New Air Force and Navy long range strike aircrafts in OBBBA?

Any information or guesses? CCAs? X-47 done again? Or the rumored lockheed program?
 
Breaking Defense reported twice now on the following little excerpt regarding the bill:

Last week, SASC released an updated version of the bill that eradicated funding for classified programs, adding $600 million for an Air Force long range strike aircraft and $500 million for a Navy long range strike aircraft — two efforts that were not included in prior variants of the bill and do not appear to be publicly-known programs.
Click to expand...

Is this a misunderstanding of some sort or is there something else in the works?
 
Reddington777 said:
Breaking Defense reported twice now on the following little excerpt regarding the bill:



Is this a misunderstanding of some sort or is there something else in the works?
Click to expand...
I made a separate thread about this to hopefully search for answers. Its strange to me that F/A-XX was specifically mentioned elsewhere . But here a navy strike aircraft is described. My guess is a Navy CCA component similar to the X-47. Although I have nothing to support that idea at all.
 
Reddington777 said:
Breaking Defense reported twice now on the following little excerpt regarding the bill:



Is this a misunderstanding of some sort or is there something else in the works?
Click to expand...
What is for 600 millions for an Air force Long range strike aircraft , did you have the source ? There is 1 Billion for the X-37 B too good news
 
Any possibility its the product of the airforce NGAD review where they considered going for a light fighter or a rethought 4.5 Gen fighter?

Also if these really were separate programs from NGAD and F/A-XX, it might explain why the DoD thinks industry cant execute on F/A-XX...
 
Reddington777 said:
Any possibility its the product of the airforce NGAD review where they considered going for a light fighter or a rethought 4.5 Gen fighter?

Also if these really were separate programs from NGAD and F/A-XX, it might explain why the DoD thinks industry cant execute on F/A-XX...
Click to expand...
It could explain it, this is something realy interesting to follow....
 
Reddington777 said:
Any possibility its the product of the airforce NGAD review where they considered going for a light fighter or a rethought 4.5 Gen fighter?

Also if these really were separate programs from NGAD and F/A-XX, it might explain why the DoD thinks industry cant execute on F/A-XX...
Click to expand...
In my opinion this wouldn’t make any sense. A “4.5 generation” strike fighter would simply be a block 3 hornet. You wouldn’t want something like that carrying out deep strikes in a modern environment.
 
And to further clarify, these are separate efforts from F/A-XX.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20250704_141244_Chrome.jpeg
    Screenshot_20250704_141244_Chrome.jpeg
    80.1 KB · Views: 82
  • Screenshot_20250704_141040_Chrome.jpeg
    Screenshot_20250704_141040_Chrome.jpeg
    65.4 KB · Views: 89
Shouldn't the F/A-XX be able to carry out these strikes already as part of being the replacement for the super hornet?
 
Reddington777 said:
Shouldn't the F/A-XX be able to carry out these strikes already as part of being the replacement for the super hornet?
Click to expand...
This is what I find most confusing. Assuming this means its a new airframe, that would give the navy two strike aircraft. The most logical explanation in my opinion is a high subsonic stealthy flying wing UCAV. X-47C style.

Now for the Air Force, maybe something different. Theres been rumors of a supersonic or hypersonic ISR / Strike aircraft. Not much evidence for that as far as I know. But one can hope….
 
Reddington777 said:
Any possibility its the product of the airforce NGAD review where they considered going for a light fighter or a rethought 4.5 Gen fighter?
Click to expand...
How does it fit into "Long Range Strike" definition?
There were whole world of medium sized supersonic strike studies like ESAV going last decade(s) in parallel with NGB and LRS-B...
 
flateric said:
How does it fit into "Long Range Strike" definition?
There were whole world of medium sized supersonic strike studies like ESAV going last decade(s) in parallel with NGB and LRS-B...
Click to expand...
I probably dont know what im talking about, but ive just been trying to think of recent instances where the airforce has talked about pursuing new strike capable platforms programs aside from NGAD or B21. I dont know if a long range strike platform would necessarily entail a new fighter either. Who knows - maybe its funding for hypersonic weapons too. That could entail long range strike
 
I don't see a long range strike UCAV.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
flateric said:
How does it fit into "Long Range Strike" definition?
There were whole world of medium sized supersonic strike studies like ESAV going last decade(s) in parallel with NGB and LRS-B...
Click to expand...
It could be a supersonic shadow Long range strike aircraft companion of the B-21 ? and a new capacity for the both service USAF and NAVY , may be the same aircraft... We know that Lockheed have something in the black in production may be a link with this program.
 
Imo "long range strike aircraft" could be indicative of something like an F/B-47 and F/B-XX.

And while the former makes sense, I don't really see how the latter would make much sense, as it's to be assumed that F/A-XX is already scratching the upper limits of size and weight for carrierborne aircraft.

Or it really is an "F-35XL" kind of deal, but I just can't see that happening so many years later.
 
Sferrin said:
Or maybe they blow the dust off the X-47B.
Click to expand...
In today's money then the 2 x X-47B and flight test programme would cost about $2bn. So it's serious money to do something like that. Whereas this funding level is a fraction of USAF CCA spend.
 
Uuuuiiiuu said:
This is what I find most confusing. Assuming this means its a new airframe, that would give the navy two strike aircraft.
Click to expand...
They've had two, if not three, strike aircraft in the air wings ever since WWII - TBD/SBD then TBF/SB2C, then AD/A-3, then A-3/A-4, then A-4/A-7/A-6, then F/A-18A/C/A-6, then F/A-18C/F/A-18E, then F/A-18E/F-35C.
 
Where in the cards was the need for such two platforms identified? Is this a redux of the bone and vigilante?
 
Im still predicting this is another component of the NGAD and Navy NGAD family of systems. Think something like an X-47 used to push ahead of manned fighters or bombers to pave the way. Or to hit more sensitive and better protected targets.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
Where in the cards was the need for such two platforms identified? Is this a redux of the bone and vigilante?
Click to expand...
Everyone wants more long range strike capability. More air launched munitions, more HIMARs, even MRBMs now. Having a fleet of UCAVs capable of penetrating airspace and hitting risky targets seems great. Especially if they can carry AARGMs.
 
flateric said:
Read it again. LONG. RANGE. STRIKE
Click to expand...
Read it again: X-47B. Were it to be developed it would be capable of LONG RANGE STRIKE. And it would already be carrier capable. It's the most obvious no-brainer.
 
Look, don't shoot me or shout me down, But...

Is there any chance at all that this could be money towards Trumps super f-35?

If it's going to be bigger, two engines etc i'm thinking it would have to called something else rather than F-35D/F and then thats why you have Air Force and Navy, upgraded versions of the A & C

Is it at all possible they have been told by President 47 to start work??

I'm probably totally wrong and you'll all think i'm the village idiot, but hey, even a broken clock wrong twice a day.
 
Sferrin said:
Read it again: X-47B. Were it to be developed it would be capable of LONG RANGE STRIKE. And it would already be carrier capable. It's the most obvious no-brainer.
Click to expand...
No mention of UCAV , think more of a new long range strike aircraft.
 
Sferrin said:
Read it again: X-47B. Were it to be developed it would be capable of LONG RANGE STRIKE. And it would already be carrier capable. It's the most obvious no-brainer.
Click to expand...

It would definitely have merits. Making a non-naval aircraft carrier capable is expensive and lots of work. The X-47B is already carrier capable, and with comparatively minor modifications could be modified in a way where the USAF would be satisfied too (perhaps longer, non-foldable wings, obviously less sturdy gear etc.)

These flying wing UCAVs like the Phantom Ray, X-47B, S-70 and GJ-11 lend themselves towards a strike role more than anything else really.
 
EmoBirb said:
It would definitely have merits. Making a non-naval aircraft carrier capable is expensive and lots of work. The X-47B is already carrier capable, and with comparatively minor modifications could be modified in a way where the USAF would be satisfied too (perhaps longer, non-foldable wings, obviously less sturdy gear etc.)

These flying wing UCAVs like the Phantom Ray, X-47B, S-70 and GJ-11 lend themselves towards a strike role more than anything else really.
Click to expand...
They'd find a way to gold plate it. "Well that was just a small experimental program. We need to throw everything out we learned, and everybody left anyway."




 
To start, the "Western Alliance" has a huge, gaping, F-111/A-6 sized hole in its Air Forces, something that can carry 2-4 JASSM class missiles >1000 mi unrefueled. Imagine how much more damage the IAF could have done if it could carry a meaningful bomb-load to Iran?

This aircraft need not be exceptionally stealthy, if it only needs to launch stand-off cruise missiles from outside the main defended area. In fact, the high potential for rapid development in low-cost cruise missiles (Anduril Barracuda, among others) means the cost over an entire campaign may be acceptably low.

The trade is now low-stealth (forward hemisphere?) airframe with lower-cost standoff (Anduril Barracuda and similar missiles, Castelion air-launched hypersonic strike) versus all-aspect penetrating stealth aircraft, which likely have to launch stand-off strike anyway, albeit from a much shorter distance.

I could see someone arguing "why not both?" so long as the hypothetical non-stealthy version is substantially cheaper.

If the budget line item reflects a real program, then maybe someone has realized that there is room for something like this. Also, being less stealth, it should be easier to develop and have more room for upgrades throughout its lifespan.

That's also why it won't be the X-47B, as that isn't sized for carrying cruise missiles. Now I think X-47B ought to be resurrected for long-range reconnaissance/strike, but not for this mission.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom