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

dark sidius said:
We know nothing about the F-47 , impossible to say anything about his capacity.
Click to expand...
At the bare minimum, I would assume "equal payload to F-22 with ~twice the range" for physical things.

I started out assuming something F-111 sized (~105klbs MTOW), but my current thinking is ~80-85klbs mission TOW, possibly with a beast mode bringing things up to about 95-100klbs.
 
insidersource said:
1,500lb extra weight and 14% increase fuel burn per minute. You have just proved my point and destroyed your own argument. You have just shown that the increased flying weight massively increases fuel burn.

The 14% reduction in F-35A combat radius is almost entirely from the two 2,000lb bombs. If the air-to-ground profile had a 10,000ft lower altitude the range reduction would be 30-40+% based on your F-15E numbers.
Click to expand...

I’m going to leave it at this. A 10,000 foot difference in LEVEL flight has more of an impact than 27% increase in weight on fuel flow. Now imagine if longer portions of an air to ground profile are flown at Mach .9 as opposed to .8, or 40,000 feet for air to air, so on an so forth.
 
Breaking Defense on the new budget overview:
The service is also seeking $140 million for its next-generation fighter jet, known as F/A-XX. That includes roughly $68.5 million from the base budget and $72 million from reconciliation funds.
Click to expand...

About double the request from last cycle IIRC, but not very large…definitely still looks like a slow walk…

breakingdefense.com

Golden Dome, out-years and lots of missiles: Details of Trump's $1.5T defense budget request - Breaking Defense

Everything you need to know about the record setting fiscal 2027 defense budget request.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
The DOD is clearly still trying to kill the F/A-XX. This does not comply with Congressional intent. Congress allocated almost $1B for F/A-XX for FY26 and explicitly instructed the administration to work towards developing and fielding the F/A-XX as quickly as possible. $140M for FY-27 is nothing; a clear violation of this directive.

It does raise the question: in a $1.5T budget request, how is there not room for a paltry $2-4B in funding for F/A-XX? Surely this is not a funding issue.
 
joshjosh said:
It does raise the question: in a $1.5T budget request, how is there not room for a paltry $2-4B in funding for F/A-XX? Surely this is not a funding issue.
Click to expand...

Guessing they’ll either

A) say a study concluded the capacity isn’t there quite yet; or

B) drag their heels until the bids expire, then tell Congress that while they regret the situation, the companies now need more time to prepare new bids, after which DON will need still further time to assess the new bids, thus the award “regrettably” can’t be expected soon, despite their deep eagerness to follow Congressional directives

I suppose they could also C) decide to change the requirements, or at least re-open consideration of them — something about the still newish Secretary of the Navy needing to make sure he’s comfortable with the program after he finishes reshaping the shipbuilding outlook, or just having a staffer mutter something about the changing face of war.

Hope my cynicism is wrong though, and they do award soon!
 
Behind the scenes though, I suspect this admin has a kind of 19th century surface fleet mentality that finds the effectiveness of submarines and naval aviation kind of dismaying, and in 1890s Kaiser Wilhelm II style is more interested in the style and prestige of capital ships than any strategic vision or tactical purpose.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
books said:
Behind the scenes though, I suspect this admin has a kind of 19th century surface fleet mentality that finds the effectiveness of submarines and naval aviation kind of dismaying, and in 1890s Kaiser Wilhelm II style is more interested in the style and prestige of capital ships than any strategic vision or tactical purpose.

Of course there’s also the Reagan era holdover of a fixation on hull counting and tonnage, and the goal of rebuilding US-based manufacturing too. But I’m getting Tirpitz vibes here — Tirpitz and Kaiser Drumpf.
Click to expand...
Did you really need three posts for this verbal diarrhea?
 
insidersource said:
The current funding levels from the Navy is sufficient to pay for the development of stronger landing gear and tail hook on the F-47.
Click to expand...
But not for strengthening parts to absorb the force of lift at high AOA landings, or the vastly different on deck EM environment, etc.

