US F/A-XX and F-X 6th Gen Aircraft News Thread

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Air Force may want a bigger aircraft than the Navy
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.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
if the Navy's 6th gen aircraft diverges too much from the Air Force's, wouldn't that mean significant increase of unit price given that there wouldn't be significant procurement quantity to amortize costs in the span of high-hundreds of airframes?
 

anzha

Captain
Registered Member
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.

I think there is going to be significant change to NGAD's pause given the new administration. Let's wait and see.

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.

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.
 

SlothmanAllen

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.
 
Last edited:

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
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:

Lethe

Captain
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.

Can you expand upon this idea that F/A-18E/F failed to deliver on range? My understanding is that the Super Hornet program was successful in expanding the range envelope relative to F/A-18A-D for a given mission profile and payload owing to greater internal fuel capacity, larger external fuel tanks and more hardpoints plumbed to accommodate those fuel tanks.
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Can you expand upon this idea that F/A-18E/F failed to deliver on range?
Ah, very simple.
It somewhat increased bug range over most mission profiles(bug is quite pitiful in that regard), though not as much as desired. Not that much fuel was gained over the original, and relatively high drag coefficients for stores play their role. The bug was already hampered by heavy payloads, but Superbug also failed store separation tests, and made it even worse: see how stores are carrier on f-18e/f; there's a significant outward angle.

The problem is that it did so to replace the F-14 and A-6E(not even F; failed A-12, too) platforms. Both are just out of its league.

Refueled F-14s could loiter over a thousand km away from CSG, keeping ~100-200 mile dash capability toward threat vector.
F-18 in all variants doesn't come close and can't really dash, so (a bit unfair, but still) there is some merit in comparing such an Extended tomcat cap with a normal hornet/shornet cap barrier. Which is 150 miles. No, I didn't miss a zero.

A-6E(also with refuel of course) could achieve like sub-2000km strike range with a significant (>200 miles) Lo part of profile and with much heavier payload. Importantly, EW variant (prowler) with pods matched this speed/range equation, too.
(note that numbers are approximate as I remember them; better numbers can be found in literature about outer air battle, for example, in Friedman).

Superbug doesn't come close to either number, even without(!) demanding parts of trajectory (dash and Lo pen respectively), navair refuelling capability(which is more superbugs) is still nowhere close to what it was before(MQ-25 will fix it, but only in the future).
Both numbers are obviously crucial for carrier survivability against a capable foe. Both numbers ensure that it's more practical to deliver strike with LACMs... but if we're resorting to tomahawks, is ongoing investment into CSGs worth it?
 
Last edited:
Top