General F/A-XX thread

[hornetfinn]

Honestly, I have my doubts the USN will be able to afford the F/A-XX (NGAD) long-term. They just won't have the necessary budget to fund all of the shipbuilding programs plus a 6th Generation Fighter going forward. Especially, as the navy's budget gets tighter and tighter. Which is coming.

I have the same feeling (unfortunately). I think it would be best for USN to put their efforts into F-35C and MQ-25 along with replacing aging ships and buying a lot of weapons like LRASM, JSM, JATM and AIM-174.

[nike77]

Honestly, I have my doubts the USN will be able to afford the F/A-XX (NGAD) long-term. They just won't have the necessary budget to fund all of the shipbuilding programs plus a 6th Generation Fighter going forward. Especially, as the navy's budget gets tighter and tighter. Which is coming...

"IMHO"

And in the meantime, the PLAN continues to improve its naval and air fleets.

If our situation doesn't improve by the 2030s, we might end up with an outdated and non-competitive navy.

[madrat]

You realize the economy behind the PLAN took a nosedive this past 12 months?

[nike77]

You realize the economy behind the PLAN took a nosedive this past 12 months?

And is that suppose to make the delays in our programs A-OK?

Sorry, but it does not.

[disconnectedradical]

An AvWeek article from a few weeks ago that is currently free to read. The parts that I think are interesting:

U.S. Navy Carves Independent Path For Future Fighter Design
8 November 2024

The new carrier-based fighter sought by the U.S. Navy will be affordable, versatile and independent of such Air Force-funded technologies as an adaptive-cycle turbofan engine, yet it still faces fiscal pressures that could delay fielding, a top Navy official tells Aviation Week in a rare, exclusive interview about the secretive project.

Coming during a source selection among Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman for the F/A-XX contract, the comments by Rear Adm. Michael Donnelly, director of the air warfare division in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, further distance the replacement for the Boeing F/A-18E/F and EA-18G from the Air Force’s paused acquisition process for the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) platform.

[...]

In the past decade, however, propulsion plans for the Air Force and Navy have diverged, Donnelly says. The Air Force continues to develop Next-​Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP), the only one of five new technologies confirmed to be funded by the NGAD program. But the industry proposals submitted for the F/A-XX contract are based on older engines that lack the variable bypass flow of adaptive engines.

“We’re looking at more of a derivative-type engine solution,” Donnelly says. “That’s just one example where we probably are different in many ways from the Air Force. In totality, they are two unique programs from an acquisition point of view and also going forward, so we’re relatively independent of each other at this point.”

[...]

The Navy’s independent path could help shield the F/A-XX program from the impact of any decisions about the Air Force’s next fighter.

[...]

A Milestone B decision to launch an engineering and manufacturing development stage remains on track for the end of fiscal 2025, Donnelly says.
“We have to have an affordable platform to make it relevant to our force structure and force design, so we’ve got that in mind,” he says. “We think we’ve got an affordable solution that supports our force structure of the future.”

[...]

The F/A-XX, however, is slated to replace the F/A-18E/F first. The latter entered service with the long-range strike role but switched to air superiority, also known as fleet defense, as the F-35C arrived and the F/A-18C/D retired.

With the Navy expected to select an F/A-XX design next year, officials are looking for another fighter that is optimized for air-to-surface strike roles but still capable of fleet defense.

[...]


That means a future carrier air wing of F-35C and F/A-XX fighters will be composed solely of strike mission-optimized, multirole aircraft, a makeup that Donnelly says will be a strength over separate mission-specific fleets.

“We can’t afford to have a break-glass capability or a really unique single-mission or single-phase-of-operation focus,” he says.

[...]

Early concepts of the F/A-XX released by contractors pointed to an optionally crewed platform, but the Navy requirements settled on a different approach. The aircraft will be designed to be controlled by a human, but the onboard systems will be able to work collaboratively with uncrewed partners, starting with the Boeing MQ-25 Stingray.

“F/A-XX is intended to be a manned platform,” Donnelly says, noting that the “F/A-XX will really be our pivot point from a manned air wing to a hybrid future, with a manned-unmanned air wing.”

Full article: https://aviationweek.com/defense/aircra ... ter-design

[Corsair1963]

I still believe they need to merge the NGAD (USAF) and F/A-XX (USN) 6th Generation Fighter Programs. Even then they may still need additional "partners"

[disconnectedradical]

USN is purposely going for a lower risk design with F/A-XX to try to get a somewhat affordable aircraft in service by the mid-2030s. I'm expecting likely something bigger than the F/A-18E/F and F-35C with empty weight of around 40,000 lbs powered by two enhanced F110s for reduced cost and development schedule. Also, it seems clear that the priorities for USAF and USN are different, F/A-XX is meant to be a multirole strike fighter design from the start, while NGAD is currently meant to be an air superiority fighter with only a secondary focus on multirole strike capability.

That said, there is a possibility that if NGAD ends up failing because of budget or USAF just being indecisive, then F/A-XX may eventually be an option for them, similar to the F-4 Phantom. I don't know if we can say that for sure at this point.

[madrat]

Twin F135 makes more sense on face value. What happened to ADVENT?

[laos]

F-35C internal payload isn't great and also likely doesn't have as much bringback as planned since it has a pretty high landing speed of 147.9 knots, so it failed the carrier landing speed requirement.

Can't the landing weight problem be partially solved with an automatic landing system, a flatter landing profile and lower vertical speed. Plus an F-35 with enlarged wings, which would lower the landing speed and enlarge the range by increasing the volume of the fuel tanks in the wings.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

A flatter landing profile would interfere with the arrester hook operation and increase the odds of ramp strike in weather, that's a non starter, The F-35C already has an enlarged wing, the largest wing on any fighter other than the F-22 and Su-57.

[ricnunes]

F-35C internal payload isn't great and also likely doesn't have as much bringback as planned since it has a pretty high landing speed of 147.9 knots, so it failed the carrier landing speed requirement.

That's a post full of cow pie!

The F-35C carrier landing speed was always planned to be between 135-140 knots and that goal was achieved as one can read from this post on other forum by one of our esteemed forum members (or ex-member?) SpazSinbad:
https://www.pprune.org/7100660-post253.html

Unfortunately the links on the post are down (the post is old) but useful quotes are there that proves that F-35C landing speed is NOT 147.9 knots but instead between 135-140 knots (it met the requirements!) but can be as low as 133 knots!

Also as a bonus, complementing the above:
https://portal.ct.gov/oma/in-the-news/2 ... rd-the-ike


Moreover, since when an internal payload of 2x2000 lb bombs plus 2xAMRAAMs (or similar missiles in the future) isn't great?? Name one fighter-class aircraft that has such internal payload, just one!

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

ooh, I'll need to come back to that prune thread to make sure I have those items quoted

[disconnectedradical]

That's a post full of cow pie!

The F-35C carrier landing speed was always planned to be between 135-140 knots and that goal was achieved as one can read from this post on other forum by one of our esteemed forum members (or ex-member?) SpazSinbad:
https://www.pprune.org/7100660-post253.html

Unfortunately the links on the post are down (the post is old) but useful quotes are there that proves that F-35C landing speed is NOT 147.9 knots but instead between 135-140 knots (it met the requirements!) but can be as low as 133 knots!

Also as a bonus, complementing the above:
https://portal.ct.gov/oma/in-the-news/2 ... rd-the-ike

Again, are you telling me that the 2023 F-35 SAR is lying then??

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Docu ... 202023.pdf
Page 18 clearly states 147.9 knots Vpa at the specified weight, and page 21 explains why.

For the purposes of SDD closeout, 30deg flap was used in the calculations for Vpa even though a decision was made in 2012-2013 timeframe to not have a 30deg TEF (trailing Edge flaps) setting in the aircraft due to Flying Qualities concerns despite the fact that in order to reach the 145kt SDD CV Vpa KPP, 30deg TEF would have been required from an aircraft performance perspective. Since SDD closeout, LM has used the ACTUAL configuration of the aircraft (15deg TEF) to do the Vpa calculations since 30deg TEF isn't a realistic aircraft configuration, which explains why we are not meeting the 145kt SDD KPP with no plan to correct

Obviously, if you’re at a lower landing weight you’ll be at a lower landing speed, but this missed KPP, which likely represents a higher specified landing weight, and the fact that the F-35C missed this requirement represents a lower limit for bringback.

Before accusing me of being incorrect, read the actual report.

[ricnunes]

Obviously, if you’re at a landing weight you’ll be at a lower landing speed, but this missed KPP, which likely represents a higher specified landing weight, represents a lower limit for bringback.

Before accusing me of being incorrect, read the actual report.

And you, read the links above (in my last post).

And the report you posted says:

Demonstrated Performance
12/29/2023

Vpa. Maximum approach speed (Vpa) at required carrier
landing weight (RCLW) of less than 147.9 knots.

You basically imply that it's (always) equal to 147.9 knots (or even more!).

Obviously, (ANY) carrier aircraft will always have bring back limitations. For example the F-14 wasn't even able to land at a carrier with a loadout of 6 x AIM-54 missiles no matter what.
In the case of the F-35 is may require burning some more fuel in order to land with a full weapon payload which is basically what happens with every other carrier-based aircraft (like any variant of the F/A-18, for example)

[disconnectedradical]

Okay, when did I ever imply that it was more than 147.9 knots? And the document clearly said that it missed the 145 knots Vpa at required landing carrier weight. This is much more recent information released less than a year ago.

The point is that the original estimate prior to the 2023 SAR had been 143 knots or less, so the fact that the speed increased to 147.9 knots at RCLW means that its landing with less bringback, and likely less than the Super Hornet, because per the 2012 SAR, it lands at 142 knots Vpa and it has a slightly lower landing weight.

The point is that the F/A-XX may be trying to avoid some of the limitations of the Super Hornet and F-35C.