Air Force may want a bigger aircraft than the Navy
US F/A-XX and F-X 6th Gen Aircraft News Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Except the Air Force are now saying the NGAD will be smaller and single engined. If anything it is NGAD that is looking like the smaller aircraft.
The USN needs enough range for its escorts to expand the bubble so they strike the PLAN before its surface ships can fire their own much longer range weapons.
I think there is going to be significant change to NGAD's pause given the new administration. Let's wait and see.
The FA-XX is an FA-18E/F replacement, not F-14. I suspect they will have a CCA do the old F-14 mission. Or the new administration may instigate a new aircraft for industrial reasons. who knows.
It's f-18e/f replacement, but f-14(-esque, decades passed after all) mission set.
no one in their sane mind will replace limitations of f-18e/f, this isn't exactly a plane navair ever wanted.
Not doable.
I wonder if they will go with a cheaper design that leverages already existing components into a new stealth airframe? They should already have sufficient engines, avionics and radars that are in production and can be leveraged that when combined with a new stealth airframe make for a compelling upgrade over the F-18 series.
They need something that can be produced in large numbers. Between the Super Hornets and Growlers they have like ~600+ airframes. So this cannot be a small production run like the F-22 or the ~200+ the Air Force has mentioned for NGAD.
They need something that can be produced in large numbers. Between the Super Hornets and Growlers they have like ~600+ airframes. So this cannot be a small production run like the F-22 or the ~200+ the Air Force has mentioned for NGAD.
Last edited:
I'm curious why you think that. The F-14 was a fast interceptor and - under it's Cold War original form - was going to be firing far beyond visual range against large numbers of bombers and whatnot.
F-14 was:
1, Outer CAP fighter (outer air battle fighter from 1980s). It involves significant independence in decisions and very significant room for error. If you're loitering 1000 KMS out and afterburn after a wrong attack vector(bombers can fake attack runs too, tactics are for everyone, And it's bombers, not cap who have more fuel to play games) - you're screwed, no one can replace CAP this far anytime soon.
Remember that e-2: fighter datalink is not just potentially jammable, it always was and remains the main target for bomber ew (remember huge h-6 pods).
Since late 1980s outer cap is expected to be attacked by fighters too (flanker effect - for China, remember Taiwan crysis).
As you can see, there's a lot of work for heads and hands. Drones can take part of it(together with node), but can't do it themselves.
2, heavy air superiority fighter, bwr or wvr regardless - pretty straightforward. In navy case, air superiority means ensuring strikes, i.e. offensive sweeps and escort. In this mission, attacker(navy) gets to choose place and time, but defender (enemy) gets to choose how the battle will proceed: you can't pretend your gender is bwr and afterburn away when there's a strike package behind you.
Again, it's a heavy, varied task deep inside enemy territory. Same thing - drones help, but not replace.
3, penetrating strike, legacy of bombcats, intruders and so on(A-). F-35 is ultimately not that long-ranged(especially if not on optimal cruise altitude), slow, and significantly hampered by bays and pylon configuration.
In a world of rather prolific area denials carrier's ability to do damage is defined not by sustainable eco-friendly bombing, but by extreme range surges against key targets.
Drones can do it, but on a limited deck space, the most logical way to deliver it is the largest platform available. It will be ngad.
Those were tomcat missions over its life, and those are keystone carrier air wing capability. Carrier air wing against land targets matters exactly as much as it can deliver at range.
F-18e/f was an development of f-18a-d(one that failed to deliver on range). I.e. a forced development(after ngad and a/f-x failures, "do something ot we lose carrier air") of another forced development (congress-imposed light supplementary fighter (replacement of a-7 and remaining f-4), lobbied through by MD.
It came at an fortunate time(as a nice way to cut costs in uncontested pax Americana), but that fortunate time is gone.
F-35c is the same story - ultimately it's a better and strikier hornet, and also an imposed program. Despite it's advanced technology, it's the very wrongest aircraft navy could've gotten. For what they actually needed to have - see A/F-X. Which is not unlike a larger JSF to be fair (and which in fact killed it, congress logic), but here size matters everything.
Last edited: