ComNavOps has long proposed a very long range fighter
aircraft for the Navy. One of the
persistent objections has been that it is physically impossible to achieve the
desired 1000+ nm combat radius (see, "Long Range Carrier Fighter") despite the overwhelming evidence that it is eminently
possible. Well, now it appears that the
military agrees with me as evidenced by the requirements for the new F-47 under
development. Amazingly, for modern
times, at least, the prototype is due for first flight in 2028.
AF wouldn’t be making the claim if they (and industry) didn’t think they could do it. Of course, claims are just that and nothing is proven until demonstrated. However, we have sufficient examples of very long range aircraft from decades ago to expect that today’s more efficient engines and better aerodynamics should deliver the range we want.
We also need to ensure that firepower, speed, stealth, and
maneuverability also join with range to make a truly formidable fighter. Range, alone, will not make an air
superiority fighter … but it’s a good start!
Let’s hope the military doesn’t try to turn the F-47 into a
do-everything, nothing well abomination.
Make it a fighter and leave it alone.
This is encouraging if yet premature.
__________________________________
The Air Force has said the F-47 will have a combat radius of more than 1,000 nautical miles and be capable of flying at speeds greater than Mach 2. That would make the aircraft’s combat radius nearly double that of the F-22.[1]
AF wouldn’t be making the claim if they (and industry) didn’t think they could do it. Of course, claims are just that and nothing is proven until demonstrated. However, we have sufficient examples of very long range aircraft from decades ago to expect that today’s more efficient engines and better aerodynamics should deliver the range we want.
https://redstate.com/wardclark/2026/02/26/air-forces-new-f-47-fighter-hits-stride-for-2028-takeoff-n2199600
"AF wouldn’t be making the claim if they (and industry) didn’t think they could do it."
ReplyDeleteDid this blog get hacked? They always overpromise, especially on price.
I do think this is possible if turbofan powered non-supersonic aircraft with big wings are used, like the Navy C-37 with a range of 7770 miles, but smaller for carriers. You'd have a squadron of these with long-range air-to-air missiles that can hit long range targets. Use F/A-18 squadrons for dogfights. These would also be great for COD and ASW and a bomber (cruise missile or glide bomb carrier)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_G550
I'm sure you noted that I qualified the AF claims by saying, "Of course, claims are just that and nothing is proven until demonstrated."?
DeleteThat aside, there is sufficient proof from past performances to warrant realistic expectations in the claim. The A-6 Intruder was credited with a greater than 1000 mile combat range and that was with 1960's era technology. At the very least, we should be able to produce a fighter equivalent of that and, quite reasonably, we should be able to exceed that with modern, fuel-efficient engines and better aerodynamics. The F-22, which made no attempt to maximize range in its design, is credited with a 750 mile combat radius so we should certainly be able to significantly improve on that. The F-111 is credited with a 3600 mile range. I see no reason why we can't achieve the AF requirements/claims. Of course, we'll wait to see.
"squadron of these with long-range air-to-air missiles that can hit long range targets."
I'm nowhere near convinced that this is a viable approach. The issue, as it so often is, is targeting. How does a C-37-ish aircraft get targeting on stealth and semi-stealth aircraft without being destroyed out of hand since it is hugely non-stealthy? This is where all such schemes fall apart. I'm genuinely curious. How do you envision large, non-stealthy missile carrying aircraft getting target locks at great range? Most sources indicate that targeting on stealthy or semi-stealthy aircraft will not occur beyond 10-40 miles or so. That puts the C-37-ish aircraft in the already dead category.
The modern aerial battlefield will have stealthy and semi-stealthy aircraft roaming the skies. Yes, we have our own stealthy aircraft but that doesn't improve the detection ranges. It only increases the likelihood of their survival, somewhat. As I've stated in the past, modern air combat between stealth aircraft will devolve into visual range combat since neither aircraft will be able to get a target lock at BVR.
"squadron of these with long-range air-to-air missiles that can hit long range targets."
Delete"I'm nowhere near convinced that this is a viable approach. The issue, as it so often is, is targeting."
Sensor denial role? The enemy wants to radiate, we don't want him to radiate. If he ever feels like he can radiate, he will, so we need to make sure an SM-6 adapted for air launch finds him every time he tries his luck. To do that, you need a good number of planes loitering around with SM-6 and passive sensors. Role for large carrier planes?
Or would that be a waste of carrier space? Large drones could do the same mission, or an adapted bomber (a la B-1R or Tu-161).
"The enemy wants to radiate"
DeleteNo, the enemy does NOT want to radiate as that will give away his location.
"we don't want him to radiate"
We'd LOVE for the enemy to radiate.
This is the flashlight analogy. You can see a flashlight user a LOT farther away than he can see you.
"need a good number of planes loitering around with SM-6"
That would be a very unproductive use of aircraft for a very unlikely possibility.
You need to study the entire sensor issue to get a feel for where/when/how sensors will be used in combat. We've discussed this at length, in many posts, over the course of the blog. Feel free to make use of the archives. You might also study sensor usage in WWII as a starting point.
To me, the value of SM-6 is more that it's a swing role weapon. Air launched, it's a very long range AAM capable of swatting large targets, while still be able to maneuver well enough to intercept fighters and ALBMs. It also has a credible role as an antiship weapon: yes, the warhead may be relatively small, but this is a one ton missile impacting in excess of Mach 2, against today's unarmored ships.
DeleteI've seen the test footage of the SM-6 shoot against ex-Jarret. The missile penetrated the bridge and detonated inside CIC. In one blow, the ship is now combat ineffective. The bridge is fucked. Everyone in CIC is dead. Combat systems are down. The ship cannot fight, cannot see, cannot talk, cannot hear.
So by carrying SM-6, you can simplify your missile magazine and your loading for when you send fighters up. (In practice, I believe what will actually happen is that SM-6 and AARGM-ER will be used to generate damaging hits on enemy warships to degrade them so that massed missile strikes with the stealthy subsonic JSM and LRASM have a better chance of making it through.)
"The A-6 Intruder was credited with a greater than 1000 mile combat range and that was with 1960's era technology."
DeleteWas that on internal fuel alone or were drop tanks needed? And, what was the bomb load?
Hey G2mil are you the same as from back in the day for http://g2mil.com/members and did your site get hacked? Is that why your website is no longer up? I got a "The service is unavailable." when I go to your site that I have bookmarked. I also remember when people had to pay to access your G2mil site a long time ago what was it? Ah! I remember it was:
DeleteAccess is $19.95 for six months, or $29.95 for one year.
Anyway to above for the A-6 it is:
POWER PLANT: Two 41.4 kN (9300 lb st) Pratt & Whitney J52-P-408 turbojets. Replacement by two 53.4 kN (12000 lb st) J52-P-409s under study. Max internal fuel capacity 8873 litres (2344 US gallons; 1952 Imp gallons). Provision for up to five external fuel tanks under wing and centreline stations, each of 1135 litres (300 US gallons; 250 Imp gallons) or 1514 litres (400 US gallons; 333 Imp gallons) capacity. Removable flight refuelling probe projects upward immediately forward of windscreen.
"Was that on internal fuel alone or were drop tanks needed? And, what was the bomb load?"
DeleteAs you saw from your quick check of Wiki, "Combat range: 919 nmi (1,058 mi, 1,702 km) hi-lo-hi mission with 6× Mark 83 bombs and 3× drop tanks"
The associated reference citation has more details and mission profiles. Everything you'd want to know without needing to ask.
I'm happy to try to answer more advanced questions but you need to do your own basic research. Thank you.
I'm getting a peculiar feeling of deja vu.
Delete"No, the enemy does NOT want to radiate as that will give away his location."
Which means nothing, inherently. Who cares if we know where he is, if nobody does anything about it? He DOES want to radiate because that's how radar works. It gives away our location, too.
"We'd LOVE for the enemy to radiate.
This is the flashlight analogy. You can see a flashlight user a LOT farther away than he can see you."
That is true. And if you do nothing with that information, then either you just have to stay away from the flashlights, or accept being seen. We do not want either of those outcomes.
What we DO want is to shoot the enemy when he radiates, so that he is convinced he should not radiate. Then, with no fear of being picked up by active sensors, we can act much more freely. The enemy will be inflicting this same process on us.
My suggestion is that AIM-174 would be a good missile for this role. It is fast and very long ranged. If we could use our sensors, which we want to do, then we could use it to target high-value enemy assets in depth. Since we cannot use our sensors, because the enemy doesn't want us to and gets a vote, then I think it's pretty good in the sensor denial role. If the enemy radiates, AIM-174 might be just a few minutes away.
