USAF/USN 6th Gen Fighters - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS News & Analysis [2008- 2025]

[Training_Dummy]

If readiness is the goal, the navy should reopen the F-18 production line immediately. You fight the war with the stuff you have, and right now we have F-18s. Losses in a peer war vs China will not be replaceable without a hot production line, and even a less ambitious F/A-XX won't be in production until the 2030s.

Without addressing your premise, Boeing is clearly in no position to credibly deliver warfighting capacity given its current situation. The US would be silly to entrust anything to Boeing besides ensuring extant system sustainment and delivering EX and T-7. It’s troubling but this is exactly the sort of creative destruction that could allow L3, Anduril, whoever, to embrace greatness through superior engineering and a non-legacy/union cost base.

 

[Manuducati]

If a current in service engine then reusing the F414 in the EPE variant makes sense. Navy already knows and is very happy with the engine, it is significantly lighter than the F110 and I expect they will be able to, with five years of concerted dev effort, get the thrust and durability close to the F110-129. Would also be a good export market for GE given that engine size has been popular on non US fighters.

F-414 are great engines but already underperforming with the F/A-18E-F Super Hornet. Even with the hypothetical 20% thrust increase of the EPE, I don't think they would be a solution for the F/A-XX. With internal weapons bay(s) and the fuel needed for PTO, I don't see the XX being less than 20% heavier than the Bug. Meaning poor thrust to weight ratio, poor acceleration, marginal one engine out performance, poor kinetics (to increase weapons performance).
You need at least F110-GE-432 level of performance.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

The F135 is a massive engine at just over 6,400 lbs; that’s 2,000 lbs heavier than even the F110-400 with the extended tailpipe. How would you design an airframe around two such engines while having a relatively large internal fuel load, weapons bay, and "bringback" and also be within the limit of the Mk. 7 arresting gear?

EDIT: With around 54,000 lb limit on the arresting gear and assuming that you have 20,000 lbs of internal fuel (a bit more than the F-35C) and a very optimistic airframe empty weight of 32,000 lbs without engines (contractor empty weight, and the F-35C is around 28,000 lbs, Super Hornet is around 27,000 lbs), you have a "bringback" of 9,200 lbs of fuel and weapons, about the same as a Super Hornet but this is being very optimistic with the weights. Not that upgrading the arresting gear on the Nimitz-class carriers is out of the question, but things to consider.

 

[DrRansom]

If the Navy can pull out an ADVENT-powered F/A-XX in the next 10 years, a sort of super F-14 with heavy-missile armament, there is a very high probability the USAF is forced to buy it.

 

[FighterJock]

That is what I was thinking DrRansom. That is if the USAF end up cancelling the NGAD altogether without having anything that they can fall back on, then the F/A-XX is the only game in town for both services.

 

[Moose]

Without addressing your premise, Boeing is clearly in no position to credibly deliver warfighting capacity given its current situation. The US would be silly to entrust anything to Boeing besides ensuring extant system sustainment and delivering EX and T-7. It’s troubling but this is exactly the sort of creative destruction that could allow L3, Anduril, whoever, to embrace greatness through superior engineering and a non-legacy/union cost base.

So say we disqualify an established airframe builder and award to a team that has never built a full-size combat aircraft and that's the team which falls behind on milestones and/or runs over on cost. What's the plan then?

 

[DrRansom]

That is what I was thinking DrRansom. That is if the USAF end up cancelling the NGAD altogether without having anything that they can fall back on, then the F/A-XX is the only game in town for both services.

The more cheeky-prediction is that the F/A-XX can be 4++ gen stealthy, something like the SU-57, forward quadrant only, and the USAF will still get forced to buy it.

 

[FighterJock]

Don't say that DrRansom. That would not what both services would want, a 4++ gen fighter would be a step backward for them. And not the full 6th gen leap that it would bring especially from the F-22/F-35 5th Gen.

 

[Ozair]

So say we disqualify an established airframe builder and award to a team that has never built a full-size combat aircraft and that's the team which falls behind on milestones and/or runs over on cost. What's the plan then?

The current understanding is only LM, NG and Boeing are bidding on F/A-XX. The smaller entrants may be subs but I expect the smaller entrants see more value and opportunity in CCAs and that is where they are focusing their efforts.

The more cheeky-prediction is that the F/A-XX can be 4++ gen stealthy, something like the SU-57, forward quadrant only, and the USAF will still get forced to buy it.

That makes no sense and almost certainly the USN wouldn't even award a contract to a vendor offering that. The set of requirements they are using will almost certainly require all aspect stealth and they have the f-35C reference point to work from. The USN has rotated a lot of personnel through the F-35 JPO so will have an excellent corporate knowledge of what they want.

 

[DrRansom]

Don't say that DrRansom. That would not what both services would want, a 4++ gen fighter would be a step backward for them. And not the full 6th gen leap that it would bring especially from the F-22/F-35 5th Gen.

My argument for 4++ gen design is that I don't know how you get all-aspect stealth off a carrier deck while meeting range, payload, persistence goals. Not to mention, F/A-XX will also have to externally carry large ASMs, which is not in the least bit stealthy.

In the interest of something now in a reasonable budget, I can see the Navy reducing stealth requirements compared to the USAF's NGAD goals. The success of the NGAD program certainly argues for lower performance specifications.

But we will see - and soon if the Navy wants to sneak a march on the USAF.

 

[Training_Dummy]

as I take a step back and consider all of Boeings issues - Max, Starliner, T-7, 777x, balance sheet, labor strike, even ramping up EX, it’s hard to believe DoD giving Boeing anything but a CCA contract. Does NG go three for three on Raider, F/A-XX and maybe a rescoped manned PCA?

 

[Moose]

as I take a step back and consider all of Boeings issues - Max, Starliner, T-7, 777x, balance sheet, labor strike, even ramping up EX, it’s hard to believe DoD giving Boeing anything but a CCA contract. Does NG go three for three on Raider, F/A-XX and maybe a rescoped manned PCA?

It wasn't that long ago people were expecting NG to go to pieces if it didn't win B-21. Which to say both "NG's cooking" and "don't write off anyone."

 

[Training_Dummy]

So say we disqualify an established airframe builder and award to a team that has never built a full-size combat aircraft and that's the team which falls behind on milestones and/or runs over on cost. What's the plan i

It wasn't that long ago people were expecting NG to go to pieces if it didn't win B-21. Which to say both "NG's cooking" and "don't write off anyone.

Great point

 

[Training_Dummy]

So say we disqualify an established airframe builder and award to a team that has never built a full-size combat aircraft and that's the team which falls behind on milestones and/or runs over on cost. What's the plan then?

I guess what you’re saying is devil we know. Fair point. As for being established, what does history or pedigree even mean except to remind us how far Boeing has deviated from its roots on both sides of its bloodline? And my comment about L3 and Anduril wasn’t about NGAD or F/A-XX per se, or even CCA incr 1, but rather that middle distance where CCA incr X truly might blur some lines.

 

[Ozair]

as I take a step back and consider all of Boeings issues - Max, Starliner, T-7, 777x, balance sheet, labor strike, even ramping up EX, it’s hard to believe DoD giving Boeing anything but a CCA contract. Does NG go three for three on Raider, F/A-XX and maybe a rescoped manned PCA?

At the very least the commercial aspects and past performance will be evaluated by the USN team running the tender and at that stage Boeing may not be looked at as favorable. Noting the contract won't be fixed price perhaps that becomes less of an issue, Boeing might be better positioned when the US Govt assumes some of the risk.

 

[Desertfox]

as I take a step back and consider all of Boeings issues - Max, Starliner, T-7, 777x, balance sheet, labor strike, even ramping up EX, it’s hard to believe DoD giving Boeing anything but a CCA contract. Does NG go three for three on Raider, F/A-XX and maybe a rescoped manned PCA?

Most of Boeing's problems are Boeing Commercial, Boeing Military is just fine. Its got issues but so do the other two.

The USAF backup isn't F/A-XX its GCAP. GCAP is basically an 80% NGAD.

 

[flateric]

Most of Boeing's problems are Boeing Commercial, Boeing Military is just fine.

Yeah, it's blooming

Boeing to cut 10% of workers as defense unit loses $2B in 3 months

Performance on fixed-price programs is “simply not where it needs to be,” CEO tells employees.

www.defenseone.com

 

[Elysium]

My argument for 4++ gen design is that I don't know how you get all-aspect stealth off a carrier deck while meeting range, payload, persistence goals. Not to mention, F/A-XX will also have to externally carry large ASMs, which is not in the least bit stealthy.

In the interest of something now in a reasonable budget, I can see the Navy reducing stealth requirements compared to the USAF's NGAD goals. The success of the NGAD program certainly argues for lower performance specifications.

But we will see - and soon if the Navy wants to sneak a march on the USAF.

Honestly the whole thing sorta makes sense to me now. USAF cancelling NGAD because it doesn't see any credible opponent against who can create a qualitative and quantitative superiority against them in the near future (except for China). Additionally, the advancement on anti-stealth tech with medium-to long wave radars on the ground means the only design that can be truly considered stealthy will be broadband stealth designs, which are not compatible with fighter-like agility. And probably even those will be at risk of being shot down. That means only drones can do the job.
A hypothethical Super Raptor with more stealth, and bigger missiles would still lose to a ground based SAM with medium-wave radars and even bigger missiles.

The calculus changes against China. Not only they have the capability to build advanced fighters in numbers (as they're doing right now), the advantage of SAM cover disappears (although it might make some sense to reintroduce Kirov-style cruisers with their floating SAM bubbles, but that's just a flight of fancy, getting sidetracked). In this scenario, a fighter might still be the king of the skies. If we think about the see-first-shoot-first calculus, we can solve the issue 2 ways, either going the full stealth-route or making a plane with moderate stealth, but bigger radar and missiles (the thing DrRansom referred to as Su-57 like). I'd argue the first option already exists in the shape of the B-21, so going for the second option makes more sense imo, so I'm inclined to agree with DrRansom's proposal.

 

[bring_it_on]

The USAF backup isn't F/A-XX its GCAP. GCAP is basically an 80% NGAD.

How do I know it isn't 20% NGAD? Like what are you basing your assumptions on since we know exactly zilch in terms of what the USAF requirements were for NGAD and what technologies it matured, and demonstrated for inclusion on it or what the two teams still in the running offered as part of their submission for EMD? And also not a whole lot is known about the GCAP for that matter.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The F135 is a massive engine at just over 6,400 lbs; that’s 2,000 lbs heavier than even the F110-400 with the extended tailpipe. How would you design an airframe around two such engines while having a relatively large internal fuel load, weapons bay, and "bringback" and also be within the limit of the Mk. 7 arresting gear?

You'd need to make a lighter airframe than an F14.

Shouldn't be too hard, the swing wing is heavy. And most of the rest of the fuselage is metal, not composites, so there's plenty of places to find that you can reduce weight.

 

[Ainen]

Iirc f135 includes quite a lot of weight which is normally on the airframe, making direct number unfair.
Otherwise its thrust to weight would be in nk-32 area, I.e. a heavy bomber engine

 

[FighterJock]

GCAP is basically a UK NGAD, we know next to nothing at all about performance or what technologies will be included in the final design.

 

[Training_Dummy]

Most of Boeing's problems are Boeing Commercial, Boeing Military is just fine. Its got issues but so do the other two.

The USAF backup isn't F/A-XX its GCAP. GCAP is basically an 80% NGAD.

I don’t agree. Its engineering culture has eroded from the top down, it has a legacy cost base (non right to work states, labor unions, etc) and has not delivered a fully internally developed airframe since F-15 and C-17. Maybe I’m thinking about this all wrong and this is the perfect time to break up BA, put new “real (externally sourced) leadership” in Boeing Defense and Space and give them the scaled down PCA component of NGAD.

 

[Training_Dummy]

For those who think I’m anti Boeing and to those brilliant engineers at Boeing (some of whom may be lurking), far from it. My father was a test pilot for McD, I grew up on air show flight lines etc etc. I’m just trying to work this out, since the knock on effects seem non trivial.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

You'd need to make a lighter airframe than an F14.

Shouldn't be too hard, the swing wing is heavy. And most of the rest of the fuselage is metal, not composites, so there's plenty of places to find that you can reduce weight.

There are also areas that will drive weight higher. As a Fighter/Attack, I'd imagine that the F/A-XX would at least need internal weapons bay the size of the F-35C's, if not larger. For range and endurance, it would likely have to carry more internal fuel than the 16,200 lbs that the F-14 had.

I'm not sure why the F/A-XX would want to trend towards an F135-sized engine, when the likely larger NGAD is likely to use NGAP engines that are smaller, around F119-size. I believe the Lockheed/Boeing A/F-X design (AFX-653 if I recall) had PW7000 engines, which were F119-derivative engines but smaller, at around 25,300 lbf thrust, although granted, the mission priorities as Attack/Fighter is different from F/A-XX. I just don't think one should be enamored and carried away by the raw static thrust number of the F135 and try to seek applications for it left and right, even when it may not make sense.

EDIT: I'm not sure of those PW7000 thrust numbers, which came from Flight International Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 1994, reflect the dry thrust or augmented, but regardless, the point stands even for A/F-X, the engine thrust is understood to be a bit less than the F119.

 

[Sundog]

The engines for the F/A-XX aircraft will be sized for the mission. I don't see them being three stream engines, because I don't think the navy has much need for super cruise, but I could be wrong. That will save them money. Having said that, it will be a new engine or an engine that uses an existing a core and a new fan, or something like that and I see it being twin engine aircraft with engines smaller than the F-135.

 

[Josh_TN]

Three stream is not necessary for super cruise; the bigger benefit is range/endurance, and I cannot imagine the USN does not think that is a priority.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There are also areas that will drive weight higher. As a Fighter/Attack, I'd imagine that the F/A-XX would at least need internal weapons bay the size of the F-35C's, if not larger.

I'm assuming closer to the A-12 bay size, room for 4x 2000lb plus 2x AMRAAM.

For range and endurance, it would likely have to carry more internal fuel than the 16,200 lbs that the F-14 had.

Yes, I'm assuming more like 25,000lbs if not more. Though since the F-35 carries some 18,000lbs and has a 1500nmi range, we're probably talking more like 35-40klbs of fuel internally to feed a pair of F135 engines.

I just don't think one should be enamored and carried away by the raw static thrust number of the F135 and try to seek applications for it left and right.

It's not about the static thrust. It's about the logistic advantages of having one engine type across the air wing. Static thrust is a bonus.

 

[Ozair]

I'm assuming closer to the A-12 bay size, room for 4x 2000lb plus 2x AMRAAM.

That seems a bit big to me. I am thinking bay depths similar to the F-35 so 2x 2000 lbs plus AAM but longer to allow larger munitions in, such as JASSM. That may also allow for a separate bay for AIM-120 sized weapons similar to F-22 but not side mounted. Could even lengthen the bay to be just beyond 18ft which would allow SDB sized munition to be packed in three length wise.

Yes, I'm assuming more like 25,000lbs if not more. Though since the F-35 carries some 18,000lbs and has a 1500nmi range, we're probably talking more like 35-40klbs of fuel internally to feed a pair of F135 engines.

F-35 is ~1500nmi one way.. A realistic F-35A/C combat radius on a high altitude profile would put it closer to 800 to 850nmi. I cannot see F/A-XX having 35k lbs of fuel especially if you want the payload to be as suggested above. That is where the Adaptive engines come into play to reduce the fuel use during cruise.

It's not about the static thrust. It's about the logistic advantages of having one engine type across the air wing. Static thrust is a bonus.

In most cases the best metric is the dry thrust. The aircraft won't want to be in afterburner for long periods so an engine that has high mil power but comparatively lower augmented thrust, like the F135 and F119, is the better option.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That seems a bit big to me. I am thinking bay depths similar to the F-35 so 2x 2000 lbs plus AAM but longer to allow larger munitions in, such as JASSM. That may also allow for a separate bay for AIM-120 sized weapons similar to F-22 but not side mounted. Could even lengthen the bay to be just beyond 18ft which would allow SDB sized munition to be packed in three length wise.

Well, in the A-12 that was 4x bays. AMRAAMs in two bays, and two bays each big enough to hold 2x 2000lb bombs (or more practically, 1x HARM/Harpoon and 1x 2000lb LGB/JDAM).

An 18ft long bay is not a bad idea, however.

F-35 is ~1500nmi one way.. A realistic F-35A/C combat radius on a high altitude profile would put it closer to 800 to 850nmi. I cannot see F/A-XX having 35k lbs of fuel especially if you want the payload to be as suggested above. That is where the Adaptive engines come into play to reduce the fuel use during cruise.

Well, the assumed combat radius I think the USN wants is on the order of 2000nmi. Which makes things ... complicated.

In most cases the best metric is the dry thrust. The aircraft won't want to be in afterburner for long periods so an engine that has high mil power but comparatively lower augmented thrust, like the F135 and F119, is the better option.

Right, but again the primary driver was logistic commonality with the F-35C.

My concept was all the avionics of an F35, two F135 engines, the larger bay(s), and a crapton of fuel. Two seats so the backseater can wrangle drones, and alternatively play RIO/bombardier-navigator.

Edit: this is basically exactly how the F-14 was built: take existing sensors and engines and drop them into a new airframe.

 

[Josh_TN]

No one is putting two F135s in anything.

 

[Moose]

No one is putting two F135s in anything.

There's a chance B-21 has two F135-derived turbines.

 

[doolyii]

No one is putting two F135s in anything.

F135 is huge compared with F100 class engines...(F119 as well).. can't imagine putting those two and become 'fighter''... more like F111 / bomber...

 

[Scott Kenny]

F135 is huge compared with F100 class engines...(F119 as well).. can't imagine putting those two and become 'fighter''... more like F111 / bomber...

F111B, but yes. I'm picturing FAXX being the size of an F111 or so.

 

[kqcke for you]

F111B, but yes. I'm picturing FAXX being the size of an F111 or so.

If we only Go after EMALS capabilitys then around a 100.000Ibs is possible with a 130 knots of speed. But with the requierments of an nimitz we are limited to 80.000 Ibs for a 140 knots if u remember it right.

On the side note i hope for FCAS NGF to max out the possible MTOW making it a giant.

Edit: well an Ford designed F/A-XX could work in Nimitz but with a lot of limitations if it wasn't taken into consideration while development as 20.000 Ibs less is alot which means lower payload and fuel capacity.

 

[Avimimus]

The NGAD on the other hand...

 

[Magnum_Force]

Realistically I think the Navy will have to except an OR rather than an AND for the fuel / payload requirement. So you can have a plane with X total weight, and depending on mission that might mean Y fuel load and Z weapons load, or Z weapons load and Y fuel load.

If you want the stand off ranges then you'll have to accept that weapons load will have to be reduced for that particular flight/mission.

They'd be best to start with a look at what the minimum weapons load for a given affect they can get away with, then design a plane that can carry that minimum load as far as it possibly can, with the caveat that space used to store fuel will need to be able to be repurposed to carry a heavier weapons load at the expense of fuel.

 

[joshjosh]

If we only Go after EMALS capabilitys then around a 100.000Ibs is possible with a 130 knots of speed. But with the requierments of an nimitz we are limited to 80.000 Ibs for a 140 knots if u remember it right.

On the side note i hope for FCAS NGF to max out the possible MTOW making it a giant.

Edit: well an Ford designed F/A-XX could work in Nimitz but with a lot of limitations if it wasn't taken into consideration while development as 20.000 Ibs less is alot which means lower payload and fuel capacity.

At current Ford build rates, Nimitz carriers will have to operate until almost the 2070s. Nimitz carriers will be 50% of the carrier force around the year 2050. It doesn't seem feasible to build an aircraft that is primarily designed to work on the minority of carriers. The Nimitz carriers would be sitting ducks without F/A-XX interceptors, compared to the Ford carriers. I doubt congress would allow this, even if the Navy wanted it.

 

[Ozair]

Realistically I think the Navy will have to except an OR rather than an AND for the fuel / payload requirement. So you can have a plane with X total weight, and depending on mission that might mean Y fuel load and Z weapons load, or Z weapons load and Y fuel load.

If you want the stand off ranges then you'll have to accept that weapons load will have to be reduced for that particular flight/mission.

They'd be best to start with a look at what the minimum weapons load for a given affect they can get away with, then design a plane that can carry that minimum load as far as it possibly can, with the caveat that space used to store fuel will need to be able to be repurposed to carry a heavier weapons load at the expense of fuel.

As kqcke for you alluded to earlier it is possible the USN could accept an aircraft that was hobbled for Nimitz class. For example for A2G missions the aircraft would take off with a low fuel state and link up with the MQ-25 as it flies out to execute its mission. For A2A the loadout would mean less munition weight but still likely fuel required from the MQ-25. Certainly not ideal but possible.

At current Ford build rates, Nimitz carriers will have to operate until almost the 2070s. Nimitz carriers will be 50% of the carrier force around the year 2050. It doesn't seem feasible to build an aircraft that is primarily designed to work on the minority of carriers. The Nimitz carriers would be sitting ducks without F/A-XX interceptors, compared to the Ford carriers. I doubt congress would allow this, even if the Navy wanted it.

F/A-XX isn't expected to reach IOC before the early 2030s while the USN expects, going by the current schedule, to have 5 Ford class by 2036 and you would expect 8 by 2050. Again not ideal but workable.

​

 

[Scott Kenny]

If we only Go after EMALS capabilitys then around a 100.000Ibs is possible with a 130 knots of speed. But with the requierments of an nimitz we are limited to 80.000 Ibs for a 140 knots if u remember it right.

[...]

Edit: well an Ford designed F/A-XX could work in Nimitz but with a lot of limitations if it wasn't taken into consideration while development as 20.000 Ibs less is alot which means lower payload and fuel capacity.

Remember that F-111B was ~85klbs MTOW, not the 100+ of the USAF versions.

Also, even a "heavy" load of say, 10x AMRAAMs and 2x AIM9s is only 4000lbs. Nobody has said how heavy the AIM260s are, but I'll go with ~400lbs for them, to allow F16s to continue using BVRAAMs on their wing tips. It's conceivable that they'll be 500lbs each, Sparrow weight, due to high density propellants, which would make the BARCAP mission load 5500lbs.

Means that a ~42klbs empty fighter could have ~35klbs of fuel onboard!

On the side note i hope for FCAS NGF to max out the possible MTOW making it a giant.

I expect that even if France develops their own version of EMALS instead of buying the US system, it'll still give about the same MTOWs as the US version.

I don't know that the French will aim for a 90+klb MTOW, however. Just because that means a physically huge aircraft that takes up a lot of hangar space and limits how many planes you can put in the air wing.

Realistically I think the Navy will have to except an OR rather than an AND for the fuel / payload requirement. So you can have a plane with X total weight, and depending on mission that might mean Y fuel load and Z weapons load, or Z weapons load and Y fuel load.

If you want the stand off ranges then you'll have to accept that weapons load will have to be reduced for that particular flight/mission.

They'd be best to start with a look at what the minimum weapons load for a given affect they can get away with, then design a plane that can carry that minimum load as far as it possibly can, with the caveat that space used to store fuel will need to be able to be repurposed to carry a heavier weapons load at the expense of fuel.

I suspect that the CONOPS will be ~85klbs launch weight with some 4000lbs of AAMs onboard for BARCAP. (maybe 5500 if AIM260s are really heavy). On the order of 30+klbs of internal fuel, minimum.

And ideally internal volume for a good 20klbs of A2G boom, but you'd take off with much less fuel than the BARCAP mission (~15klbs internal fuel) and so have to hit the tanker before the raid departs.