Seriously, you have a really unhealthy infatuation over this. Like horror movie protagonists stringing together the mysteries of their partners' murders after 10 yrs. Let it go.
 
joshjosh said:
I do think it will be Boeing as well, for a number of speculative reasons. We will see. Note, however, that NG stock went up by 2.4% today.
Click to expand...
I don't believe it will be Boeing, truthfully speaking. They are already behind schedule with the F-47 program. Furthermore, Boeing has had nothing but problems with commercial and military vehicles as of recent. They still have yet to deliver the tanker after protesting Northrop's win and getting the project which, was 10 years ago.

Add in the fact that it would be extremely unwise of the US to put all of their 6th gen. eggs in one proverbial basket. Northrop is turning and burning on the Raider. They have the engineering and manufacturing to crank out on schedule. Secondarily, the Navy has completely different requirements than that of the F-47. Carrier landing is extremely taxing on vehicles. The environment is incredibly harsh. It's not like you can just throw landing gear on the F-47 and call it a day.
 
Since Northrop completed production of E/F center fuselages at the El Segundo plant, what are they making there? Would that be available for an F/A-XX production line?
 
There is nothing of substance in that article. Just a rehash of history and news on the topic. i guess the most recent piece of news is fY2027 funding is just 140 million, but that too was known before. And that 2026 funding is enough to get the program to the contract award phase. It doesnt explain the logic behind it. Is it some automated process?
 

Nearing Contract Award, Long-Term Plan Eludes F/A-XX Program | Aviation Week Network

As a long-awaited contract award for the F/A-XX program looms, budget and technical challenges still await for the Navy’s next carrier-based fighter.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

Thanks to a congressional rescue and an 11th-hour change of heart by the Pentagon’s civilian leadership, the contract to develop the U.S. Navy’s next carrier-based fighter is now on track to be awarded by year-end.
Click to expand...

Among the few performance requirements published by the Navy is a demand for a combat radius that is at least 25% greater than the Super Hornet’s. That suggests that the F/A-XX will be fielded with a combat radius of at least 750nm.
Click to expand...

Although well short of the 1,000-nm requirement for the F-47, the Navy specification is ambitious. The Navy confirmed to Aviation Week in 2024 that the F/A-XX will be powered by a derivative of an existing engine, and none of the range-boosting adaptive turbofans is still in development by the Air Force. Further, the Navy lists the weight limit of the catapult and arresting gear for a Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier at 80,000 lb., which sets a fixed cap on the maximum takeoff weight and onboard fuel capacity for the F/A-XX.
Click to expand...

No pay wall now.
 
"Although well short of the 1,000-nm requirement for the F-47, the Navy specification is ambitious. The Navy confirmed to Aviation Week in 2024 that the F/A-XX will be powered by a derivative of an existing engine, and none of the range-boosting adaptive turbofans is still in development by the Air Force. Further, the Navy lists the weight limit of the catapult and arresting gear for a Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier at 80,000 lb., which sets a fixed cap on the maximum takeoff weight and onboard fuel capacity for the F/A-XX."

I don't think the author is accurate on the cat limits. The C-13 has a limit of 80,000lbs (140 knots). EMALS was tested to 80,000lbs, but designed for 100,000- 112,000lb aircraft launches. The AAG is the limiting factor, max 55,000lb trap. Seems short-sighted for the AAG design to limit the F/A-XX empty weight to something similar to the F-14D's (at maximum). A 40-45,000lb aircraft isn't exactly small or light but that would only allow something like 10,000lbs of bring back weight.
 
J McInn said:
"Although well short of the 1,000-nm requirement for the F-47, the Navy specification is ambitious. The Navy confirmed to Aviation Week in 2024 that the F/A-XX will be powered by a derivative of an existing engine, and none of the range-boosting adaptive turbofans is still in development by the Air Force. Further, the Navy lists the weight limit of the catapult and arresting gear for a Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier at 80,000 lb., which sets a fixed cap on the maximum takeoff weight and onboard fuel capacity for the F/A-XX."

I don't think the author is accurate on the cat limits. The C-13 has a limit of 80,000lbs (140 knots). EMALS was tested to 80,000lbs, but designed for 100,000- 112,000lb aircraft launches. The AAG is the limiting factor, max 55,000lb trap. Seems short-sighted for the AAG design to limit the F/A-XX empty weight to something similar to the F-14D's (at maximum). A 40-45,000lb aircraft isn't exactly small or light but that would only allow something like 10,000lbs of bring back weight.
Click to expand...
Depending on what you're hauling, 10,000lbs of bringback is plenty. It's nearly 4x JASSM-ERs, for example.

Also, an 80,000lb catapult-MTOW could mean as much as 28,000lbs of fuel.

As you rightly point out, 40-45klbs is Tomcat Empty Weight. Tomcat didn't use a lot of composites, and had that heavy swing-wing center beam. Do you think we could get the empty weight for something roughly Tomcat-sized down to 40klbs even with some really big weapons bays on it?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Depending on what you're hauling, 10,000lbs of bringback is plenty. It's nearly 4x JASSM-ERs, for example.
Click to expand...
That is essentially exactly the same as the SH,

Carrier Bringback PayloadF/A-18E: 9,900 pounds (4,491 kilograms)
F/A-18F: 9,000 pounds (4,082 kilograms)

F/A-18 Super Hornet & EA-18 Growler

Combat-proven, multirole, networked, upgradeable carrier fighter
www.boeing.com www.boeing.com

Scott Kenny said:
Also, an 80,000lb catapult-MTOW could mean as much as 28,000lbs of fuel.

As you rightly point out, 40-45klbs is Tomcat Empty Weight. Tomcat didn't use a lot of composites, and had that heavy swing-wing center beam. Do you think we could get the empty weight for something roughly Tomcat-sized down to 40klbs even with some really big weapons bays on it?
Click to expand...
Perhaps pushing it. Tomcat didn't have any large holes inside for weapons and had external fuel tanks to pad out the range although the swing wing likely added weight. F/A-XX will need that all internal and mooted with larger engines. If it is a derivative F110 then even just over the F135 in the F-35C the increase in empty weight is probably another 1500lbs before airframe strengthening to accommodate two engines over one. Then add the internal holes and the structure over the F-35C to accommodate another 8000lbs of fuel.
 
Ozair said:
That is essentially exactly the same as the SH,

Carrier Bringback PayloadF/A-18E: 9,900 pounds (4,491 kilograms)
F/A-18F: 9,000 pounds (4,082 kilograms)

F/A-18 Super Hornet & EA-18 Growler

Combat-proven, multirole, networked, upgradeable carrier fighter
www.boeing.com www.boeing.com


Perhaps pushing it. Tomcat didn't have any large holes inside for weapons and had external fuel tanks to pad out the range although the swing wing likely added weight. F/A-XX will need that all internal and mooted with larger engines. If it is a derivative F110 then even just over the F135 in the F-35C the increase in empty weight is probably another 1500lbs before airframe strengthening to accommodate two engines over one. Then add the internal holes and the structure over the F-35C to accommodate another 8000lbs of fuel.
Click to expand...
Curious why a derivative of the F110 is assumed for the F/A-XX and initial lot of the F-47 and not a derivative of the F119? Isn't the F119 more efficient with dry thrust?
 
Smaller than an F110 doesnt make a whole lot of sense for the roles this aircraft has to fill. By nature of that it is going to have to be bigger than the Super Hornet.
 
B2Blain said:
Curious why a derivative of the F110 is assumed for the F/A-XX and initial lot of the F-47 and not a derivative of the F119? Isn't the F119 more efficient with dry thrust?
Click to expand...
F119 production ended in 2013 while the F110 remains in production. No reason it couldn't be a F100 derivative as well or even an F414 again modified further but as already suggested that may be too small. We just know derivative of an in-service engine.
 
Ozair said:
F119 production ended in 2013 while the F110 remains in production. No reason it couldn't be a F100 derivative as well or even an F414 again modified further but as already suggested that may be too small. We just know derivative of an in-service engine.
Click to expand...
If I were betting I'd say there's zero chance it would be a derivative of either the F100 or F414. The USN has never had the F100, but they have operated the F110, and the F414 is too small. F110, F135, or smaller variant NGAP. Where they've already said they don't want NGAP ($$$) that leaves the F110 or F135. Unless they're making a smaller version of the F135, which there is zero evidence of, that leaves (unfortunately) the F110. Like powering a Tomcat with J75s.
 
NMaude said:
Aren't F119 components still in production?
Click to expand...
Parts yes, whole engines no. They built sufficient engines to last the expected life of the program.

Sferrin said:
If I were betting I'd say there's zero chance it would be a derivative of either the F100 or F414. The USN has never had the F100, but they have operated the F110, and the F414 is too small. F110, F135, or smaller variant NGAP. Where they've already said they don't want NGAP ($$$) that leaves the F110 or F135. Unless they're making a smaller version of the F135, which there is zero evidence of, that leaves (unfortunately) the F110.
Click to expand...
Agree 100% the F110 is the obvious choice. Can't see a smaller F135, seems like too much effort for a relatively small production run when the F110 in the likely needed thrust range is available.
 
Sferrin said:
If I were betting I'd say there's zero chance it would be a derivative of either the F100 or F414. The USN has never had the F100, but they have operated the F110, and the F414 is too small. F110, F135, or smaller variant NGAP. Where they've already said they don't want NGAP ($$$) that leaves the F110 or F135. Unless they're making a smaller version of the F135, which there is zero evidence of, that leaves (unfortunately) the F110. Like powering a Tomcat with J75s.
Click to expand...
“Zero chance”

Huh. You must know something I don’t. GE has been whispering about expanded performance F414 variants for some time; they might have some interesting derivatives. I wouldn’t rule it out.
 
jsport said:
breakingdefense.com

Marines starting early work on sixth-gen fighter jet concepts - Breaking Defense

Its early, but a top Marine general said he would expect a next-gen fighter to "look something like" the Navy's F/A-XX.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
The most B..sh.t crazy concept ever heard. Needs to happen though.
Click to expand...

This is contingent on how viable STOVL CONOPS remain. It may not go away entirely but its importance and prevalence may be reduced. The F-35C is widely regarded as an overall more capable airframe than the B and the latest MAP appears to reflect this as some of the F-35B orders were shifted to the C. The USMC acquiring the F/A-XX would simply be a continuation of this.
 
Last edited:
The whole article is pretty “duh obviously” given one of the NGAD aircraft is carrier capable and the other is not, and the USMC is not well known for de novo fighter design.

A tidbit from the article is that USMC wants an all TR3 level F-35 fleet AND a couple of F/A-XX squadrons. That would essentially mean replacing or upgrading over 200 non TR3 F-35s.
 
Training_Dummy said:
“Zero chance”

Huh. You must know something I don’t. GE has been whispering about expanded performance F414 variants for some time; they might have some interesting derivatives. I wouldn’t rule it out.
Click to expand...
Not rule out but potentially what a 6th gen will require, as the US 5th gens have, is greater mil power compared to afterburner thrust. F110 already sits higher at mil thrust and if they can bump that again that might make a difference. The advantage the F414 has it is lightweight compared to the F110. Were it available the EJ2x0 stage 2 might be a good engine, maintaining a low weight with high dry thrust, but obviously does not exist and is not a US engine.
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
This is contingent on how viable STOVL CONOPS remain. It may not go away entirely but its importance and prevalence may be reduced. The F-35C is widely regarded as an overall more capable airframe than the B and the latest MAP appears to reflect this as some of the F-35B orders were shifted to the C. The USMC acquiring the F/A-XX would simply be a continuation of this.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure the change to the C was driven by capability as much as the USN wanting the USMC to provide more aircraft for the big deck carriers. Will be interesting to see if they do go F/A-XX, I suspect they won't the same way they passed over the SH and kept the legacy Hornet in service longer.

Training_Dummy said:
A tidbit from the article is that USMC wants an all TR3 level F-35 fleet AND a couple of F/A-XX squadrons. That would essentially mean replacing or upgrading over 200 non TR3 F-35s.
Click to expand...
They upgraded a lot of AV-8Bs to the Plus standard, a significant task and have also been upgrading classic hornets with new radars, weapons, EW, nav systems etc. Could easily see a large portion of USMC F-35Bs being upgraded to TR3/Blk4, perhaps everything after lot 10 and taking new deliveries to replace the very early airframes.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom