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

Status
Not open for further replies.
joshjosh said:
Does this imply that the F-35 will have the air-to-air role, and thus will be a more capable interceptor than the F/A-XX?
Click to expand...
F-35 and "capable interceptor" dont go well together.

I suppose that with the demise of NATF and Outer Air Battle, alot of the fleet defense mission went over to AEGIS vessels. The emphasis on strike for F/A-XX seems to be filling the gap left from the Intruder force retiring and the A-12 cancellation.

Well, the best defense is offense (or in this case, bombing the J-20 runways). And strike radius has always been a critical factor in CSG effectiveness (hence why continous fielding of SupaBug and F-35C, to plug in that gap).
 
joshjosh said:
Does this imply that the F-35 will have the air-to-air role, and thus will be a more capable interceptor than the F/A-XX?
Click to expand...
I don't see the F-35 be a air dominance , it is to slow with mach 1.6 when enemys fighters go mach 2 and not realy a beautiful dogfigter too, a lot of computers unable to work well, so dangerous to let it on the A/A role. SU-57, J-20, new J-35 fly more faster and higher than the F-35C than we know have less kinematics capacity than the A version.
 
Last edited:
Quite, the F-35 doesn't have the speed, range or the weapons capability that the NGAD or for that matter F/A-XX are going to have dark sidius. To try to modify the F-35 to have all those things that would make the Lightning 2 an interceptor would be far too costly and far too much of a technical challenge.
 
dark sidius said:
I don't see the F-35 be a air dominance , it is to slow with mach 1.6 when enemys fighters go mach 2 and not realy a beautiful dogfigter too, a lot of computers unable to work well, so dangerous to let it on the A/A role. SU-57, J-20, new J-35 fly more faster and higher than the F-35C than we know have less kinematics capacity than the A version.
Click to expand...
The F-35 still is quite a lot better than the F-18 SH even with 4 AMRAAM's and 2 AIM-9X while its quite likely for them to choose sidekick too if seen as needed. At the same time while Air to Air isn't in focus with F/A-XX the avionics while be more than enough for it and the kinematics probaly aren't worse than F-35's likely better so it still can do it. Then we also come back to the not so big problem of shooting down missiles which still would be a primary Air to Air mission.
 
kqcke for you said:
The F-35 still is quite a lot better than the F-18 SH even with 4 AMRAAM's and 2 AIM-9X while its quite likely for them to choose sidekick too if seen as needed. At the same time while Air to Air isn't in focus with F/A-XX the avionics while be more than enough for it and the kinematics probaly aren't worse than F-35's likely better so it still can do it. Then we also come back to the not so big problem of shooting down missiles which still would be a primary Air to Air mission.
Click to expand...
You need kinematics performance in face of SU-57 who become more and more capable, the same for the J-20 , if you want to win you need something superior to today performance.
 
F-35 have on par perfs with SH, albeit a 0.2 Mach. It has equal Alpha maneuverability in pitch (what means the best in the world by far but the F-22) and an unknow ability in yaw that by far outmatch the SH.
By all metrics it is more maneuverable and matches SH combat capable speed.

I don't know where the concerns are.
 
TomcatViP said:
F-35 have on par perfs with SH, albeit a 0.2 Mach. It has equal Alpha maneuverability in pitch (what means the best in the world by far but the F-22) and an unknow ability in yaw that by far outmatch the SH.
By all metrics it is more maneuverable and matches SH combat capable speed.

I don't know where the concerns are.
Click to expand...
And are those numbers for hornets with similiar armament or even range? Probaly not
 
TomcatViP said:
F-35 have on par perfs with SH, albeit a 0.2 Mach. It has equal Alpha maneuverability in pitch (what means the best in the world by far but the F-22) and an unknow ability in yaw that by far outmatch the SH.
By all metrics it is more maneuverable and matches SH combat capable speed.

I don't know where the concerns are.
Click to expand...
I agree!
With sidekick and one or even 2 CCAs to increase it’s situational awareness/CEC, the F35 is going to be extremely effective in BVR engagement (not to say that it’s currently ineffective). I also believe that it’s loiter time is a big factor in its combat effectiveness -> versus supermaneuverability, which has little utility outside of air shows and BVM.
 
4decaa said:
I agree!
With sidekick and one or even 2 CCAs to increase it’s situational awareness/CEC, the F35 is going to be extremely effective in BVR engagement (not to say that it’s currently ineffective). I also believe that it’s loiter time is a big factor in its combat effectiveness -> versus supermaneuverability, which has little utility outside of air shows and BVM.
Click to expand...
F-35 is not a air superiority fighter what ever evrybody say, and be equal of SH is not a reference for a fighter hungry of billions and billions of dollars , it is more a commercial fighter able to be sell in a lot of country than something superior for dominate all air Force. F-22 was an awesome fighter F-35 is not , soon we will see the Rafale F-5 and with the rumors on it it will be superior to the F-35 in a lot of domaine, Musk is a little to excessive but in the line he have reason.
 
Really? The Rafale is going to be a full stealth aircraft with better fusion than the best outta there?... :rolleyes:

Regarding SH Vs 35, the point is that the latter already dominates. Heck, F-35 dominance has been proven jaw droppingly in the ME at length.

It could even been argued that the Lightning was fundamental in Israel late strategic rebalance.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Really? The Rafale is going to be a full stealth aircraft with better fusion than the best outta there?... :rolleyes:

Regarding SH Vs 35, the point is that the latter already dominates. Heck, F-35 dominance has been proven jaw droppingly in the ME at length.
Click to expand...
Rafale F-5 will be less stealth than a F-35 but , more elongated wings, New powerful radar ,conformal tanks, new 90kn engines and a new electonic warfare suite , yes it will be surely a more air dominante fighter than the F-35, the kinematics performance of a Rafale are very good with 70 kn engines so with 90 kn and a lot of upgrade , I will be more confident in the new Rafale to become an air dominante fighter.
 
dark sidius said:
F-35 is not a air superiority fighter what ever evrybody say,
Click to expand...
We don't say its an air superiorirty Fighter but its the best one they currently have on deck with better performance than the SH the prime fighter of the the current USN. With block 4 most of not all the advantages the SH may have will be given to the F-35 with inprovements to already better systems. At the same time any new aircraft development would increase the time which the SH would be the sole fighter they got which i think we can agree on is not what the USN needs.
dark sidius said:
and be equal of SH is not a reference for a fighter hungry of billions and billions of dollars , it is more a commercial fighter able to be sell in a lot of country than something superior for dominate all air Force. F-22 was an awesome fighter F-35 is not , soon we will see the Rafale F-5 and with the rumors on it it will be superior to the F-35 in a lot of domaine
Click to expand...
Maybe it has more thrust or option for a better EW Suite (think F-35 Suite compared to the Growler with the new the new Pods) but even then it doesn't matter when it doesnt give what the CSG needs. Range for example is something which i doubt will be larger for it with the same loadout.
dark sidius said:
, Musk is a little to excessive but in the line he have reason.
Click to expand...
His reason is something i don't agree on in the current situation with my given knowledge
 
dark sidius said:
Rafale F-5 will be less stealth than a F-35 but , more elongated wings,
Click to expand...
More elongated to what? Only because is has bigger Wings than rafale or F-35 doesn't make it better or have more range.
dark sidius said:
New powerful radar
Click to expand...
Same for F-35 so i doubt its better than the coming APG-85.
dark sidius said:
,conformal tanks,
Click to expand...
Yes a nice option but then again we have the development of stealth drop tanks which WE know to be an option for F-35 when it works out.
dark sidius said:
new 90kn engines
Click to expand...
Okay but without testing this combined with the rest against an F-35C with similiar loadout comparison is hard to make if those extra ~50kN (both engines) dry make a difference.
dark sidius said:
and a new electonic warfare suite
Click to expand...
Uno Reverse Card for the F-35
dark sidius said:
, yes it will be surely a more air dominante fighter than the F-35, the kinematics performance of a Rafale are very good with 70 kn engines so with 90 kn and a lot of upgrade , I will be more confident in the new Rafale to become an air dominante fighter.
Click to expand...
You forget that those upgrades also increase weight and drag while kinematics aren't everything. A modern USN CSG has not only the Airwing but also the whole fleet for combat for which we know sensor shering is an thing which works. U doubt sutch integration IS the same in the french CSG. I bet on the USN CSG with F-35C vs. rafale F5 all the same time.

Lets agree to disagree
 
I have some worries if the F/A-XX is only seen as having a "small" air-to-air role. The F-35C is already more focused towards the strike mission than air-to-air roles. Even compared to the F-35A it sacrifices some performance in favor of greater range and other benefits offered by the larger wing. To protect the fleet the new fighter needs both a strong supercruise capability and to be capable of Mach 2+ speeds. Getting to where you need to be faster is still very important especially if you are to intercept attackers trying to hit the CVBG. And for any air-to-air engagement in the modern era, supercruising at high altitude is a good way to enter the fight.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I have some worries if the F/A-XX is only seen as having a "small" air-to-air role. The F-35C is already more focused towards the strike mission than air-to-air roles. Even compared to the F-35A it sacrifices some performance in favor of greater range and other benefits offered by the larger wing. To protect the fleet the new fighter needs both a strong supercruise capability and to be capable of Mach 2+ speeds. Getting to where you need to be faster is still very important especially if you are to intercept attackers trying to hit the CVBG. And for any air-to-air engagement in the modern era, supercruising at high altitude is a good way to enter the fight.
Click to expand...
Look at carrier tactics through history. Carriers have always, except in a few periods used the same tactics. EMCON, dart in, launch a strike and get out of range before the enemy can respond. Carriers cannot take a punch from a land base. The only exception is the USN in mid '-43 through the end of the war and later with Aegis. A fighter can't do anything to protect a carrier from a large strike from a peer competitor. Against failed states, the fighters are not needed. No reason to equip carriers with air dominance aircraft. Especially if the carrier killers of choice are torpedoes and ballistic missiles.
 
Ainen said:
Long range strike is first best anti air means of a csg. It's the greatest enabler.

CSG isn't static, it's a highly mobile asset. What for land airfield is a binary equation (does their bomber reach you or not), for navy is additional space(area of circle). CSG has to be found, identified within this huge area. And carrier (s) within CSG has to be found and identified, too.

Same range extends stand off from land for any target csg attacks(and of course ability to prosecute it in the first place). Range means safety for CSG, very straightforward.

Range means exposure for defender's aircraft.
Remember how CSGs exposed even backfires for (virtual) Formosing.

F-14 was the thing precisely because navy already had ideal long range striker in A-6, but badly needed intercept and escort(failure of f-111b didn't mean much).

F/a-xx will take both of those still, especially since interceptor for the navy now means aim-174b. Aircraft being able to move those to a long range is almost by default a strike aircraft in modern age.
Add supersonic capabilities, RIO/mission specialist - and you have enough of interceptor.

Overall - perfectly in line with my expectations, and exactly what navair needed since the late 1980s.
Click to expand...
The USN already has a relatively competent attacker in the shape of the F35C. Somewhat limited bay volumes, which is why I believe that the FAXX will have the same bay sizes as the A-12 Avenger 2 (Space for 2x AMRAAMs, 2x AARGM-ERs, and 2x 2000lb JDAM or SLAMs), and probably bigger Air-to-Air bays.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the FAXX bays are long enough to hold SM6s.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The USN already has a relatively competent attacker in the shape of the F35C. Somewhat limited bay volumes, which is why I believe that the FAXX will have the same bay sizes as the A-12 Avenger 2 (Space for 2x AMRAAMs, 2x AARGM-ERs, and 2x 2000lb JDAM or SLAMs), and probably bigger Air-to-Air bays.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the FAXX bays are long enough to hold SM6s.
Click to expand...
I think SM-6 (aim174) integration would depend on how early the USN decided to begin developing the SM-6 into an air launched missile. I might wager that it would have been too late for a FAXX redesign by that point (2019ish?)
 
Scott Kenny said:
While I'd certainly hope so, I could see some shenanigans with longer weapons bays. Carrier weapons elevators are what, 15 feet long, maybe 17 if you angle the item?
Click to expand...

About the same size as AMRAAM for twice or more the capability.

“ what can you do within the AMRAAM space?”

“ twice as many missiles or the same number but 4x the range and new capabilities”
 
quellish said:
About the same size as AMRAAM for twice or more the capability.

“ what can you do within the AMRAAM space?”

“ twice as many missiles or the same number but 4x the range and new capabilities”
Click to expand...
4x the range of an AMRAAM-D? 700km range?!? Or are we talking ~400-500km range?

An ~18ft long weapons bay would allow 3 rows of SDBs, for example, though I suspect that AIM174s would be external carry only due to a lack of folding fins
 
quellish said:
SM-6 is described as an interim weapon. There are better, slimmer things on the horizon.
Click to expand...
While true,
(1) It's here and works; aim-260 -maybe;
(2) It's more capability, even if large;
(3) It's potential for integration with NIFC-CA(including abm/hypersonic, and dual purpose) is higher.
Scott Kenny said:
The USN already has a relatively competent attacker in the shape of the F35C. Somewhat limited bay volumes, which is why I believe that the FAXX will have the same bay sizes as the A-12 Avenger 2 (Space for 2x AMRAAMs, 2x AARGM-ERs, and 2x 2000lb JDAM or SLAMs), and probably bigger Air-to-Air bays.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the FAXX bays are long enough to hold SM6s.
Click to expand...
Relatively competent light attack, not unlike hornet, a-7 and so on.
F-35c is ultimately limited in both internal and external payloads, as well as range.
It's still ok for Iran (though Iran develops), it's questionable against Russia, it outright better be no more than secondary capability against China.
For CSGs, of course, from land and even light carriers situation is rather different.

Yes, with something like JASSM-XR range can be improved. But I struggle to see, how it's going to be superior to mq-25 in hauling them to release point.
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
While true,
(1) It's here and works; aim-260 -maybe;
(2) It's more capability, even if large;
(3) It's potential for integration with NIFC-CA(including abm/hypersonic, and dual purpose) is higher.
Click to expand...
Those are assumptions at best. Size has its own detriments, including inducing a specific lower bound on airframe dimensions.
 
Last edited:
yeetmahboi said:
Those are assumptions at best. Size has its own detriments, including inducing a specific lower bound on airframe dimensions.
Click to expand...
When you're also assuming stuffing JASSMs and SLAMs into the weapons bays, you're probably going to have space for AIM174s
 
Scott Kenny said:
When you're also assuming stuffing JASSMs and SLAMs into the weapons bays, you're probably going to have space for AIM174s
Click to expand...
Why would JASSM be carried primarily internally and not externally. The F-35 could not. As per quellish there is an ongoing effort to complete external JASSM integration with B-21. SM-6 is not stealth but could be pod based (EWP, etc). Said pod could be much more optimized to aline with the carrier craft's OML.

The whole point of uber long range weapon is standoff. In standoff engagement the environment is permissive enough to accept a degraded level of stealth. Scalable stealth was a major area of research back in the transformation era.

Even then, the whole PCA/CCA effort has been to take the burden off the manned component and offload whichever possible to unmanned systems. Oversize payloads aboard the most important manned component seems entirely unnecessary to me. Why couldn't those systems be carried on wingmans? Are we so risk averse that we would hesitate to employ our own datalinks?
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
Having the SM-6 pod-based for external carriage would also mean it could be fitted the Mk-72 booster.
Click to expand...
You'll have to redesign and retest the whole thing once again.

Same trouble that the assembly will have to survive a huge kick and pass separation trials again will resurface.
 
Ainen said:
You'll have to redesign and retest the whole thing once again.

Same trouble that the assembly will have to survive a huge kick and pass separation trials again will resurface.
Click to expand...

I doubt that would be an insurmountable difficulty.
 
NMaude said:
I doubt that would be an insurmountable difficulty.
Click to expand...
Well, much of trouble of new missile is this redesign and separation trials.
May as well design your own pl-17.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom