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

[TomcatViP]

Interesting that the publishing date is August 2023.

 

[timmymagic]

Your joke got me thinking though...

I don't know much about what marine aviation looks like and how they are going to fit the overall picture if they are looking to fight as the stand in force in the Pacific. Having F-35Bs popping up in southern Japan may or may not even be a sustainable option in an actual shooting war so...would they just be relegated to flying off of carriers? Would they fly F/A-XX in any capacity? or would they just be launching Valkyrie drones and sticking to their F-35Bs?

It would be interesting to speculate on a hypothetical marine NGAD too. I wonder if anyone has done studies on a twin engine VTOL jet aircraft.

BAE P.103

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/bae-p-103-armament.29292/

 

[Scott Kenny]

When compared to the F-35C this is 150-200% more internal weapon bay volume, 41.8% more internal fuel capacity yet the empty weight is only 15.7% heavier.

When compared to the F-22 this is 150-200% more internal weapon bay volume, 55.6% more internal fuel capacity yet the empty weight is 8.3% lighter despite needing a heavier landing gear and hook.

Your numbers are off by a very large margin.

Your numbers could only be achieved with a subsonic flying wing. Effectively like a slightly larger A-12 Avenger. Subsonic allows for a lower thrust to weight ratio and lighter engines. A much lower G limit allows for a lighter structure.

For a supersonic aircraft you would need to either need to halve your payload, halve your fuel or add 10,000-20,000lb to your empty and takeoff weights. My money is on halving the payload.

I don't think it's that much more bay volume. F-35 bays each hold an ~18" square box (2000lb JDAM) and a 14" square box (AMRAAM). F-22 main bay holds 6x 14" square boxes, and the side bays can hold a shorter 12-14" box due to old AIM-9 wingspan. My design assumes the main bays each hold a pair of 22" square boxes and the side bays hold at least one 14" box each (depends entirely on available volume in the side).

I've settled on 2 main bays in tandem, to keep the frontal area under control. Two main bays side-by-side (like in the F-35) ends up some 125-135" wide or so, while the F-22 is about 90" wide across the bottom of the inlets. Side-by-side bays absolutely would be a flying wing like the A-12 ATA. Tandem bays ends up closer to one of the FB-22 variants or the Su-57.

Yes, it needs heavier landing gear and hook than the F-22. The F-22 is significantly more metal than the F-35 is, so scraping ~4000lbs of weight out and increasing internal volume isn't impossible. The Mitsubishi F-2 showed a novel technique for gluing wet wings together. The X-32 was intended to use a more advanced version of this technique.

 

[dark sidius]

MSN

The Navy’s Secret Jet – Could the FA-XX Already Exist?

Appears to be the Boeing concept plane in the AI video.

Still the same old story , nothing new about the FA/XX.

 

[insidersource]

I don't think it's that much more bay volume.

It is easily 150+% more volume.

F-35 bays each hold an ~18" square box (2000lb JDAM) and a 14" square box (AMRAAM).

The door mounted AMRAAM on the F-35 allows the boxes to overlap giving a smaller weapon bay volume.

I assumed 12klbs of ordnance** (4x JASSM + 2-4x AMRAAM)

The JASSM takes up 20-25% more volume compared to a 2,000lb JDAM carried on the F-35. Double the bombs, double the missiles easily 150% more volume required.

As a side note, AGM-158s are about as wide as AARGM-ERs, both ~22" wide. So a weapons bay that could hold two of either with 5" of clearance is very nearly wide enough to hold 3x 2000lb JDAM.

Yes, three 2,000lb JDAM can nearly fit in the space of two JASSM. So your four JASSM capacity is close to six 2,000lb JDAM. This is 200% the volume of the F-35.

Your numbers are so far off.

Compared to the F-35C you want ~150% more internal weapon bay volume, 41.8% more internal fuel capacity and you think empty weight will only be 15.7% heavier.

 

[timmyjohn]

So is F/A-XX dead or alive? My guess is that OSD (with significant Air Force influence) is holding up the program because it sees too much overlap with F-47's roles and missions. OSD's view may be that the Navy ought to provide the medium-attack (i.e., regional bomber) offensive capability that carrier air wings have been missing since the A-6E was retired. It's probably not a coincidence that an unmanned solution (a larger X-47B) is an ideal fit to this mission area.

The term 'strike fighter' means different things to different people. I prefer the term 'dual role' fighter, which was the original characterization of the F-15E., but I digress.

It's likely that the dual-role F/A-XX requirements call for internal carriage of AARGM-ERs or 2000-lb JDAMs, which may not be too much of a design compromise over limiting the internal carriage to an air-to-air load of AMRAAMs or JATMs. And it's also likely that the wing will have hardpoints to enable an external 'bomb truck' mode.

What I've been suggesting is the F/A-XX requirements call for more of a purebred fighter than the Navy has publicly advertised. Why is this an issue? Because I think it's possible that the Navy has taken on a two-front battle, in Pentagon budget war parlance, which it may lose (if it hasn't already).

• OSD: military planners, system analysts, and unmanned aircraft advocates see a big missed opportunity for carrier air wing transformation.
• USAF: significant overlap with F-47 counter-air capabilities, thus introducing a programmatic threat (F/A-XX becomes the defacto fallback, leading to a F-4 Phantom repeat), keeping in mind that the F-47 is higher risk technologically than the F/A-XX.

A lot of dot connecting, admittedly.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Compared to the F-35C you want ~150% more internal weapon bay volume, 41.8% more internal fuel capacity and you think empty weight will only be 15.7% heavier.

A-5A Vigilante

Empty: 32,800lbs​

Gross: 47,700lbs​

MTOW: 63,000lbs​

Internal Fuel: ~15k, not counting linear bay (+ ~4000lbs) or external tanks (+ 2-4x 3000lbs).​

Bombload: ~3000lbs of nuke.​

​

The A-5 has a bomb bay 32'4" feet long and 30" or so wide and deep, and I want a bomb bay a bit over 65% bigger cross section than that and ~5% longer. (Technically two bays, each some 60" wide but only ~25" deep and 200" long. Exact bay width depends on clearance required between weapons and between weapons and bay walls, I assumed 5". Less clearance means narrower bay, but it still needs to be 25" deep to be able to hold AIM-174s (21" box).)

Yeah, I think I can fit that into an airframe that is ~7000lbs heavier along with ~13klbs of extra fuel volume. Even if the engines are +1000lbs each (J79 versus F119, though the YF120 engine was only 250lbs heavier!), that still leaves 5000lbs in an all-metal airframe. Instead of a heavily-composite one with all-composite wings.

​

Just like on the X-32, build the wing out of composites in a single piece out to the wing folds. Give it a nice fat supersonic supercritical section since we're only adding 8000lbs more fuel compared to the 36ft wide X-32 wing. For simplicity, we're going to scale the the X-32 wing up to 55ft wingspan, with folds at the 43ft point.​

​

Pure and simple scaling makes the change 53% larger in span and length. If I apply the same scaling all around, the wing as a whole will hold 3.57x more volume than the X-32. The X-32 wing could hold 20,000lbs of fuel, so if the same % of the wing was fuel tanks it'd hold some 71,000lbs of fuel. That's absurd, and the X-32 wing was really quite thick for a 38,000lb MTOW airframe.​

​

So let's say no increase in wing thickness, just the 53% longer and wider wing. 1.53 * 1.53 = 2.43. That would easily give the fuel volume needed, even with the outer 5ft on each side being dry.​

=======================
A note about the weapons bays:

The AARGM-ER is about the same width across the strakes as an AGM-158. Any bay able to hold one will hold the other. And an AIM174B with the tail fins folded is 21" wide/tall, so as long as the bay is deep enough you could stuff an SM6 in there, too.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What I've been suggesting is the F/A-XX requirements call for more of a purebred fighter than the Navy has publicly advertised. Why is this an issue? Because I think it's possible that the Navy has taken on a two-front battle, in Pentagon budget war parlance, which it may lose (if it hasn't already).

• OSD: military planners, system analysts, and unmanned aircraft advocates see a big missed opportunity for carrier air wing transformation.
• USAF: significant overlap with F-47 counter-air capabilities, thus introducing a programmatic threat (F/A-XX becomes the defacto fallback, leading to a F-4 Phantom repeat), keeping in mind that the F-47 is higher risk technologically than the F/A-XX.

A lot of dot connecting, admittedly.

On the USAF side, they want a lot more range than the USN. Remember, the USN is talking about only 25% more range, and IIRC it was Quellish saying that was +25% over Super Bug range, not +25% over F-35C. So maybe the same combat radius as the F-35, ~1125km ish (depending on which combat radius you choose to accept).

And the USAF was talking about 1800km as the minimum combat radius.

So the USAF has an out, that even if they gave the FAXX the 3-stream engines it still wouldn't have the range they require to operate from outside the second island chain.

 

[insidersource]

A-5A Vigilante

Empty: 32,800lbs​

Gross: 47,700lbs​

MTOW: 63,000lbs​

Internal Fuel: ~15k, not counting linear bay (+ ~4000lbs) or external tanks (+ 2-4x 3000lbs).​

Bombload: ~3000lbs of nuke.​

Compared to the A-5A your F/A-XX numbers are still way off. You want ~80% more internal weapon bay volume, 86% more internal fuel capacity yet only a 22% empty weight increase.

The A-5 frame isn't rated for BFM levels G forces and it doesn't have a 8,000+ hour service life. This extra strength increases empty weight.

The A-5 has engines that are nearly half the thrust. This means the intake ducts are narrower taking up less volume/weight. Even if the F/A-XX engines weighed the same as the J79 the intakes need double the flow.

Extrapolating from an aircraft that flew over 50 years ago makes no sense. The F-22 and F-35C are the perfect examples as they use modern materials. Your F/A-XX estimates are saying that the F-35C and F-22 are overweight by 20+%. But it is your estimates that are wrong by 20+%.

The X-32 comparison is also bad because it was a prototype and they are always lighter than the operational variant.

On the USAF side, they want a lot more range than the USN. Remember, the USN is talking about only 25% more range, and IIRC it was Quellish saying that was +25% over Super Bug range, not +25% over F-35C. So maybe the same combat radius as the F-35, ~1125km ish (depending on which combat radius you choose to accept).

Your 40klb empty weight and 28klb internal fuel estimates would give a combat radius far beyond the quoted 25% increase. Compared to the F-35C your numbers gives 41.8% more internal fuel capacity with only a 15.7% empty weight increase. This easily provides ~30% more range over the F-35C.

My more realistic F/A-XX estimates of 45klb empty weight and 25klb internal fuel match the US Navy range requirement and extrapolate nicely from the F-22/F-35C weights.

And the USAF was talking about 1800km as the minimum combat radius.

So the USAF has an out, that even if they gave the FAXX the 3-stream engines it still wouldn't have the range they require to operate from outside the second island chain.

I will estimate a USAF version using my F/A-XX weight estimates of 45klb empty and 25klb internal fuel. Remove 2,000lb of empty weight due to fitting a lighter landing gear, hook and a few key bulkheads that take landing loads can be lightened. This brings the empty weight to the exact same as the F-22.

The internal weapon capacity of my F/A-XX estimate gives 2x JASSM and 2x AMRAAM. I will then place an internal weapon bay fuel tank where the two JASSM missiles are located that has mounting points for 4x AMRAAM. The internal fuel tank takes up the extra depth and length of the bay and now provides 6 AMRAAM class missiles internally. This fuel tank holds ~3,000lb of extra fuel.

The USAF air-to-air version of F/A-XX then has an empty weight of 43,000lb and internal fuel of 28,000lb. Compared to the F-22 my estimates have 55% more internal fuel with identical empty weight and engine thrust. The new adaptive engines are much more efficient than the very low bypass F119 engines. The F-22 currently has a 750nm (1,389 km) combat radius with two 600 gallon tanks. My numbers easily exceed the 1,800km minimum combat radius that the USAF was talking about. It could nearly do that without the drop tanks.

The same design with 90+% commonality could easily satisfy the USAF long range air-to-air requirement while still fitting on the aircraft carrier with a pair of internal JASSM missiles.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Compared to the A-5A your F/A-XX numbers are still way off. You want ~80% more internal weapon bay volume, 86% more internal fuel capacity yet only a 22% empty weight increase.

Because the A-5 was an all-metal airframe and the FAXX would be heavily composite. That's usually good for a 20% weight decrease, if not more.

The A-5 frame isn't rated for BFM levels G forces and it doesn't have a 8,000+ hour service life. This extra strength increases empty weight.

Valid point about BFM, though I thought that the Vigilante pilots would occasionally dance with the Phantoms. And get utterly mugged by the Crusaders, but everyone got mugged by the Crusaders. Even Tomcats!

As to service life, the talks about recompeting everything every so often strongly suggest a shorter airframe life than 8000hrs. I'm kinda expecting total F-47 and FAXX fleet replacement after 10-15 years, call it maybe 5000 hours airframe life. So if you need new RAM/VLO treatments in 15-20 years you can get them, instead of flying a plane that your father or even grandfather flew. As has been recorded by at least one F-15 airframe.

The A-5 has engines that are nearly half the thrust. This means the intake ducts are narrower taking up less volume/weight. Even if the F/A-XX engines weighed the same as the J79 the intakes need double the flow.

Which means intakes that are 41% wider/taller. Which means intakes that are 41-45% heavier than those of the A-5. In metal.

Then we apply the composite construction weight bonus of 20% lighter and the inlets are now only 16% heavier than those of the A-5. If the composite construction weight bonus is 31% lighter, now those big inlets are the same weight as those of the A-5.

The X-32 comparison is also bad because it was a prototype and they are always lighter than the operational variant.

The X-32 was actually overweight. Boeing was not able to apply all of the bonded-composite lessons to the wing design in time (construction lessons learned) and as a result it was some 5000lbs overweight. Just in the wing.

Your 40klb empty weight and 28klb internal fuel estimates would give a combat radius far beyond the quoted 25% increase. Compared to the F-35C your numbers gives 41.8% more internal fuel capacity with only a 15.7% empty weight increase. This easily provides ~30% more range over the F-35C.

28klbs of fuel is only a little more than F-22 external-tank ferry load, admittedly without the drag of external tanks.

But yes, having a roughly 800nmi combat radius with 4x 2000lb was one of the goals of my thought-exercise. Because that's A-6 mission/range.

The internal weapon capacity of my F/A-XX estimate gives 2x JASSM and 2x AMRAAM. I will then place an internal weapon bay fuel tank where the two JASSM missiles are located that has mounting points for 4x AMRAAM. The internal fuel tank takes up the extra depth and length of the bay and now provides 6 AMRAAM class missiles internally. This fuel tank holds ~3,000lb of extra fuel.

The USAF air-to-air version of F/A-XX then has an empty weight of 43,000lb and internal fuel of 28,000lb. Compared to the F-22 my estimates have 55% more internal fuel with identical empty weight and engine thrust. The new adaptive engines are much more efficient than the very low bypass F119 engines. The F-22 currently has a 750nm (1,389 km) combat radius with two 600 gallon tanks. My numbers easily exceed the 1,800km minimum combat radius that the USAF was talking about. It could nearly do that without the drop tanks.

The same design with 90+% commonality could easily satisfy the USAF long range air-to-air requirement while still fitting on the aircraft carrier with a pair of internal JASSM missiles.

Assuming people are okay with F-35 bombload, just flying farther.

I've been assuming that the bay load comes from the A-12 ATA and A/F-X designs, which means something like 2x ARMs and 2x 2000lb or similar.

 

[quellish]

My more realistic F/A-XX estimates of 45klb empty weight and 25klb internal fuel match the US Navy range requirement and extrapolate nicely from the F-22/F-35C weights.

What Navy range requirement would that be?

 

[insidersource]

I've been assuming that the bay load comes from the A-12 ATA and A/F-X designs, which means something like 2x ARMs and 2x 2000lb or similar.

Your empty weight of 40,000lb, internal payload of 12,000lb and fuel capacity of 28,000lb all three are nearly identical to the A-3 Skywarrior.

One of the Super Hornets mission profiles does include four 2,000lb bombs but I can't see F/A-XX having four 2,000lb weapons internal. weapons are getting smaller and more accurate.

What Navy range requirement would that be?

25% higher than the existing aircraft is the quote. So that is a combat radius of 800nm to 850nm.

Contrary to popular belief the Super Hornet and F-35C have nearly identical range when doing an apple to apple comparison. A few of the Super Hornet profiles are either hi-lo-hi or have four 2,000lb bombs. This makes the F-35C with it's hi-hi-hi profile appear to have much longer legs.

A Super Hornet with two 2,000lb JDAM and two AMRAAM to match the F-35C load out still has room for three 480 gal drop tanks. The Super Hornet has an 8% lighter empty weight than the F-35C while the Super Hornet with 3 drop tanks has 24% more fuel than the F-35C.

The Super Hornet is well known to be very draggy when fully loaded. Providing the external fuel tanks are dropped a third of the way into the mission and the two bombs are dropped at the half way point then its average drag across the entire flight isn't too bad. It does start off with 24% more fuel to account for extra drag at the start of the flight.

The "25% greater range" I doubt would be based off the Super Hornets shortest mission profile. So the 800-850nm combat radius for F/A-XX would be close to the requirement.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Your empty weight of 40,000lb, internal payload of 12,000lb and fuel capacity of 28,000lb all three are nearly identical to the A-3 Skywarrior.

*blink*
*Wikidive*

I'll be damned, so it is. I didn't go looking far enough back in history for an equivalently-sized airframe!

A-3 Skywarrior

Empty Weight: 39,400lbs​

Gross Weight: 70,000lbs​

MTOW: 82,000lbs​

Payload: 12,800lbs​

Fuel capacity: ~30,600lbs​

You would rightly complain that an A-3 Skywarrior is not rated for Basic Fighter Maneuvers, so the airframe will have to be made significantly stronger. But we also have ~70 years worth of materials science to help reduce the airframe weight gain, even if it is uprated clear to +-7.5gee!

One of the Super Hornets mission profiles does include four 2,000lb bombs but I can't see F/A-XX having four 2,000lb weapons internal. weapons are getting smaller and more accurate.

Picture a target requiring a pair of BLU-109 bunker busters and a pair of AARGM-ERs on the way in. Or maybe even something requiring 4x BLU-109s.

Just like the B-2s showed with the 12x MOPs on Iran, some targets just require really big booms.

 

[insidersource]

Picture a target requiring a pair of BLU-109 bunker busters and a pair of AARGM-ERs on the way in. Or maybe even something requiring 4x BLU-109s.

Just like the B-2s showed with the 12x MOPs on Iran, some targets just require really big booms.

I think it would be easier to task two aircraft for the rare occasion they need four large weapons.

If we design around a fixed maximum carrier weight limit then that extra pair of bombs will result in a compromise in many areas.
1) Less range due to internal fuel volume being allocated to greater weapon bay volume.
2) Lower G limit due to a lighter structure.
3) Less speed due to increased drag from a fatter fuselage.
4) Lower thrust to weight ratio due to smaller engines/intakes to allow for greater weapon volume.

Now let's say your four big bombs results in a 10% reduction in all four categories. I think the US Navy would prefer two big bombs and a 10% increase in all four categories.

It might also come down to a four bomb design can't supercruise and two bomb design can supercruise. That is a big sacrifice. To make supercruise useable the aircraft has to be able to sit well above the high drag transonic region. The F-35A is a perfect example where it just fails to clear the transonic region with dry thrust. This results in it always cruising subsonic. That 10% extra drag and 10% reduction in thrust to weight will make or break the supercruising ability. The F-35C shows how the extra low speed lift for carrier compatible significantly increases transonic drag. It is harder for a Navy design to supercruise.

 

[BonPlan2]

Alex Hollings from Sandboxx has just put out a short video about this impending announcement:

It is funny to remember US explaining canards were not good for stealth.... suddenly it is no more a problem....

 

[FighterJock]

Perhaps the US took a close look at the PLAAF J-20 and thought that maybe canards are not a crazy idea after all?

 

[Reddington777]

It is funny to remember US explaining canards were not good for stealth.... suddenly it is no more a problem....

Canards or not, what you are seeing in that video is fan art made by Rodrigo Avella.

So not the navy or the contractor.

If we are going by F47 logic, then even official renderings arent to be believed either, so its anyone's guess whether its got canards, tails, both, or none.

 

[Ingraman]

The materials I have seen or obtained very, very clearly outline requirements for a strike aircraft. There is barely any mention of air to air.

Air to Air limited to Self defense and / or missileer capability?

 

[Reddington777]

Air to Air limited to Self defense and / or missileer capability?

It's hard to believe that they are making a plane that just can't do any Air to Air.

From my rationalizing, I feel that having a plane that can do air to air combat is "trivial" in the sense that almost any fighter these days can do air to air - not that it makes them an air superiority fighter.

Realistically what that means is probably exactly what the super hornet can do, which is to fly not terribly high or terribly fast but it can do air to air as well as have the capacity to carry a number of larger air to surface munitions internally.

 

[bobbymike]

It's hard to believe that they are making a plane that just can't do any Air to Air.

From my rationalizing, I feel that having a plane that can do air to air combat is "trivial" in the sense that almost any fighter these days can do air to air - not that it makes them an air superiority fighter.

Realistically what that means is probably exactly what the super hornet can do, which is to fly not terribly high or terribly fast but it can do air to air as well as have the capacity to carry a number of larger air to surface munitions internally.

Off topic but you mentioned the Super Hornet. There’s some very realistic dog fighting video game that I’ve watched on YouTube and it’s supposed to mimic the real abilities of the planes you can use.

Top players seem to love the Super Hornet for dog fighting. And from their discussion while playing they are not young kids and appear to be very knowledgeable.

They talk in detail about the strengths and weaknesses of modern fighters across their entire flight envelopes.

Anyway found it interesting they liked the Super Hornet so much.

 

[Sferrin]

It is funny to remember US explaining canards were not good for stealth.... suddenly it is no more a problem....

They aren't.

 

[Training_Dummy]

@bobbymike that’s because the SH is dangerous as hell in guns only fight, where IIRC the SH has some decided advantages against non TVC opponents such as high control authority at high AoA and low speeds.

 

[Training_Dummy]

Back on topic. Fully respect the strike centered role of the USN requirements, but F/A-XX can still meet those requirements you’ve seen *and* still have the latent potential to be a meaningfully lethal, legit 6th gen DCA, escort or interceptor.

 

[Ozair]

Off topic but you mentioned the Super Hornet. There’s some very realistic dog fighting video game that I’ve watched on YouTube and it’s supposed to mimic the real abilities of the planes you can use.

Top players seem to love the Super Hornet for dog fighting. And from their discussion while playing they are not young kids and appear to be very knowledgeable.

They talk in detail about the strengths and weaknesses of modern fighters across their entire flight envelopes.

Anyway found it interesting they liked the Super Hornet so much.

The common saying in the Hornet community is never bring a rate fighter to a radius fight. Had one friend who used to be a Tomcat RIO but swapped nations and moved to the front seat in the Hornet. He understood then why he was always beaten in the older Tomcat by the Hornets WVR.

The classic Hornet is also a better performer WVR than the SH.

 

[Ozair]

Air to Air limited to Self defense and / or missileer capability?

The original Hornet concept was for self escort strike, SH carried this further and the F/A-XX will be no different. It will be more than capable of functioning in an A2A role, it is just that the requirements will focus on the strike functions

 

[Reddington777]

Anyway found it interesting they liked the Super Hornet so much.

I think you're talking about DCS, which I play quite a bit and am building mods for. That hornet in there isn't the super hornet (though there is a mod for it). The hornet in DCS is probably the most complete module with the widest variety of weapons which is why people prefer it. It also happens to be good enough for all kinds of dog fighting and not terrible at BVR. While DCS isn't representative of reality, it's for that versatility that there's no way a super hornet replacement wouldn't be capable of air to air + other roles. It just won't be an F-47 level of air superiority.

Enabling a two engined fighter with internal stores to do air to air isn't terribly hard (in theory I think?). Afterall you've got the carrying capacity and the radar already. You'll probably just need to add extra software for the rest.

 

[mokahete]

They aren't.

In that sense, vertical stabilizers are also not Good for stealth.
&
Su57 has overall smaller v tail stabilizers than f35.
But its still widely accepted that in x band su57 is less stealthier than f35 from front.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think it would be easier to task two aircraft for the rare occasion they need four large weapons.

Yet ATA and A/F-X were designed around 4 large weapons internally.

If we design around a fixed maximum carrier weight limit then that extra pair of bombs will result in a compromise in many areas.
1) Less range due to internal fuel volume being allocated to greater weapon bay volume.
2) Lower G limit due to a lighter structure.
3) Less speed due to increased drag from a fatter fuselage.
4) Lower thrust to weight ratio due to smaller engines/intakes to allow for greater weapon volume.

Now let's say your four big bombs results in a 10% reduction in all four categories. I think the US Navy would prefer two big bombs and a 10% increase in all four categories.

Fatter fuselage is not necessarily a thing. That's specifically why I'm talking tandem bays between the engines like Su-57, not side-by-side bays like F-35 or F-22.

The A-5A does not have a fat fuselage.

It might also come down to a four bomb design can't supercruise and two bomb design can supercruise. That is a big sacrifice. To make supercruise useable the aircraft has to be able to sit well above the high drag transonic region. The F-35A is a perfect example where it just fails to clear the transonic region with dry thrust. This results in it always cruising subsonic. That 10% extra drag and 10% reduction in thrust to weight will make or break the supercruising ability. The F-35C shows how the extra low speed lift for carrier compatible significantly increases transonic drag. It is harder for a Navy design to supercruise.

Yes, that would be a valid issue.

 

[allendoc]

Northrop’s 'New' F/A-XX Fighter Has a YF-23 Black Widow II Secret

Northrop’s F/A-XX concept channels YF-23—and signals a push to keep the Navy’s sixth-gen fighter alive as Congress weighs cuts.

nationalsecurityjournal.org

"The story of the F/A-XX has yet to be fully written. While the Trump administration seems hostile to the aircraft (or at least to its expense), Congress may yet save the funding line. The Navy has a long history of relying upon Congress to prevent executive branch cuts, and has quietly mobilized around an effort to save the new jet."

 

[Ozair]

Northrop’s 'New' F/A-XX Fighter Has a YF-23 Black Widow II Secret

Northrop’s F/A-XX concept channels YF-23—and signals a push to keep the Navy’s sixth-gen fighter alive as Congress weighs cuts.

nationalsecurityjournal.org

"The story of the F/A-XX has yet to be fully written. While the Trump administration seems hostile to the aircraft (or at least to its expense), Congress may yet save the funding line. The Navy has a long history of relying upon Congress to prevent executive branch cuts, and has quietly mobilized around an effort to save the new jet."

The problem isn't this year though, it is each subsequent year after that, likely at least while the USN deals with the Trump administration. For this airframe to get off the ground literally the USN will have to put the aircraft into their budget request and not unfunded priorities. That though will have to come at the expense of something else...

Re the article, I find quotes like this to be rather silly...

Suggesting that the design team is borrowing from the experience with the YF-23 (in the same way that the B-21 Raider evidently borrowed from the B-2 Spirit) is a way of conveying that Northrop Grumman understands the nature of the path and is prepared to build a new jet.

The B-2 was at least a production aircraft that is in active service. Suggesting that NG is better placed because of the YF-23 isn't worth the digital paper it is written on..

 

[EmoBirb]

From what I'm getting is that people should think less about Tomcat 2.0 or NATF and more along the lines of ATA or AFX.

Given the push for a systems of systems approach the F/A-XX itself wouldn't need to be that much of an aerial fighter, when it can instead play the spotter for other shooters in the air wing, F/A-18s and F-35Cs launching long range missiles with guidance from other assets, like drones, E-2s but also an extremely stealthy strike fighter who's going to push deep into enemy lines anyway.

I could imagine that the capability of launching potent A2G weapons and anti-ship ordnance in contested environments comes way, way before any envisioned case where the F/A-XX goes out of it's way to engage aerial threats with missiles it carries itself. At least that's what I'm getting from what the Navy describes and previous efforts like ATA or AFX which tried to fill a role that is still to be filled, with the F-35C not being a perfect fit. It would also make sense why the Navy has a hard time pitching it to officials, which would ask why there should be a third strike fighter for the carriers together with the F/A-18E/F and F-35C. It's necessary capability, surely, but it's a much harder salespitch compared to what the USAF does with the B-21 and F-47. Which basically only needed to point at the low numbers and age of the B-2 and F-22 to get more capable, more modern, more modular successors greenlit. Perhaps the complete failure of ATA/A-12 also plays a part in why the USN is having a harder time to pitch their request.

I also think that Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) and Northrop Grumman obviously lend themselves to such a type of aircraft. And perhaps also why Lockheed was dropped fairly early on.

But yeah, I think anyone who looks for a Tomcat style, or NATF-23 style multirole, fleet defense, interceptor thingy will ultimately be disappointed.

 

[FighterJock]

That was exactly what I was thinking about the F/A-XX EmoBirb that it is more like the A/FX in that it is more of a multirole fighter than a Tomcat successor.

 

[Scott Kenny]

From what I'm getting is that people should think less about Tomcat 2.0 or NATF and more along the lines of ATA or AFX.

That is exactly what I have been thinking.

Something kinda like the A-5, with a pair of F110 engines instead of J79s.

 

[NMaude]

Something kinda like the A-5, with a pair of F110 engines instead of J79s.

An A-5 fitted with F110s would be awesome

 

[H_K]

Yet ATA and A/F-X were designed around 4 large weapons internally.

Where did you get that? The Lockheed design had only 2 large weapons bays, designed to carry GBU-24 or AGM-84E SLAM, presumably 1 per bay, so a total of 2 large A/G stores.

Plus 2 side bays for AIM-120.

 

[quellish]

25% higher than the existing aircraft is the quote. So that is a combat radius of 800nm to 850nm.

That is not quite accurate.

RADM Michael “Buzz” Donnelly, at Sea Air Space 2025 talking to the media outside of session / panels:

That increased range is an essential attribute that we’re looking to field. So probably over 125 percent of the range that we’re seeing today to give us better flexibility, operational reach. It will, of course, have refuel ability. And all of our air wings, our tactics and what we are designing in the future considers organic refueling capability. So the F/A-XX will be able to leverage that

Most of the "defense media" completely misquoted him, and some attributed these remarks to other sessions, panels, and events. And then those inaccurate statements and attributions were repeated by other "defense media" articles and videos.

It's important to check your sources. There is a lot of inaccurate reporting out there, much of it just lazy repeating information from other articles, some of it intentional misreporting. Whenever possible, find the original source for the "quote".

"125 percent" could be interpreted several ways.

Donnelly said a few other things of interest at Sea Air Space. I had these transcribed from audio and video at my own expense.

It will definitely have longer inherent range. And then with refueling, you could say that’s indefinite as long as the refueling is available

Its attributes of survivability and signature, which give it the ability to penetrate threat airspace that will pace the threat that we see into the future beyond 2040. So that’s what we see as essential as the threat builds out its capabilities and increases kinetic capabilities with its own fighters and weapons

It will also, with the integration of AI and other technical advantages, allow us to have increased battle space management. And it will be our next platform that, instead of being man in the loop, will truly be man on the loop and allow us to have fully integrated architecture with our unmanned systems that we’re going to be fielding with concepts like the CCAs — whether it’s those collaborative combat aircraft, the small increased mass, or also teaming with larger unmanned vehicles that we may foresee into the future

Panel "Carrier Strike Groups: Role in Deterring War and Dominating Tomorrow’s Conflict"

RADM Michael “Buzz” Donnelly: As doctor Grant brought up the, uh, survivability ability to respond. Uh, is going to continue to exist because the the tactical realities of warfare will continue to be the same with maneuver, effect, deny and persist. And the carriers would their ability to move over 700 miles a day, Creating one point 5,000,000mi² of uncertainty. That is an element of survivability that will continue to be extremely important. And what will increase is the range and reach that our future air wings will provide. Today, we have the ability with the combination of the F-18 and the 18 G growler as well as the F-35 and our weapons for an operational range that provides us an area of effect of over 8,000,000mi². And when we look to the 2040s with the integration of MQ 25 to provide organic refueling, uh platforms such as F/A-XX with extended range, uh, the weapons we expect to field at that time, we expect that area of effect to increase to over 11,000 square, uh, 11,000 11,000,000mi². That area of effect is important because that's also the area of uncertainty for the air wing that enhances the survivability of the strike group. But it's also the tactical reality, combined with the attributes of those platforms that allow us to penetrate into complex, ubiquitous ISR, that the threat will continue to field and be selective in our targeting so that we can be efficient and persist longer. And Admiral Keller talks about the fact when he gets questioned, hey, what are the capabilities you need? And he'll tell you you need it all because, like Admiral Boyle points out, it's the totality of the joint force to maintain the pace and tempo of effect that we need and the ability of our future platforms to integrate across that joint force with, um, heightened level of awareness of the battle space, the ability to be selective and precise with the type of targeting that is required to cause the consequential effects so that we can operate and sustain at the far reaches of places like the Pacific. Is going to be what's important and the capabilities that we look to field.

RADM Michael “Buzz” Donnelly: But in 2040 will expect to be fielding the hybrid capability of the air wing that will include manned sixth generation aircraft, as well as unmanned systems like collaborative combat aircraft that will provide offensive mass. Uh, we will have matured MQ 25 into the fleet and likely increase the number of aircraft that we have in the air wing for MQ 25 to provide the extended operational reach and range, and we will have moved beyond the weapons that we have today like La Raza mk1 and the air launched SM-6, or AIM-174 to even further reach faster speed and ability to increase the operational range of our air wings and all of that. We are on a clear path for as we evolve over the next 15 years.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Quellish brings us another wonderful gift for today...

 

[quellish]

And in Panel "Modernizing the Future of Naval Aviation" :

Speaker1: Rodge, and this might be right back to you. Uh, it's a what problem is the F/A-XX trying to solve range, payload question mark. And it probably goes to Dan and Craig as well. Uh, in that space.

RADM Michael “Buzz” Donnelly, USN: Yeah. All of those things in recognizing a complex threat environment where we have, uh, global competitor that is fielding those same types of capabilities, and we've got a, um, adversary. When we look at China and the regional hegemony that has clear global aspirations. So we not only need to be prepared and capable of dealing with that type of threat in the area where they're operating now. But in recognition of the possibility that that may be global in the United States, Navy is the one that meets that challenge day in and day out, in our expanded global presence and operating around all the the seas so far recognizes the threat based capability that is being presented before us. It's also recognizing the resource constraints as well as our own strategies, and that we need to have a capability that can penetrate into those ubiquitous environments, operate in the weapons engagement zone. We do that today, but we do it at parity because of the capabilities we have fielded today. Um, so far is going to be that next improvement. It's also going to integrate advanced capabilities and technologies such as, um, artificial intelligence, machine learning that are going to enhance battlespace awareness and decision making. And, you know, quite frankly, it could be our last tactical manned fighter that we operate out of the Navy, and it will actually be at a point where we are more man on the loop than man in the loop, and be the bridge to fully integrating towards the hybrid air wing of the future in the 2040s.

There were a number of other statements about F/A-XX, manned/unmanned teaming, and how they already have a plan beyond AIM-174 (i.e. it is an interim capability, something more lethal and longer range is coming).

All of these have been freely available in the public domain for months. But hey, let's speculate about a press report about a press report that was a garbled copy of a press report that wasn't accurate to begin with, over and over again.

 

[Reddington777]

how they already have a plan beyond AIM-174 (i.e. it is an interim capability, something more lethal and longer range is coming).

Gee who woulda thunk there were more efficient and lethal options than to use an massive air defense missile as the primary air to air missile of the next 50 years!

 

[Seragina]

So the range is actually ~1.5x ( sqrt(11/5)=1.48...), likely a bit more considering standard safety marging.