is known about the NGAD X demonstrators or their proposals for the program that ultimately became F-47, even less appears to be known about NGs efforts.
That said, the same industrial base concern about the impact to F-47 if Boeing was awarded F/A-XX presumably might apply to NG and another strategically vital program, B-21, perhaps for less direct or different reasons, but the situations could have real parallels, *especially* bc of rumblings of a faster and bigger Raider buy, if NG can execute on it.

- in terms of other types of industrial base concerns I don’t really see many that other programs wouldn’t face. Maybe there is a bulk issue in terms of rare earth materials or a critical refinement bottleneck that means building hundreds of fighters over ten or so years just can’t be done. I don’t know. I don’t see F/A-XX and F-47 sharing the same primary MFA (“radar”) vendor, landing gear will obviously be distinct, they’ll have different types of engines and will probably have very different approaches to structure surfaces and coatings as it relates to signature management trades.
I mean, at least F/A-XX won’t need 140 economy class seats or new HBP turbofans like some A320neo operators do. That would really suck.


Then there are a bunch of other reasons. Here are some that I believe:

- this Administration deeply fears losing a carrier to anyone, especially the Chinese; some of this are general anxieties any Administration would feel but there are some other powerful factors in play specifically with this one. At the same time, it prizes a carrier’s ability to project force and deliver fires elsewhere; recent examples include the Persian Gulf, the Caribbean, and the Med & the Red Seas.
Make of that what you will as you contemplate the question of when the wings start falling off of Block III Super Hornets.
I have in the past made snide comments about the Navy getting more Super Hornets instead of F/A-XX, but I’m not even sure that’s possible anymore given Boeing is running down its Super Hornet line to less than one per month ahead of a 2027 line closure.

- This Administration appears to truly detest the DONs procurement performance (just to focus on one point of contention) and there is no trust or goodwill for big programs like XX.

Anyway….if you ultimately found yourself wondering if the powers that be have concluded the USN cannot operate a peer relevant (reasonably delivers the intended effects and survivable) strike fighter, simply because of the clash of US naval aviation historical/idiosyncratic traditions or practices, mentality & values with more modern aerospace technologies and approaches the USAF appear to be embracing with respect to aircraft design, then I would say maybe thats not a crazy thought. I mean, would you greenlight F/A-XX knowing what we know (25% more range than SH or -35C we not sure which but both are meh?, much lower observability but good enough for a peer fight? anything bigger than 2k lb JDAM or SiAW/88H still has to go on external hard points? Or would you say screw it, the USN is better off taking this money and developing XA100/101 plus even beefier EPACS for -35C (if there were a way to force JPO to do this).

 

[baseball801802]

Whatever the reason, the reality is that F/A-XX development isn't funded but the B21 and F47 are.

Expanding the thought bubble the USN has cancelled the Constellation class due to cost blow-outs and the Light Amphibious Warship for the same reason in favour of the COTS LSM-100. In that light 80% of the capability for 50% of the cost doesn't seem too unreasonable l.

Knowing LM its going to be 80% of the capability for 100% of the cost

 

[Training_Dummy]

Knowing LM its going to be 80% of the capability for 100% of the cost

That’s before the target performance metrics erosion and cost overruns. Timeline slips and then gaps happen next.

(Attenborough voice ON) In fact, we can observe this miracle of nature for it is happening right before our eyes with this exquisite example of a US MIC ecosystem apex predator, the Lockheed Martin Corporation, as its CEO emits a series of noises on quarterly calls while it slowly uses its enormous mass and highly specialized lobbying appendages to slowly crawl upon, subdue and extracts yet another nutritious special access blood meal from its primary food source, the US Government. But all is not well….

 

[Rule of cool]

- I believe that at a certain high level Boeing probably has the better solution (after all, the USAF and USN went into the NGAD bar and the USAF ended up going home with Boeings ostensibly Navy offering).
So I think one specific concern is how much additional F-47 execution risk is incurred by awarding F/A-XX to the same prime, as well as the additional risk to F/A-XX itself.

That sounds right.

Anyway….if you ultimately found yourself wondering if the powers that be have concluded the USN cannot operate a peer relevant (reasonably delivers the intended effects and survivable) strike fighter, simply because of the clash of US naval aviation historical/idiosyncratic traditions or practices, mentality & values with more modern aerospace technologies and approaches the USAF appear to be embracing with respect to aircraft design, then I would say maybe thats not a crazy thought. I mean, would you greenlight F/A-XX knowing what we know (25% more range than SH or -35C we not sure which but both are meh?, much lower observability but good enough for a peer fight? anything bigger than 2k lb JDAM or SiAW/88H still has to go on external hard points? Or would you say screw it, the USN is better off taking this money and developing XA100/101 plus even beefier EPACS for -35C (if there were a way to force JPO to do this).

This was the vibe I got.

It's not unprecedented, in fact it was likely standard until the F4 and continued with the F14 and F/A18. So perhaps we're heading back to an era where carrier aircraft are inferior to land based aircraft so an enhanced F35 might be the best bet instead of an F/A-XX that is still not quite as good as land based peers.

 

[Sferrin]

That sounds right.



This was the vibe I got.

It's not unprecedented, in fact it was likely standard until the F4 and continued with the F14 and F/A18. So perhaps we're heading back to an era where carrier aircraft are inferior to land based aircraft so an enhanced F35 might be the best bet instead of an F/A-XX that is still not quite as good as land based peers.

Except an "enhanced F-35" would be going up against the J-20, J-36, and J-50. A recipe for failure. Unless your F-35D is getting a ten-foot stretch and a 60k 3-stream engine, it's going to get bent over the nearest table.

 

[bring_it_on]

Merging a couple of things I've seen lately.

The Navy's 6th Gen fighter F/A-XX has been delayed a few times, unlike the USAF's F47 the F/A-XX isn't actually in he development phase. Apparently a reason is that industry isn't capable of developing two 6th Gen fighters simultaneously, and presumably other reasons. I've even seen that the USN thinks stealth is overrated and aren't fully on board with adaptive cycle engines.

Another thing I've seen is talk of an F35D 'Ferrari' version of the much beloved and totally controversy free F35, apparently this could deliver 80% of the 6th gen capability for 50% of the cost. This might include some different shaping around the inlet and exhaust and new coatings to improve stealth, stealthy drop tanks, a new IRST and other things. There is even suggestions that if the G limit was reduced other reshaping could occur, and of course new engines are already available. LM is looking into this stuff for the export market.

Putting 1 and 1 together might a much upgraded F35 be a substitute for a cancelled or extremely delayed F/A-XX programme? Apparently the USN isn't going to be a massive F35 operator, but maybe a different version might be attractive in lieu of the F/A-XX?

First, the department of the Navy is and will be a substantial operator of the F-35.

Unless the 'Ferrari' F-35 magically converts it into a twin jet, super-cruising long range multi role fighter with substantial increases in range, payload, OMS architecture, the F/A-XX isn't going anywhere. The F-35+++ LM seems to be cooking looks like more of a play to keep the CTOL variant dominant into the 2030s once demands from USAF evolve, and foreign competitors begin offering their next generation aircraft. I don't think this has a serious shot at breaking into the Navy's F/A-XX plans. Navy's future lies in F/A-XX operating alongside CCAs and other unmanned aircraft. The service has clearly stated that. F-35C acts as that bridge into the future CVN air wing but the Navy's plans see it fielding a subnstantial number of FAXXs and unmanned aircraft once it has integrated the capability into the wing.

 

[Training_Dummy]

Except an "enhanced F-35" would be going up against the J-20, J-36, and J-50. A recipe for failure. Unless your F-35D is getting a ten-foot stretch and a 60k 3-stream engine, it's going to get bent over the nearest table.

Putting aside the view that US naval aviation would not be relevant in a China fight except if you wanted a missile magnet for a magazine depth contest, I was contemplating a realistic SH replacement - F-35C plus A100/101 plus a beefy EPACS to go along with it, and some low drag stealthy fuel tanks. High volume hot line (aside from critical new subsystems), minimal OML aside from new radome for bigger radar (probably already a reality)

You need to be replacing 2-3 super bug squadrons per year by the early years of next decade, even if you’re just plunking boats in the Caribbean.

 

[bring_it_on]

I was contemplating a realistic SH replacement - F-35C plus A100/101 plus a beefy EPACS to go along with it, and some low drag stealthy fuel tanks. High volume hot line (aside from critical new subsystems), minimal OML aside from new radome for bigger radar (probably already a reality)

The Navy has spent a long time thinking about its future air wing capabilities and what the SH and Growler replacement looks like. It rolled that into validated F/A-XX requirements that survived internal service and external DOD scruitiny on its way through source selection. There is no F-35C + A 100/101 you are dreaming up. Navy isn't even looking at adaptive engines on F/A-XX so a watered down, highly compromised solution in an enhanced F-35C isn't going to have that either. You aren't going to go from cancelling the F/A-XX to spending double digit billions into an adative engine program for F-35 even if the Navy wanted an adaptive engine on the F-35 in the first place.

 

[dark sidius]

Putting aside the view that US naval aviation would not be relevant in a China fight except if you wanted a missile magnet for a magazine depth contest, I was contemplating a realistic SH replacement - F-35C plus A100/101 plus a beefy EPACS to go along with it, and some low drag stealthy fuel tanks. High volume hot line (aside from critical new subsystems), minimal OML aside from new radome for bigger radar (probably already a reality)

You need to be replacing 2-3 super bug squadrons per year by the early years of next decade, even if you’re just plunking boats in the Caribbean.

I Think you are right , saddly I think that a super carrier will have not a beautiful futur in the inventory , Thinking more with strategic bomber , high speed long range attacker , submarine with hypersonic missile, the carrier is more vulnerable now than a decade in the past.

 

[Training_Dummy]

The Navy has spent a long time thinking about its future air wing capabilities and what the SH and Growler replacement looks like. It rolled that into validated F/A-XX requirements that survived internal service and external DOD scruitiny on its way through source selection. There is no F-35C + A 100/101 you are dreaming up. Navy isn't even looking at adaptive engines on F/A-XX so a watered down, highly compromised solution in an enhanced F-35C isn't going to have that either. You aren't going to go from cancelling the F/A-XX to spending double digit billions into an adative engine program for F-35 even if the Navy wanted an adaptive engine on the F-35 in the first place

Ah great points! We should make the careful rationale behind these highly refined requirements and the exhaustive studies supporting them available to the individuals making decisions around funding programs like XX and ending programs like FFG(X).

Right?

As for an adaptive engine, new power and cooling & drop tanks on F-35C… well since this was all under the scenario of F/A-XX getting canceled and some evolution of F-35 as a substitute, i guess the blaring obvious retort would be with XX canceled, they’ll take it and they’ll like it if they want to fly planes off carriers. Jeez it’s almost like the Navy has been down this road a few times before…

 

[Reddington777]

I don’t see F/A-XX and F-47 sharing the same primary MFA (“radar”) vendor

Im far from qualified to know anything about this, but I am curious - what hardware differences would an air to ground strike fighter have that would require a different vendor from an air to air radar on the same generation of aircraft?

Wouldnt it makes sense to have the same T/R modules but different aperture sizes and different software?

 

[Training_Dummy]

I apologize. My comment about primary arrays wasn’t meant to be reflective of strike vs air dominance so much as integration of an array of MFAs and how they can be tailored into a given airframe might mean different approaches and therefore different vendors - but I don’t mean to suggest that the USN would go GaS over GaN or anything like that.

 

[Rule of cool]

i guess the blaring obvious retort would be with XX canceled, they’ll take it and they’ll like it if they want to fly planes off carriers.

This is basically what I think.

If for whatever reason the F/A-XX gets cancelled or seriously delayed then I think a heavily updated F35, adaptive engines or no, is likely the only short-medium term option. Either that or keeping the standard F35C, but the 'Ferrari' F35 would be better than that.

 

[bring_it_on]

Ah great points! We should make the careful rationale behind these highly refined requirements and the exhaustive studies supporting them available to the individuals making decisions around funding programs like XX and ending programs like FFG(X).

Right?

I don't quite understand what you are implying. There is no indication that the F/A-XX suffers from the same issues as the FFGX. Or that the Navy is wrong to demand that aircraft and its performance requirements. But by all means, share where you think F/A-XX is wrong and how it compares to FFG(X).

As for an adaptive engine, new power and cooling & drop tanks on F-35C… well since this was all under the scenario of F/A-XX getting canceled and some evolution of F-35 as a substitute, i guess the blaring obvious retort would be with XX canceled, they’ll take it and they’ll like it if they want to fly planes off carriers. Jeez it’s almost like the Navy has been down this road a few times before…

The opposition to F/A-XX could be partially driven by lack of support for the CVN or faith in its survivability. If so, OSD is not going to cancel F/A-XX or let it die itself, and then turn around and pump double digit billions into developing a highly modified F-35C. At best they would support increasing the F-35C buy and/or accelerating the Navy's vision of a 60% uncrewed air wing. If I were to bet I'd bet on OSD directing the Navy to accelerate investments into CCA and other unmanned capability if F/A-XX dies..with block 4/5 F-35C buys plugging the gap and replacing older SHs.

 

[Rule of cool]

First, the department of the Navy is and will be a substantial operator of the F-35.

By Department of the Navy you mean the Marines and the Navy, with the Marines planning on getting 420 (including 67 F35C) and the Navy 273 F35Cs. 273 F35Cs is a much larger fleet than Japan's big fleet of 147 F35s, but considerably smaller than the about 550 Super Hornets the USN has.

 

[bring_it_on]

By Department of the Navy you mean the Marines and the Navy, with the Marines planning on getting 420 (including 67 F35C) and the Navy 273 F35Cs. 273 F35Cs is a much larger fleet than Japan's big fleet of 147 F35s, but considerably smaller than the about 550 Super Hornets the USN has.

The Marines are buying 400+ F-35's in total. Those are part of the Department of the Navy buys. USMC now plans on buying 140 F-35C's. All in, a little over 400 F-35C's will be purchased by the DoN including those operated by the USMC.

 

[Rule of cool]

The Marines are buying 400+ F-35's in total. Those are part of the Department of the Navy buys. USMC now plans on buying 140 F-35C's. All in, a little over 400 F-35C's will be purchased by the DoN including those operated by the USMC.

Again, that's the Department of the Navy, the US Navy itself appears to be undertaking sleight of hand to keep its F35C numbers low by leaning on the Marines.

I'm aware that USMC sqns have been integrated into USN CVWs for decades; USMC A6 sqns appear to have gone to sea on carriers quite a lot in the Cold War and the Coral Sea's all Hornet CVW in mid 80s was with a pair of USMC 'fighter' Hornet sqns and pair of USN 'attack' Hornet sqns. The current USMC F35C buy is simply an extension of that, although IIUC in the post-Cold War era this arrangement has been formalised and expanded. However, getting the USMC to buy a lot of F35C to operate on USN carriers appears to be a way to get better number of F35s to sea while keeping the USN requirement for the F/A-XX open to replace the big Super Hornet fleet.

 

[bring_it_on]

The current USMC F35C buy is simply an extension of that, although IIUC in the post-Cold War era this arrangement has been formalised and expanded. However, getting the USMC to buy a lot of F35C to operate on USN carriers appears to be a way to get better number of F35s to sea while keeping the USN requirement for the F/A-XX open to replace the big Super Hornet fleet.

The F-35C is not a F/A-18 E/F replacement. Was never intended to be. The USMC and USN F-35C are the same variant and will operate from the Navy's CVNs. The F-35C production program was never supposed to exceed the F/A-18 E/F production program. Regardless, 400+ F-35C's is a lot of naval fighters, and with nearly 700 aircraft, the DoN is buying a lot of F-35s. Which was my point.

First, the department of the Navy is and will be a substantial operator of the F-35.

The Navy's effort has always been to have F/A-XX replace its Super Hornet and Growler platforms. That has been the goal for more than a decade with dedicated funding to support developing those capabilities for its next generation platform. Part of that effort has been around unmanned capability with the Navy's stated future air wing composed of up to 60% unmanned aircraft with F/A-XX serving as the quarterback. While we don't know what F/A-XX ultimately is (if it ever gets sanctioned), I seriously doubt the Navy would be able produce and buy it in greater quantities than the DONs F-35C buy.

 

[Rule of cool]

Firstly, I like the term 'Quaterbacking', Australian sport doesn't really generate a useful term for these cooperate combat drones like US football does.

Secondly, IIUC the USN's cooperative combat drone programme isn't going along awesomely.

Thirdly, 273 F35Cs is small bikkies compared to ~550 Super Hornets and ~150 Growlers. Adding 140 Marine F35Cs balances the fleets out a fair bit, but I imagine that going forward a good number of those F35Cs will be needed for Marine distributed operations on land and not available for carriers.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I mean, would you greenlight F/A-XX knowing what we know (25% more range than SH or -35C we not sure which but both are meh?, much lower observability but good enough for a peer fight? anything bigger than 2k lb JDAM or SiAW/88H still has to go on external hard points? Or would you say screw it, the USN is better off taking this money and developing XA100/101 plus even beefier EPACS for -35C (if there were a way to force JPO to do this).

25% more than Super Bug does more or less equal F-35C.
25% more than F-35C gets you 790-800nmi, and that's "A-6 with 4x 2000lb" range.

There's very little bigger than an AARGM-ER (things are the same size as an AGM-158!). The AIM-174 is longer, but fits into a 21" square box while AGM-158 is ~18x22".

So I suspect that the FAXX will be designed around "the longest weapon that fits on weapon elevators".

I Think you are right , saddly I think that a super carrier will have not a beautiful futur in the inventory , Thinking more with strategic bomber , high speed long range attacker , submarine with hypersonic missile, the carrier is more vulnerable now than a decade in the past.

Yet is still far less vulnerable than it was in the 1980s, when oceans full of Charlies and Oscars prowled with nuclear tipped AShMs.

 

[Rule of cool]

Perhaps if the French-German-Spanish FCAS breaks up the French can partner with the USN on the F/A-XX.

 

[Hood]

It's not a completely stupid idea - it's the only other likely new Western CTOL naval combat aircraft likely to be produced for the next 40 years.

 

[Rule of cool]

It's not a completely stupid idea - it's the only other likely new Western CTOL naval combat aircraft likely to be produced for the next 40 years.

I didn't think so, for exactly that reason. What's more any industrial concerns would be ameliorated by bringing in Dassault, costs would be shared by France and having an international partner makes cancellation a bit more difficult.

Or France could buy the F35D for the Navy and get into the GCAS for the Air Force.

 

[EmoBirb]

I didn't think so, for exactly that reason. What's more any industrial concerns would be ameliorated by bringing in Dassault, costs would be shared by France and having an international partner makes cancellation a bit more difficult.

Or France could buy the F35D for the Navy and get into the GCAS for the Air Force.

While France partnering on F/A-XX has at least some logic to it, especially when one looks at the Ford Class and the upcoming French CVN with the shared EMALS, F-35 is off the table. The French government and defence industry would rather commit collective suicide than also falling for the F-35. It's equal to the death of the French military aviation sector.

Either FCAS succeeds, they end up doing their own thing and pull some foreign investors on land (looking towards the middle east and India here) or they could partner up with the USN. But while it makes sense at first glance as already established, ultimately it's unlikely for many reasons and one of the big ones is that the USN presumably wants a large, long range striker. The French want something lighter, a point of contention with Germany already. And if whatever the German preference is, is already considered too large and heavy for the French, I doubt they'd sign up for a "Pazifik Bomber". The US and France envision very different use cases for their carriers, their deployment and their airwings. And these visions are not really easy to merge, if not outright impossible.

 

[TomcatViP]

Germany is also already committed with Northrop via Rheinmetall and the F-35. It would sound curious to re-enact the FCAS (potential) debacle within the F/A-XX program by bringing the French and Dassault.

Notice also that the recent German DoD budget allocation includes a curious $21b provision for various garments for the forces...

 

[Scott Kenny]

Either FCAS succeeds, they end up doing their own thing and pull some foreign investors on land (looking towards the middle east and India here) or they could partner up with the USN. But while it makes sense at first glance as already established, ultimately it's unlikely for many reasons and one of the big ones is that the USN presumably wants a large, long range striker. The French want something lighter, a point of contention with Germany already. And if whatever the German preference is, is already considered too large and heavy for the French, I doubt they'd sign up for a "Pazifik Bomber". The US and France envision very different use cases for their carriers, their deployment and their airwings. And these visions are not really easy to merge, if not outright impossible.

Disagree.

Both France and the USN want a striker. Ground attack first, air-to-air second. And frankly, ~74,000lbs/~33.75tonnes MTOW is pretty close to my expected size for FAXX (I'm expecting ~80klbs carrier MTOW, ~96ish klbs full external load from land and cannot land on a carrier with that bombload)

Germany wants a Typhoon replacement, which means GCAP or F-47. Air-to-air first, ground attack second.

 

[Rule of cool]

Is GCAP primarily air to air?

The French position is unfortunate, their smallest fleet of a few dozen carrier fighters drives the requirements for a much larger, international programme that doesn't need the carrier-specific gear.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Is GCAP primarily air to air?

That is my understanding, yes. As I understand it, GCAP is intended to have about as much air-to-ground as Typhoon has.

The French position is unfortunate, their smallest fleet of a few dozen carrier fighters drives the requirements for a much larger, international programme that doesn't need the carrier-specific gear.

They needed a striker regardless of carrier capabilities, nuclear capable at that. And they're still talking about a plane on the order of the size of a Tomcat (~34tonnes MTOW), for the carrier-sized version. I suspect that a land-based version would be larger.