Other missiles might be noticeably inferior in this role. AMRAAM has a significantly shorter range. That means that launch platforms have to be closer to the enemy, an enemy that is blasting a very powerful radar--that might require using stealth platforms to get close enough. It also either increases response time or increases the number of loitering aircraft you need, for hopefully obvious reasons.
Obviously, the enemy will not want to radiate IF and ONLY if he is convinced that radiating will be fatal. Otherwise, he will radiate like crazy and see everything everywhere, the way passing military enthusiasts seem to imagine. Sensor denial is an active process. What missile do you think would be most appropriate? Perhaps I am overestimating the advantage of range offered by AIM-174 over AIM-120.
"I'm happy to try to answer more advanced questions but you need to do your own basic research. Thank you."
DeleteYou might do your readers a better service by qualifying your blank, open-ended statements. You're welcome.
"I'm getting a peculiar feeling of deja vu."
DeleteAs am I. I'm offering you knowledge and you're ignoring it. You're also ignoring the accumulated wisdom of the people who have been there and done that. Not a single military tactician would agree with your view on active emissions. The entire Cold War, for example, was all about EMCON. Odd that both the East and West would be in total agreement about EMCON but you, alone, see it differently.
I'm going to allow this final comment of yours to stand as an example for readers of what's wrong but I won't allow another. There's a difference between an opinion and just being factually, blatantly wrong. I have no problem with varying opinions but ONLY if they're backed up by logic and data which your view is not. As stated in the Comment Policy page, a certain level of knowledge is required to comment and you clearly lack that. I encourage you to study and make use of the archives. Good luck.
"You might do your readers a better service by qualifying your blank, open-ended statements."
DeleteYou might do yourself and readers a service by conducting basic research for yourself. As stated in the Comment Policy page, a certain level of knowledge is required for participation on this blog. I reference anything that I consider not to be general knowledge. The A-6 performance has been around for so many decades that its basic performance specs are assumed to be general knowledge. In addition, the most cursory search readily reveals the information for anyone not already familiar with the A-6. This blog requires its readers to be a cut above the run of the mill blog and that means putting some effort into comments rather than waiting to be spoon fed. Now, go do some research!
@Anonymous
DeleteI recently let G2mil.com go down as I focus my efforts at YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvq3YadD2uIFb7cFLbTtmFw/videos
People read less and less and videos are fun since clips can be used. G2mil focused on making our military more effective and less costly, but no one in DC cares about that anymore. For example, I posted a recent video about our US Navy's insanity of basing warships in Japan. No one disputes this, but nothing will happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mud4GSFNf7o
Hey G2mil as one of your former fans and readers I want to let you know that not all your pages are on web archive systems like for example below on base defenses:
Deletehttp://g2mil.com/concertina.htm
I know because I tried to enter some of your pages on web archive sites like below and yes there were pages archive but not all:
https://web.archive.org/
To be fair maybe it was a members only thing and as one of your former paying readers I had access to stuff that were not achieved, if so maybe you, G2mil, should archive them yourself, thank you so I can look them up again for future reference. And I do read or have read your sites and look you up often at least when you, G2mil, were up.
Also to be fair nowadays there are people who from the amazing American education system who graduated school but can not read or write like below for example. So try to archive your G2mil pages that were not archived yet but G2mil's former paying members (like myself) can reference them again as I have them bookmarked so people can practice reading skills so we do not end up like below:
HARTFORD, Conn. (CNN) - A Connecticut college student is suing the Hartford Board of Education and the city of Hartford for negligence.
Nineteen-year-old Aleysha Ortiz says she graduated from high school with honors and earned a college scholarship, but she can’t read or write.
Ortiz graduated from the Hartford Public Schools system last year, but she says she is now illiterate and still doesn’t know how to read or write.
https://www.kktv.com/2025/02/28/former-high-school-honors-student-who-says-she-cant-read-write-sues-district-where-she-graduated/
This relates to Navy matters because of one of the former post below from the discussion on F-35C ramp strike:
What is the proper lesson from this incident? It’s that we should either eliminate automated landing aids (and GPS and other dependencies!) from aircraft or restrict their use to emergency or extreme hazardous weather conditions.
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2023/02/f-35c-ramp-strike-lesson.html
To which our U.S. Navy have taken the opposite approach as shown below:
But in a major change to how the service trains aviators, the Navy recently revamped their flight training curriculum so that pilots now graduate from flight school and receive their “Wings of Gold” — the Navy’s formal name for flight wings — without actually landing on an aircraft carrier.
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/navy-aircraft-carrier-landings-requirement/
https://simpleflying.com/us-navy-pilots-training-no-longer-need-land-aircraft-carrier-graduate/
https://www.navytimes.com/newsletters/2025/09/02/carrier-landings-no-longer-required-for-navy-pilots-wings-of-gold/
https://avbrief.com/carrier-landings-no-longer-required-for-navy-marine-pilots/
Which makes me wonder if the... how should I type this nicely? Illiterate fools? Idiot pilots really knows how to use our weapons, fighter jets or otherwise and also to another below on G-rating. It seems to me that the F-35 can in fact maneuver harder that the official statistics suggested but are limited by software as shown below:
Buffeting and the reduced maneuverability caused by the associated control law software “fixes” featured prominently in the now famous example of the F-35 losing 17 dogfights to a 35-year-old, heavily laden F-16. In non-technical terms, the software fixes that provided a smoother ride for the pilot and lessened the uncommanded wing drop also limited his ability to turn hard enough to get away from an enemy plane on his tail. Similarly, when the F-35 finds itself on the enemy’s tail, the same fixes limit his ability to turn hard enough to keep up with an enemy plane trying to get away.
https://www.pogo.org/investigates/f-35-still-failing-to-impress
And what I really fear is below because a pilot may try to get more out of their F-35 and get some hacks also attached:
https://www.twz.com/air/f-35-software-could-be-jailbreaked-like-an-iphone-dutch-defense-minister
I will try to load up G2mil at a free hosting website so it stays up forever.
Delete"I posted a recent video about our US Navy's insanity of basing warships in Japan. No one disputes this, but nothing will happen."
DeleteI just watched the video you linked.
I have to say that I don't agree with most of the points that are made there. (Although the need for more Pacific bases is an excellent one, the Japanese ports will likely be too hot for use once the shooting starts in earnest.)
The next two posts will be a sort of re-hash of something I had already posted here a few months ago.
Lutefisk
Where to position our ships during peacetime?
DeleteI agree strongly in CNO's concept that the navy should end deployments and train for combat by sending task forces on simulated wartime types of missions. CNO also feels that a carrier battle group should be 4 carriers. I would settle for three, but the point is that they shouldn't be working singly during wartime.
But if that is the practice, where do you station your fighting ships?
The safest place would be away from the western Pacific.
But if you homeport them in Hawaii, that's 3800 miles from Tokyo (just to pick a destination). That is a week of sailing at 20 knots simply to get across the Pacific.
If it's San Diego instead, that is 5600 miles, or a week and a half at 20 knots.
That is spending a lot of precious training time simply plowing furrows in the ocean.
So where to put them?
Guam appears to be too small to homeport significant naval forces.
I wouldn't mind having a naval base on Mindanao, but that would require a LOT of infrastructure build out to keep a quantity of capital ships and their escorts.
Australia? They might as well be at Pearl Harbor.
Japan is the obvious choice.
They are one of our closest allies and they have phenomenal ship maintenance infrastructure. The Japanese also have a deep seated tradition of despising the Chinese, and the Chinese reciprocate.
If diplomatically possible, I would station three aircraft carriers and their escorts in Japan.
Of course they wouldn't be sitting in 'aircraft carrier row' like 1941 Pearl Harbor battleships. They would be in separate locations, places like Yokosuka, Osaka, Nagoya and Sendai.
This kind of forward deployment is not unprecedented to meet a threat.
We seem to forget that in the 1980s we had approximately 300,000 troops stationed in West Germany right across the border from the Warsaw Pact forces, and their families were PCS'd there as well.
(I think that the idea that US Navy sailors in Japan would desert in the face of the enemy is both offensive and ridiculous.)
The three aircraft carriers would be well positioned to do mission style training in the area of operations without wasting enormous amounts of time transiting the breadth of the Pacific Ocean.
It would also be beneficial to cementing our alliance and training with the Japanese forces and specifically their navy.
Lutefisk
So what about war with China?
DeleteA good peace time practice would be to have at least one of the carriers on a training mission the majority of the time. The forward deployed forces should be on a higher state of readiness, just like our forces were that were stationed in the Fulda Gap in cold war West Germany.
That would take away some of the risk of all three of the carriers getting caught in port.
Of course, the far and away most likely scenario that we would face in a naval war with China would be an invasion of Taiwan.
The analysis that I've seen estimate that it would take 30 days for the Chinese to pull together their assets for an amphibious assault on Taiwan.
To me that seems a little bit short. A cross-strait invasion would be on a scale very similar to Normandy. Think about the size of that operation, 30 days would be a herculean logistical accomplishment to stage an operation of that size.
But suppose the 30 days number is accurate. That is plenty of lead-time for the carriers in Japan to assume a wartime footing.
What if the Chinese launch a surprise attack, a ballistic missile Pearl Harbor, against our carriers in Japan?
Well, the first consequence is that they will have launched a surprise attack against three separate Japanese cities. That is all-out war, and they are not likely to get an empathetic response from the rest of the world (which they need to support their export driven economy).
But what if they hit a grand-slam homerun and knock out three American aircraft carriers in Japanese ports?
Well, then they can possibly break out of the first island chain and then....and then....what?
I suppose they could start putting together their Taiwan invasion without the nuisance of any local American aircraft carriers.
Maybe attack the Philippines? Okinawa? Singapore? None of those seem all that plausible.
But losing those three aircraft carriers, while it would hurt mightily, would not cripple our military or those of our allies.
And the surprise nature of the attack would galvanize both the American people and the world at large against China in the upcoming war.
It would be the very definition of a pyrrhic victory for the CCP.
Lutefisk
Well, it looks like the middle post didn't make it.
DeleteLutefisk
Where to position our ships during peacetime?
DeleteI agree strongly in CNO's concept that the navy should end deployments and train for combat by sending task forces on simulated wartime types of missions. CNO also feels that a carrier battle group should be 4 carriers. I would settle for three, but the point is that they shouldn't be working singly during wartime.
But if that is the practice, where do you station your fighting ships?
The safest place would be away from the western Pacific.
But if you homeport them in Hawaii, that's 3800 miles from Tokyo (just to pick a destination). That is a week of sailing at 20 knots simply to get across the Pacific.
If it's San Diego instead, that is 5600 miles, or a week and a half at 20 knots.
That is spending a lot of precious training time simply plowing furrows in the ocean.
So where to put them?
Guam appears to be too small to homeport significant naval forces.
I wouldn't mind having a naval base on Mindanao, but that would require a LOT of infrastructure build out to keep a quantity of capital ships and their escorts.
Australia? They might as well be at Pearl Harbor.
Japan is the obvious choice.
They are one of our closest allies and they have phenomenal ship maintenance infrastructure. The Japanese also have a deep seated tradition of despising the Chinese, and the Chinese reciprocate.
If diplomatically possible, I would station three aircraft carriers and their escorts in Japan.
Of course they wouldn't be sitting in 'aircraft carrier row' like 1941 Pearl Harbor battleships. They would be in separate locations, places like Yokosuka, Osaka, Nagoya and Sendai.
This kind of forward deployment is not unprecedented to meet a threat.
We seem to forget that in the 1980s we had approximately 300,000 troops stationed in West Germany right across the border from the Warsaw Pact forces, and their families were PCS'd there as well.
I find the idea that if Japan was attacked that US Navy sailors would desert in the face of the enemy both offensive and ridiculous.
The three aircraft carriers would be well positioned to do mission style training in the area of operations without wasting enormous amounts of time transiting the breadth of the Pacific Ocean.
It would also be beneficial to cementing our alliance and training with the Japanese forces and specifically their navy.
Lutefisk
This post comes before the China war post. ^
DeleteLutefisk
Given that carrier fighter aircraft have a heavier empty weight compared to their land-based cousins (the F-35C empty weight is about 10 higher than that of the F--35A), that makes the task even more challenging. The extra weight also makes carrier fighters less maneuverable.
ReplyDeleteThe F-35C is heavier because it's a bigger aircraft. Duh.
DeleteManeuverability is not a function of weight. For example, the F-22 is the same weight as the F-14 Tomcat but far more maneuverable. The F-22 is much heavier than the F-18E/F yet far more maneuverable.
True, the C has a larger wing and heavier landing gear which is generally required when adopting land-based aircraft for carrier based operations. But, that doesn't change the fact that carrier aircraft will always be penalized in range and maneuverability by carrying that extra weight compared to land based aircraft
DeleteYet, the F-35A is rated at +9g and the F-35C at 7 5g.
Delete"carrier aircraft will always be penalized in range and maneuverability by carrying that extra weight compared to land based aircraft"
DeleteGood grief! Aircraft range and maneuverability are determined by what they're designed for, not weight. The heaviest carrier aircraft ever, the A-3 Skywarrior, also had the greatest range, by far.
You're attempting to argue for the sake of arguing and that's not what this blog is about. Contribute something worthwhile or cease commenting.
"g"
DeleteG-rating is dependent on a host of factors, structural integrity being a key one. Weight is not a significant factor. I'm growing tired of this.
Force = mass x acceleration.
DeleteSo yeah weight kind of matters wrt G-loading.
"So yeah weight kind of matters wrt G-loading."
DeleteNo. Some simple thought experiments demonstrate the fallacy in this. An aircraft traveling at a constant speed experiences g-force when turning despite no acceleration. From your simple equation, F would equal zero since acceleration is zero. Similarly, if your equation applied, for a given mass and acceleration an aircraft would experience constant force regardless of the turning radius and we know this is not the case. And so on.
You've taken a simple equation and misapplied it.
Oh good lord. This is completely assinie.
Delete'G-loading' is literally the ratio of lift to weight.
"An aircraft traveling at a constant speed experiences g-force when turning despite no acceleration."
DeleteMinor quibble. Or maybe not so minor. Former physics student here. Note that F=MA is a VECTOR equation. Velocity and acceleration are both vectors. Speed is a scalar but the actual equation is for vectors. A change in a vector can either be a change in the magnitude (as in increasing or decreasing speed) OR a change in the direction (as in turning).
So yes, when the plane turns, there IS an acceleration, which happens to be perpendicular to the direction of travel so the speed does not change.
So one implication of the equation is that it will require more force to produce the same turn if the plane is heavier. Presumably through larger control surfaces. Not sure whether this is the point that hokie was trying to make.
Delete"G-rating is dependent on a host of factors, structural integrity being a key one. Weight is not a significant factor. I'm growing tired of this."
DeleteWithout getting too technical,
G-loading is a margin of safety factor that is directly related to an aircraft or a missile's ability to turn due to, depending on your frame of reference, centripital or centrifugal force acting on the aircraft or missile. Forces that have to be overcome in order for an aircraft or missile to maneuver. The pesky laws of physics state that centripital and centrifugal force is directly proportional to the mass of an object. Hence, the more an object weighs, the more mass it has.
In short, you want a fighter with high g-loading to outmaneuver another fighter in a dogfight or evade an incoming missile. And, it should be obvious why surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles are capable of 30 to 60g maneuvers.
Fuel Fraction is the key. Get rid of an engine (remember the A-4, A-7, and F-16, they had/have good safety records from engine reliability). Get rid of the high speed requirement (who fires a missile at Mach 2? Having to race out to meet the threat means you have been surprised and are screwed already.). Get rid of every once of nice to haves. Make Radars smaller, (we have control aircraft to vector fighters in.) god knows they should be much lighter than the 900 lb F-4 Radar. Get rid of the 2nd seat (if you need 2 seats it is too complicated). That is how you get to 1000 mile combat radius.
ReplyDeleteConsider that the 1960's era A-6 had two engines, two seats, one or two large radars (don't know the exact weights), large heavy avionics, etc. and still managed a 1000+ mile combat radius. As with so many things today, we've forgotten what we could once do and we're making this harder than it is.
DeleteAs usual you make a good point , we do forget what we did do or can do in the blind quest for higher, faster, bigger, carry more technology. However you make one of my points, the A-6 was not designed for Mach 2. It was a relatively slow (475 mph max cruise speed) and steady bomber that wasn't designed for stealth, large radar dish, etc. You want a long range fighter make it a skinny lady not a fat lady.
DeleteI am interested in your take on why the Navy thinks 2 engines, two pilots are required. A seat is what 2,000 ibs of weight not counting the airframe strech? An F-18 engine is 2,200 - 2,400 lbs in weight. Make most of that that fuel and you really boost your range.
"why the Navy thinks 2 engines"
DeleteMy assumption is the obvious, that two engines ensure survival over water if one fails. However, I've never seen any documentation to support that assumption. It's just my common sense take on it.
It is also possible (again, no documentation) that the Navy feels two engines aid in take offs? Can be done with one but safer with two? Pure speculation.
" Make most of that that fuel and you really boost your range."
And cut your thrust in half unless you can find a single engine THAT FITS THE SPACE and delivers twice the thrust. Personally, I'd rather sacrifice a little bit of range for greater instantaneous thrust in combat. Again, pure speculation.
"two pilots are required. "
I don't think the Navy believes that, at all. The F-18A/C/E are all single pilot and the B/D/F are the all-weather/night versions which, presumably increase the task load a bit beyond one pilot.
The F-18F Super Hornet inherited the 2nd man because these were F-14 crews that were converting. The Tomcat needed a dedicated RIO to work the radar.
DeleteIn the Rhino, the second man does a lot of work for strike ops so the pilot can focus on flying and dogfighting. The F-35 has a lot of automation of the 2nd man's tasks so that it can be performed by a single pilot.
Twin engines over water is Navy preference, but he Navy has operated single engine aircraft before, such as the A-4, F-8, and A-7.
CNO come on. I am not saying cut the thrust in half for the same weight aircraft. I am saying deisgn the aircraft for one engine and keep the fuel fraction constantly up front to keep the range up. But since the Navy has no weight design disipline, as evidenced by the over weight budget ships they keep developing, it will take a NAVAIR Rickover (or Col Boyd) to design this thing. Design around one engine, one crew, small radar. The Navy only got the F-18 because of Col Boyd, so I would follow his approach so we avoid another F-35.
DeleteWhat's the value in a small fighter for the Navy? As much as I like the Hornet, it is very clearly disadvantaged in the strike radius due to its smaller size. It's quite telling that the Super Hornet is some 25% larger, and the F-35 carries almost twice as much internal fuel as the F-18.
DeleteIt's also worth noting that even with AESA radars, smaller radars are disadvantaged vs larger radars because of their smaller antenna and lower power. The F-18 for much of its life had the superior radar to the F-16 (which started life in the first blocks as a radarless day fighter).
"Consider that the 1960's era A-6 had two engines, two seats, one or two large radars (don't know the exact weights), large heavy avionics, etc. and still managed a 1000+ mile combat radius."
DeleteIts amazing what you can do with drop tanks? Drop tanks, being light weight and having a large internal volume, can significantly increase an aicraft's fuel fraction. And, as we all, according to the Breguet range equation, all things being equal, an aircraft's range is proportional to the natural logarithm of the initial weight divided by it's final weight.
Did I miss something? I though from the comment below by our site blog author:
ReplyDeleteComNavOpsJanuary 30, 2023 at 2:10 PM
"a true flying death machine that does what it is designed to do, very long range interception."
And ... it's already a failure. The next gen aircraft is NOT going to be an air superiority fighter. It's going to be a do-everything strike-figher with ISR and EW thrown in for good measure. It's going to be exactly what's wrong with the F-35 - well, one of the things, at any rate.
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2023/01/long-range-carrier-fighter-f-22-f-15.html
Of course I may have missed an announcement or an update somewhere and if so enlighten me thank you.
Anyway it seems to me at least the F-47 is for the Air Force only and the one planned for the navy is on "life support" as below claimed. Also I at least do find below interesting in that:
Could the Navy survive and thrive long-term with an upgraded F-35C and no F/A-XX? There are several variables to consider with this; however, an upgraded F-35C could potentially encounter range limitations in the Pacific theater.
The F-35C maxes out at a range of 1,300 miles, which can limit its ability to project power without a non-stealthy tanker across vast expanses of the Pacific theater.
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/12/the-navys-f-a-xx-fighter-is-officially-on-life-support/
"Did I miss something?"
DeleteProbably. I'm speculating on the next gen fighter since it doesn't yet exist. I'm quite confident that the military will do what it always does and try to make the aircraft a do-everything abomination. If, by some miracle, they keep the focus on air superiority than they have the possibility of a good aircraft. The range specs mentioned in this post are a good sign but we'll see.
So ... seems clear enough. What are you missing?
I think Anonymous above is missing how the next generation fighter would be useful for the navy. From what was posted it seems to be Air Force only and sadly the leadership seem... lacking to make it a truly great Navy fighter.
DeleteOk here are some ideas it may be useful to help educate and feel free to correct me if I am wrong. The good news is that the Naval version of the Sixth generation fighter is being accelerated for the U.S. Navy as shown below:
https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/aerospace-news/2026/u-s-navy-accelerates-f-a-xx-sixth-gen-fighter-to-counter-chinas-long-range-missile-threat
Now as noted below we (as in the United States) are ahead of China in technology despite Chinese propaganda claiming otherwise:
‘But even if we give China the benefit of every doubt and assume its hardware and software is every bit as capable as the systems found in America’s top-tier fighters, that would still place China roughly four years behind America’s 6th gen fighter efforts in the best of circumstances.”
And this was before the F-47 was announced.
Jack Buckby wrote last fall, “The gap between America’s classified demonstrator flights and China’s public prototypes suggests that Washington may have a head start in technology maturity.
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2026/01/chinas-new-j-36-stealth-fighter-has-a-message-for-f-47-ngad-youre-years-behind/
Now it may be that we are going to be very equal (and even superior as China may have been just copying our leaked plans thus keeping the U.S. ahead) and the biggest setback to the United States' naval version may be to have carriers designed and built for it for, if the F-35 is any guide, as shown below. Now I hope this time the Navy learned and future carriers will be designed with the Sixth Generation Naval Fighter in mind to not need costly modifications like below:
The issue with building the Ford carriers with F-35 capability has hung over both programs as they have struggled to work through a litany of issues that have caused each to be years behind schedule and billions over budget.
Navy officials and analysts have said the service couldn’t wait for the F-35 to be ready before work started on the carriers, so they moved ahead with the idea that modifications could be made once the aircraft was fleshed out and operational.
While both Nimitz and Ford-class aircraft carriers can operate with F-35Cs aboard, significant modifications are required for both classes to fly and sustain the aircraft for extended periods. The ships require the capability to push and fuse all the data the F-35s can generate, along with building additional classified spaces, new jet blast deflectors and other refits. Room also needs to be made for Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, which will replace the Navy’s C-2A Greyhound fleet that cannot haul the F-35’s heavy engines out to the ship.
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/11/navy-to-congress-heres-your-f-35c-carrier-how-do-we-pay-for-it/
Now we know that China has been actively stealing or trying to access deck plans from F-35 operations as shown below:
Wei was assigned to USS Essex (LHD-2) and, according to the indictment, sent technical manuals and other export-controlled information to a Chinese intelligence officer – including details of the upgrade that will allow the big-deck amphibious warship to field Marine F-35B Lighting II Joint Strike Fighters. Essex is in the midst of a multi-million renovation following its 2022 deployment.
“The intelligence officer continued to request information in 2023, including information about the overhaul and upgrades to the Essex. Specifically, he requested blueprints, especially those related to modifications to the flight deck. Wei provided information related to the repairs the Essex was undergoing, as well as other mechanical problems with similar vessels,” reads a statement from the Department of Justice.
https://news.usni.org/2023/08/10/spying-targets-point-to-chinese-interest-in-amphibious-warfare-experts-say
It is also likely China's electromagnetic catapults have similar if not more problems that our own versions and thus leading to break even for both the United States and and China naval fleets.
Delete"It is also likely China's electromagnetic catapults have similar if not more problems that our own versions and thus leading to break even for both the United States and and China naval fleets."
DeleteYou lost me on this. The designs are completely different with the Chinese version having some potential advantages like not having to take the entire system down to fix a problem. I like the idea of DC with SuperCaps rather than AC with flywheels. If you get significant damage anywhere near those flywheels during combat I would not want to be standing next to one...
"Let’s hope the military doesn’t try to turn the F-47 into a do-everything, nothing well abomination."
ReplyDeleteGiven China has been flying two 6th gen prototypes - J-36 and J-50, there are heavy pressure for F-47 to beat them in functionality. China has two thus able to split priorities for each but F-47 has to be able to do everything but there is no official information on F-47 designs yet. Let's wait first prototype to make judgement.
Let's understand that both the J-36 and J-50 are purely developmental, prototype units that do not exist in service so let's not go crediting the Chinese with anything just yet. This is not a Chinese propaganda site.
DeleteTotally different direction for this question than the comments so far, but I've not found a credible answer. We talk about range, say 1000 miles. How long to expect the plane to loiter out at that range, if at all?
ReplyDeleteTypically 20-30 minutes, but for the sake of clarity it needs to be clearly defined in the specification.
DeleteGenerally if you're operating that far out, the only aircraft that are loitering would be tankers, MPA and AEW, which have the fuel reserves to fly out a thousand miles and loiter for several hours.
DeleteWith a strike flown at a 1000 mile range, it really ought to be one pass and haul ass. Get to the IP, release weapons, RTB. You want to minimise your time spent lingering in the combat zone.
“An aircraft traveling at a constant speed experiences g-force when turning despite no acceleration.”
ReplyDeleteThis is incorrect. Acceleration is change in velocity, not speed, and velocity has a directional component so changing direction causes acceleration.