Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Last edited by maus92 on Apr 22, 2012 - 10:10 PM; edited 1 time in total

Corsair1963 wrote:

The F/A-XX has not been funded as of yet. So, by time the Super Hornet is in need of replacement starting in 10-15 year time frame. The USN/USMC may decide to just order more F-35's and/or X-47. Remember, the US Military is struggling to fund the F-35. Let alone spending billions on a Super Hornet replacement.

The Navy needs an aircraft with better kinematic and range performance. Re-engining the F-35 might fulfill the range part of the requirement, as could some development of X-47. But from the RFI, it looks like the Navy wants a higher performance aircraft than either of those two options can reasonably provide.

F-16.net Sponsor

More opinion about the F-35 / F/A-XX relationship:

"The Navy has put out a call for a new fighter jet, which could potentially lead to finding a viable alternative to the most expensive jet of all time: the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). As POGO has recommended in the past, replacing certain costly variants of the F-35 could save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. If the Navy successfully finds a new aircraft, it could save even more—even though for now, the agency is denying that it’s actively looking for a replacement to the JSF."

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/0 ... sfail.html

Wait, this "pogo" thinks that starting a whole new development plan as an alternative to the already developed F-35 is going to save money? On what planet?

count_to_10 wrote:

Wait, this "pogo" thinks that starting a whole new development plan as an alternative to the already developed F-35 is going to save money? On what planet?

On the same planet that believes unmanned fighters will be remotely operationally feasible in the next half-century.

southernphantom wrote:

count_to_10 wrote:

Wait, this "pogo" thinks that starting a whole new development plan as an alternative to the already developed F-35 is going to save money? On what planet?

On the same planet that believes unmanned fighters will be remotely operationally feasible in the next half-century.

Aw, come on. At least that might possibly happen, at least to some extent.

count_to_10 wrote:

southernphantom wrote:

count_to_10 wrote:

Wait, this "pogo" thinks that starting a whole new development plan as an alternative to the already developed F-35 is going to save money? On what planet?

On the same planet that believes unmanned fighters will be remotely operationally feasible in the next half-century.

Aw, come on. At least that might possibly happen, at least to some extent.

X-47s, sure. I actually like that concept, and it seems reasonably able to function.

I also don't think that the F/A-XX is an F-35 alternative, per se. I personally suspect that it is intended as the naval F-22 counterpart and the multirole/A2A 'hi' to the F-35's strike-oriented 'lo'.

southernphantom wrote:

I also don't think that the F/A-XX is an F-35 alternative, per se. I personally suspect that it is intended as the naval F-22 counterpart and the multirole/A2A 'hi' to the F-35's strike-oriented 'lo'.

I think the only way it's gonna happen is if it can replace both the F/A-18 and later on the F-22. No way is the Navy gonna get their own air superiority fighter.

F/A-XX is replacement for Super Hornet. Whatever niche the Super hornet fills will be the F/A-XX's role so no, the navy won't be getting an F-22-esque fighter. I personally expect something like an A-12 Avenger with next gen tech if you ask me.

tacf-x wrote:

F/A-XX is replacement for Super Hornet. Whatever niche the Super hornet fills will be the F/A-XX's role so no, the navy won't be getting an F-22-esque fighter. I personally expect something like an A-12 Avenger with next gen tech if you ask me.

The A-12 was a strike fighter -- the role that F-35 if filling. All that's left is air superiority, really. The two pilot thing strongly suggests drone control, though.

Last edited by SpudmanWP on Apr 24, 2012 - 05:00 PM; edited 1 time in total

The A-12 was not meant for A2A as a flying triangle is not very maneuverable, certainly not in the F-16/F-18 territory.

SpudmanWP wrote:

The A-12 was not meant for A2A as a flying triangle is not very maneuverable, certainly not in the F-16/F-18 territory.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was intended to carry two AMRAAMs, but that and subsonic performance does not a fighter make.

If the F/A-XX really is a drone controller, that could be a sign of low confidence in the F-35, and the decision that the USN will only have X(AQ?)-47s, F/A-whatevers, and support birds embarked.

If the F-35 program goes as planned, then the F/A-XX will be an excellent 'hi' to its capability, not to mention offer greater room for expansion than the JSF.

Those were purely for self defense (ie to kill the guy that is in front of you and you have to go through him to get to your target).

At the time there was no EODAS to guide HOBS shots either.

southernphantom wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

The A-12 was not meant for A2A as a flying triangle is not very maneuverable, certainly not in the F-16/F-18 territory.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was intended to carry two AMRAAMs, but that and subsonic performance does not a fighter make.

If the F/A-XX really is a drone controller, that could be a sign of low confidence in the F-35, and the decision that the USN will only have X(AQ?)-47s, F/A-whatevers, and support birds embarked.

If the F-35 program goes as planned, then the F/A-XX will be an excellent 'hi' to its capability, not to mention offer greater room for expansion than the JSF.

By the time the F/A-XX is flying, the F-35 will be getting pretty long in the tooth.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

F/A-XX / F-35 relationship: Complementary or a hedge?