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

SlothmanAllen said:
Not only that, but the adversary that they are up against has far greater industrial capacity and just as much money and talent (likely more) to throw at these problems. I really have to wonder if eventually the US just realizes attempting to compete with China militarily is just not financially or industrial feasible.
Click to expand...
Yes so we should quit right? Hand over everything to the Chinese on a silver platter right? I can't even put into words how shortsighted and nonsensical that conclusion would be. If the Chinese thought that way in the 80s they'd still be nowhere right now.

As Chinese people say - 30 years with the east, 30 years with the west. Tides are constantly shifting and relative position of power always ebbs and flows. If the Chinese are ahead, that's okay - put in the work and you will catch up. The only real loser is the one that resigns itself to obsolescence and tries to assign blame rather than actually doing anything about it. The world considered China a military nonentity for the past century. The world thought Russia done for and world peace achieved after the fall of the Soviet union, and yet here we are.

Maybe we really should try reading some Chinese philosophy (or, I don't know, bringing back some good old classical western education and civics would work equally as well). It might really help us build a more resilient society that isn't just going to quit at the first sign of difficulty.
 
Last edited:
Reddington777 said:
What kind of detection range would, in your opinion, be enough? If the F-35 doesn't have enough range, we might as well stay out of the west pacific because F18's certainly don't have F-35 sensor range and there's nothing left that can defend a CSG until the F/A-XX is ready.
Click to expand...
AWG-9/APG-71 at the minimum, so ~400km search range minimum. If the antenna design can handle it, the full 750km range possible by the APG-71 backend.



quellish said:
They are both strike fighters, not interceptors or fleet defense.
Click to expand...
Yet the USN has used Super Bugs for the Fleet Air Defense role once the Tomcats were retired, and intends to use F/A-XX for that role as well. They also intended to use the A/F-X for Fleet Air Defense when that program was running.
 
Deezy said:
F/A-XX exists to ensure air dominance. You’re a broken record, and just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. The Navy has made it clear, many, many times, that the FA-XX is a strike fighter.

Naval Aviation Vision 2030-2035

The F/A-XX is the strike fighter component within the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Family of Systems (FoS). It is planned to replace the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in the 2030s. Its specific capabilities and technologies are under development, however analysis shows it must have longer range and greater speed, incorporate passive and active sensor technology, and possess the capability to employ the longer-range weapons programmed for the future. As the Super Hornets are retired from service, a combination of F-35C and F/A-XX will provide Navy tactical fighter aircraft capability and capacity within the CVW. The advanced carrier- based power projection capabilities resident in F/A- XX will maintain CVN relevance in advanced threat environments.
Click to expand...

STATEMENT OF NICKOLAS H. GUERTIN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITION) AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL BRADFORD GERING DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR AVIATION AND REAR ADMIRAL MICHAEL DONNELLY DIRECTOR AIR WARFARE BEFORE THE TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FISCAL YEAR 2025 BUDGET REQUEST FOR TACTICAL AVIATION APRIL 16, 2024

Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD)
The NGAD FoS is comprised of crewed and uncrewed tactical platforms, advanced weapons, sensors and networks to attain and maintain air superiority. F/A-XX is the strike fighter component of the NGAD FoS and is the designated replacement for the F/A-18E/F. Design maturation efforts remain on track and the program is now considered to be in a source selection environment. The Navy released a request for proposal (RFP) for a follow-on development contract in December 2023 to Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin. F/A-XX is designed from the outset to incorporate crewed and uncrewed teaming. Included in the uncrewed tactical platforms for the NGAD FoS are the family of CCA’s. Navy and Marine CCA’s will augment current and next generation crewed platforms with multiple lower cost, complementary capabilities to increase combat effectiveness in highly contested environments.
Click to expand...

STATEMENT OF RADM ANDREW J. LOISELLE,USN, DIRECTOR, AIR WARFARE, U.S. NAVY, HEARING ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES HEARING ON FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET REQUEST OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR FIXED–WING TACTICAL AND TRAINING AIRCRAFT PROGRAMS HEARING HELD MARCH 29, 2023

The F/A–XX is the manned quarterback strike fighter component of this family of systems, orchestrating manned-unmanned teaming at the leading edge of the battlespace. Included in the unmanned tactical platforms for the NGAD family of systems are ‘‘loyal wing- man’’ unmanned aircraft referred to as Collaborative Combat Air- craft. These CCA’s will augment current and next-generation crewed platforms with lower cost complementary capabilities to in- crease combat effectiveness in highly contested environments.
Click to expand...


...etc.

So yeah, F/A-XX does not "exist to ensure air dominance". It is a strike fighter designed to replace the Super Hornet.
 
Desertfox said:
Plenty of people wanted to work for DoD, until January of this year. Morale at DoD has been absolutely shattered and they are forbidden from hiring until they drop another 5% of the workforce...
Click to expand...

US Army Recruitment Surges to 15-Year High: Hegseth | The Defense Post

US Army recruitment has surged to a level not seen or reported in the past…
thedefensepost.com thedefensepost.com
Yes I know this is different than “the DOD” but makes one wonder why “headquarter personnel” are unhappy? Have things been going really well? All weapon systems on time and on budget? Recruitment strong? Budgets growing faster than inflation?
 
SlothmanAllen said:
Not only that, but the adversary that they are up against has far greater industrial capacity and just as much money and talent (likely more) to throw at these problems. I really have to wonder if eventually the US just realizes attempting to compete with China militarily is just not financially or industrial feasible.
Click to expand...

The US is basically falling back to a denial position in the WestPac since sea control is impossible. But I think the USN is still more than competitive when it is not operating in China’s back yard, and I think the collective US and its allies (needed at least for basing if nothing else) can run a sea denial campaign that would make most any PRC effort extremely expensive.

On the one hand the viability of CSGs in theater seems like a huge expense with little offensive power, but on the other hand there is the rest of the world and other countries to deal with. Also worth noting that the PLAN is still building carriers for presumably the same reasons - against the U.S., they would have an equally short life span.
 
Josh_TN said:
The US is basically falling back to a denial position in the WestPac since sea control is impossible. But I think the USN is still more than competitive when it is not operating in China’s back yard, and I think the collective US and its allies (needed at least for basing if nothing else) can run a sea denial campaign that would make most any PRC effort extremely expensive.
Click to expand...
There's enough subs in the Pacific Fleet alone to utterly destroy the PLAN.

IIRC, some 40 attack boats in the Pacific Fleet, 20 in the Atlantic.



Josh_TN said:
On the one hand the viability of CSGs in theater seems like a huge expense with little offensive power, but on the other hand there is the rest of the world and other countries to deal with. Also worth noting that the PLAN is still building carriers for presumably the same reasons - against the U.S., they would have an equally short life span.
Click to expand...
100,000 tons of diplomacy is useful.
 
Scott Kenny said:
There's enough subs in the Pacific Fleet alone to utterly destroy the PLAN.

IIRC, some 40 attack boats in the Pacific Fleet, 20 in the Atlantic.
Click to expand...
PLAN has been building 4 boats per year for the past 3 years now and that's only at partial capacity, once the first two 095 are tested and found to be sound design they could foreseeably ramp up to full capacity at that yard. USN's numerical superiority is declining fast

PS: SCS is probably swarmed with sensors as well
 
Tomboy said:
PLAN has been building 4 boats per year for the past 3 years now and that's only at partial capacity, once the first two 095 are tested and found to be sound design they could foreseeably ramp up to full capacity at that yard. USN's numerical superiority is declining fast

PS: SCS is probably swarmed with sensors as well
Click to expand...
And that will absolutely ruin the USN's day.

But American submariners usually consider merchant ships their primary targets, and warships as targets of opportunity. How well will China handle having every single merchant ship flying their flag at sea sunk in the first 24-48 hours of hostilities?
 
Scott Kenny said:
But American submariners usually consider merchant ships their primary targets,
Click to expand...

The PRC's merchant-fleet is massive (~2,200 ships) but it is also its' Archilles Heel as it has to import ~80% of its fossil-fuels and ~80% of its food needs, successfully interdict that fleet and the PRC would be on its collective knees in just a few months.
 
NMaude said:
The PRC's merchant-fleet is massive (~2,200 ships) but it is also its' Archilles Heel as it has to import ~80% of its fossil-fuels and ~80% of its food needs, successfully interdict that fleet and the PRC would be on its collective knees in just a few months.
Click to expand...
Thing is China has the second largest strategic oil reserve(~680M barrels) and one of the largest food reserves also China is physically tethered to Russia which is one of the largest oil producing country.
 
Tomboy said:
Thing is China has the second largest strategic oil reserve(~680M barrels) and one of the largest food reserves also China is physically tethered to Russia which is one of the largest oil producing country.
Click to expand...

Good points however China is still heavily dependent on its' merchant-fleet for its export trade, in times of war that strategic oil reservoir would be a primary target and the Russian oil and gas pipelines would be targeted too.
 
Why is nobody talking about the J-35? I think it will be USN's main problem in the near future : it's as if J-35 is really just some knockoff that'll crumble instantly and donnot worth any words. To me, J-35 is precisely what's driving push for FA-XX, and for now the actual number of deployed J-35 remains limited - I believe this explains Pentagon's choice for this FA-XX delay. :oops:
 
SspewixzzZ said:
Why is nobody talking about the J-35? I think it will be USN's main problem in the near future : it's as if J-35 is really just some knockoff that'll crumble instantly and donnot worth any words. To me, J-35 is precisely what's driving push for FA-XX, and for now the actual number of deployed J-35 remains limited - I believe this explains Pentagon's choice for this FA-XX delay. :oops:
Click to expand...

Because this is the F/A-XX thread and those subjects and submarines are best discussed in other topics.

- “broken record”
 
Deezy said:
No, it will be air dominance, and F-35C will fill in as the primary strike fighter / Super Hornet role. The F-35C’s inability to provide air dominance in a near peer conflict is the reason we even need the new airplane, along with the legs it will provide.
Click to expand...

Now you're just trolling. Quellish presented excerpts from hearings and reports to authority figures. Where are your evidence to refute his?
 
Tomboy said:
Thing is China has the second largest strategic oil reserve(~680M barrels) and one of the largest food reserves also China is physically tethered to Russia which is one of the largest oil producing country.
Click to expand...
How many pipelines from Siberia into China?
 
There are a couple of pipelines but the majority of Russian oil is delivered to China via ship.

Back on topic: it is possible that the focus on the F-47 vice the FA-XX is based on a perception by the current administration that U.S. CSGs simply will not be sufficiently competitive against PRC resources for FA-XX to matter. But it might also be possible F-47 is being prioritized because it is the F-*47*…
 
16 pages, 600+ posts...and now "Russian pilelines to China"
Can you keep on topic or just not write anything if there's nothing to write about?
 
quellish said:
Because this is the F/A-XX thread and those subjects and submarines are best discussed in other topics.

- “broken record”
Click to expand...
Well I mean, since we're already talking about that F-35 can't take the role of FA-XX, so I think J-35 is relevant to the thread as a direct threat—whether it's truly 'nothing to worry about' or not. The fact that generational superiority is being challenged is a reason enough to speed up FA-XX development isn't it?
But yes, it's just IMO, if you don't think so, I'll stop then :)
 
It is getting extremely difficult to follow the 'on topic' posts here. Its one of those times when you really appreciate the ignore feature on the forum :)
 
Deezy said:
I promise I’m not trolling, and my statement is accurate. Quellish shoots down valid information with his “official quotes”, which I know are not representative of reality, and it’s frustrating. I’m not disclosing how I know this.
Click to expand...

What “valid information” would that be?

Yes, I am citing official unlicensed statements including those done under oath.
 
Well the two can be true. If F/A-XX is a SH replacement here are crude roles the airframe has in USN service:

- Strike
- Strike CAP & escort
- EM attack and defensive jamming
- Fleet defense in many senses of the phrase (from APKWS to 174B and everything in between)
- Tactical aerial refueling
- Blue Angel flight demo team and other public directed activities, including Tom Cruise movies.

Some of these roles like refueling are being taken on by MQ-25 (but this transition has not even yet begun operationally).

It seems logical to me that the strike escort/CAP and EW attack/suppression in a high-end, peer conflict, cries out for some degree of PCA capability, even if penetrating CCAs and more lethal ranged weapons ease the “stand-in” requirements (LO, kinematics?) for F/A-XX that the F-47 apparently does meet.
 
Deezy said:
No, it will be air dominance, and F-35C will fill in as the primary strike fighter / Super Hornet role. The F-35C’s inability to provide air dominance in a near peer conflict is the reason we even need the new airplane, along with the legs it will provide.
Click to expand...

Strange that the Navy's detailed plan for transitioning to the Air Wing of the Future, which was communicated to and approved by Congress and the Navy is executing on, states none of this and in fact states many things that are completely the opposite.
 
Deezy said:
I promise I’m not trolling, and my statement is accurate.
Click to expand...
You sounds like Patel on Epstein (sorry Paul, closest match I can find).
I'll abstain from participating in disinfo/adding up the confusion any further. However speak on these matters with proof and authority. Hiding behind NDAs, unless you have a history at hand, means nothing, validates nothing and only further the frustration.
 
quellish said:
Strange that the Navy's detailed plan for transitioning to the Air Wing of the Future, which was communicated to and approved by Congress and the Navy is executing on, states none of this and in fact states many things that are completely the opposite.
Click to expand...
The Navy need air dominance , they have nothing to opposite to J-36 or J-50 or J-20
 
@Deezy:

If sources cannot be cited, it is perhaps best to not post, at least in the case of information that contradicts established facts. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and @quellish is very well known for extensive research (and he is hardly the odd man out in his assessment of USN statements and documents on this matter).

At a minimum, your tone is a little disrespectful, even were you to be proven correct.
 
Last edited:
dark sidius said:
The Navy need air dominance , they have nothing to opposite to J-36 or J-50 or J-20
Click to expand...

The USN seems to think it needs a longer ranged strike aircraft instead of, which makes sense if bombers or fighter bombers are not the biggest threat. Ballistic missiles from air, land, and sea seem to be the pacing threat to CSGs, and air dominance aircraft likely cannot achieve effective interceptor density to be a major consideration in defense. If the bomber attacking you is 500-1000 miles/1000-1500 km away, air to air engagements are not really relevant.
 
Deezy said:
I promise I’m not trolling, and my statement is accurate. Quellish shoots down valid information with his “official quotes”, which I know are not representative of reality, and it’s frustrating. I’m not disclosing how I know this.
Click to expand...
Translation: "It came to me in a dream."
 
Deezy said:
I promise I’m not trolling, and my statement is accurate. Quellish shoots down valid information with his “official quotes”, which I know are not representative of reality, and it’s frustrating. I’m not disclosing how I know this.
Click to expand...
If you're under that strict an NDA, you probably shouldn't be on a forum blabbing.
 
Deezy said:
I’m not that deep. Just industry hearsay. But maybe you’re right.
Click to expand...
Look, I'm not saying that the FAXX is a strike-only aircraft. edit: It absolutely can do air superiority, and will have a bigass radar on it to support that.

But the mission is to replace the Super Hornet. So strike is the primary mission, air superiority is the secondary. So I expect that the Navy will accept lower maneuverability in favor of improved stealth.
 
Last edited:
flateric said:
16 pages, 600+ posts...and now "Russian pilelines to China"
Can you keep on topic or just not write anything if there's nothing to write about?
Click to expand...
Speaks to how oil and gas flow to China, which matters for war situations.

War with China is what FAXX is designed around.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Speaks to how oil and gas flow to China, which matters for war situations.

War with China is what FAXX is designed around.
Click to expand...

I know I am guilty as well, but we have to admit it is off topic. I think the farthest we should wander going forward is how the potential vulnerability of a CSG impacts the program, since whether it be increased strike range or increased defensive capability, FA-XX is very tied to carrier survival and vice versa.
 
quellish said:
Strange that the Navy's detailed plan for transitioning to the Air Wing of the Future, which was communicated to and approved by Congress and the Navy is executing on, states none of this and in fact states many things that are completely the opposite.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I missed it but what role will the F-35C have once FAXX is operational? It certainly won’t be air superiority.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom