R/I F/A-XX: The U.S. Navy's 6th Generation Strike Aircraft ... In 2035?

I found this interesting so I copied/pasted.



Full story:
"2035, if you started right away, would be your best case IOC [initial
operational capability]," one senior industry official said. "That means
get this AOA started right away."

The Navy is hoping to start an F/A-XX AOA this fall, but there is no set
official start date yet, the industry source noted. The outgoing chief
of naval operations, Adm. Jon Greenert has signed the F/A-XX initial
capabilities document. But the document still has to clear the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council and undergo a Materiel Development
Decision (MDD) Defense Acquisitions Board (DAB) review before an AOA can
formally kick-off. "The DAB has not been scheduled the last I heard,"
the industry official said.

If the Navy managed to get a formal AOA underway this fall, then the
service could enter into a Milestone A technology development phase
somewhere between 2018 and 2019. Following an optimistic timeline, the
F/A-XX program could reach a Milestone B source selection decision in
2025, one industry source said. Then, the engineering and manufacturing
development phase would take about ten years.

That would allow for a 2035 entry into service date for the new
aircraft. But, the industry source cautioned, that's a best-case
scenario. "That's being optimistic," the industry official said. "If you
apply F-22 or F-35 timelines to that, it's even worse."

The problem for the Navy is that by 2035, the service's existing Super
Hornets will have burnt through most of their allotted 6000 hour
airframe lives. The average age of the F/A-18E/F fleet will be more than
25 years old - ancient for a carrier-based strike aircraft.

The F-35C, assuming the Navy buys the its entire allotted number of
aircraft, will only make up half the carrier air wing at that point. If
the current trend continues, the Navy could end up being short by up to
12 fighter squadrons worth of tactical aircraft. That's more than 140
aircraft.

The Navy expects to extend the service lives of the F/A-18E/F fleet to
9000 hours for the entire inventory. But the industry source notes that
the Navy's existing depot maintenance facilities were never intended to
extend the lives of this many aircraft. Extending the life of the entire
Super Hornet fleet is going to be expensive, and moreover, as the jets
age they cost exponentially more to maintain per flight hour. "But even
with a 9000 hour Super Hornet, you don't make it to 2035 with enough of
your inventory," the official said. "There is a still a deficit there."

There is already a massive backlog of jets that need servicing - but
that's a problem that mainly impacts the U.S. Marine Corps' geriatric
classic model Hornet fleet, Navy, Marine Corps and industry officials
agreed. The industry official said that the Navy has avoided much of the
backlog by converting fighter squadrons over to the Super Hornet without
holding any F/A-18E/F airframes back as an attrition reserve.

The industry official said that the Navy should try to keep a hot
production line for tactical fighter aircraft until the F/A-XX, enters
production. "You don't stop producing Super Hornets until you're ready
to produce F/A-XX," the industry official said. "You never go out of
production on a type-model series till whatever is replacing it is ready
to come into production. You certainly can't take a 25-year gap in
production and expect your inventory to survive that long."

It's too early to say what a potential future F/A-XX might look like -
but it is likely to be a family of systems rather than a single
aircraft, Navy and industry officials agreed. It will likely include a
combination of networked standoff weapons, unmanned aircraft, manned or
even an optionally manned aircraft, the industry official said.

What it likely won't include is an ultra long-range, deep penetrating
unmanned bomber, but it might include a handful of very long-range
penetrating intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets to
identify and provide targeting data to the rest of the fleet. "Maybe you
build a new high-end UAV that can get in there and do targeting.
Targeting is your biggest problem, not deep penetrating strike," the
industry official said. "Once you know the target and have a weapons
quality track, you have lot of different options to hit it in an
anti-access environment."

But until the AOA is complete, exactly what form the F/A-XX will take is
an open question. The AOA won't develop a fighter or even the
requirements for the F/A-XX, it will however inform the capabilities
development document from which the request for proposals to industry
will be derived. "That just takes so much time," the official said.
"Best case scenario is a Milestone A in 2019, and if you at the Navy's
budgets that's going to be a hard thing to do."

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest.
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/f-xx-the-us-navys-6th-gene
ration-strike-aircraftin-2035-13896

Vr,
Communications, PMA265

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:The Navy hasn't even fielded the F-35C yet. The F-35 was touted to be "the last manned fighter aircraft." What I am interested in is the evolvement of the UCAV (unmanned combat aircraft). Observe the X-47B below:

Thanks Z, what is troubling is we evidently do not have a NexGen on the drawing board and development takes forever. I suppose in the meantime we will continue to purchase the Super Hornet.

How about another concept. Reduce the current 11 carrier groups down to 7. Mothball four including aircraft with minimal maintenance hours in rotation. The next massive change in warfare is technology which is evolving as we speak. non manned combat will be the rule, and the paradigm of carrier groups developed in wwII make little sense with satellites, missles, and tactical nuclear weapons. All our carrier groups could be gone in a day. We need smaller and less expensive deployment of unmanned fighters and drones and not leave our eggs in 11 baskets. We are the French trying to fight the next war with the tools of wars 70 years ago. Our carrier groups give us a false sense of security. America is incredibly vulnerable under the new paradigm. Cut the military budget drastically and save America.

So Seaoat, we have no downtime for carrier groups under what you propose. That's as stupid as the day is long. Carriers will still be needed even with unmanned aircraft.
It's called power
Projection and if you aren't, your enemy is. China won't stay long at it's projected three
Carriers . Going to seven, as you suggests means we give up our advantage in numbers over china on the
Pacific area.

I believe like Billy Mitchell that the Aircraft Carrier is the new battleship....a relic from past wars which costs far more than the benefit it brings, and the reliance on the same brings great danger to America.  Having only four carriers covering the world works for me as three are being maintained at any time.  I would much rather see smaller platforms relying on unmanned aircraft with less cost and a much wider disbursement which does not allow a tactical nuclear first strike on our carriers.  The British were schooled by a French missile almost thirty years ago off the coast of Argentina.......yet we continue to make tactical arguments that nobody will use tactical nuclear weapons on our carrier groups......what, are we going to do drop nuclear bombs on North Korean civilian centers in response?  We literally have all our eggs in one basket.

Knothead, the hornet is proven and capable over anything out adversaries have at
This time. It's shot down the f35 in multiple practice dogfights. Even the AF will admit this.

Dude the aircraft carrier will just use unmanned ac and within next 25 years. If not all, and DEAD and SEAD aircraft will be unmanned. Drones in the AF are already proving this cape with the former Predator MQ-1 and the replacement Reaper MQ-9.

Obamasucks wrote:Knothead, the hornet is proven and capable over anything out adversaries have at
This time. It's shot down the f35 in multiple practice dogfights.  Even the AF will admit this.

PeeDawg, the point the article emphasizes is the lengthy time to get a concept from design to ready to roll, it amazes me! The Super Hornet is a great platform but our enemies are busily designing their next gens, it is my hope we do not lose the technological edge to adversaries, just sayin' . . . .

I get the point of the article, but your Congress sold its soul for the F35 and it doesn't work. Like Democraps they are gonna sink and swim on it. The Super Hornet is far above anything else the enemy has and just Bwcsuse the Chinese have an F35 lookalike doesn't mean it has same capes. We have already lost on edge with the new Chinese PL-15 missile which the AF is quite worried