The Navy Kicks off the Search for Its Next Fighter

Speaking of F/A-XX, the Navy’s planned 6th generation fighter that will replace the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, below you’ll find the Navy’s brand new Request for Information on the aircraft. By Brand new, I mean it just dropped on Friday.

Whatever jet is selected will hopefully replace the Super Hornets around 2030, said Rear Adm. Donald Gaddis this afternoon at the Navy League’s annual Sea, Air, Space conference in National Harbor, Md. Before the Navy can settle on the final capabilities such a plane will have, it needs to know what types of technology the defense  industry can bring to the table for a brand new fighter that will be fielded in less than two decades, said Gaddis. The new jet must be able to survive in anti-access environment, have next-gen sensors and maybe even the ability to ‘buddy’ refuel other fighters and perform airborne early warning (AEW) duties, according to Gaddis.

Here’s what the actual RfI says the service wants in the new jet:

The intent of this research is to solicit Industry inputs on candidate solutions for CVN based aircraft to provide multi-role capability in an A2AD operational environment. Primary missions include, but are not limited to, air warfare (AW), strike warfare (STW), surface warfare (SUW), and close air support (CAS). Also consider the ability of your concept to provide other capabilities currently provided by strike fighter aircraft, such as organic air-to-air refueling (AAR), Tactical Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition (RSTA), and airborne electronic attack (AEA). The trade space refinement activity will characterize a broad tradespace, to include unmanned, optionally manned and manned aircraft. System attributes and system capabilities will be considered in the context of cost and affordability. Concepts that are derived from legacy aircraft, “clean sheet” new design aircraft, as well as innovative technology concepts specifically tailored for the operational context are all relevant. Please provide a separate white paper for each technology concept or family of related and complementary technology concepts; multiple white papers may be provided.

In any case, the Navy’s going to be studying the available technologies to build the Super Hornet replacement — that may well still be manned — for years since it will have such a big impact on the makeup of the 21st Century carrier air wing, according to Gaddis.

Click through the jump for the RfI.

Navy FA-XX_RFI[1]

29 Comments on "The Navy Kicks off the Search for Its Next Fighter"

  1. They should cancel the F-35C before doing this! It makes no sense! We haven't even replaced our Legacy Hornets with an acceptable 5th generation aircraft!

    This is despiyte the fact that the Super Hornet is an acceptable replacement for our Legacy Hornets: http://www.scribd.com/doc/88946660/Why-the-USN-an

  2. This is the absolute dumbest RFI of all time. Could they possibly be more ambigious? Manned, Unmanned, optionally manned, clean sheet, legacy derivative, tanker, bomber, fighter, AE, EA…..sounds like the navy wants a mix of an f-18, b1, kc135, c130, harrier, and ekronoplane…no wonder why every government program takes so long. What a waste of resources spending time on this goose chase.

  3. The idea of multi mission ability is nice on paper. In practice, leads to a plane like the F/A-18. A jack of all trades but sadly master of none. The mixed air group worked fine for most of the last 100 years. I would rather have a good tanker, EW or attack plane. Than one that does of a little of everything, but not well.

  4. AHHH NO NOT AGAIN!!!…Wait were's stealth on that list? Nowhere? Well, this might just be feasible. First bit of good news about Acquisition I've heard all week. As lone as that 6th generation junk I heard was just concept.

    Seriously, is it that hard to make a Aircraft that is relatively easy to maintain/produce AND has more brains than the laptop I'm typing on? And does it have to be stealth? Okay, masking IR sigs is important (and feasible?), but can't we just focus on jamming scrambling, and other electronic warfare? Is stealth really that important, when most perspective flashpoint countries operate 3rd-4th gen fighters. When defense grids could be taken down and national secrets stolen by a room full of computer ner… erm, "specialists", we still sunk 1 tril+ into a blatantly over-budget program. And it's starting to nibble in our hindquarters.

  5. Hey I've got an idea, lets combine this with a plane to replace the USAF's F22 and we can have some trusted international allies buy in as well. The increased buy, and multi-service use will keep down sustainment costs and lower the per unit price….HAHAHAHAAHAHA. Couldn't help myself……

  6. Whatever they do, don't let Lockheed Martin win the contract or it won't be in service till 2045 and it will cost $1 billion per plane.

  7. Plus I dont see any new program outside of DDG-1000 happening due to BIG cuts coming yet the idiots in the DoD kept spending money like they think it grows on trees. We dont even have a 5th gen fighter in Navy service or not many in Air Force service and now they want to skip that and goto a 6th gen fighter. After cuts hit and sequestration hits how do they expect to pay for this???? They cant understand that outside of one major program per service there wont be money for anything else, they said this last month now it like nothing ever happened. Time to slap sense into the government all over get the 5th gen fighter online fist and then get the budget fixed then ten years from now look into a new plane.

  8. I rarely make cynical comments…but this is ridiculous. Again. They are going to try to make a plane that does absolutely everything. With how many lines of code? We need more dedicated aircraft, IMHO. Military cuts? No doubt. But around 100 A-10s? Can anyone see an F-22 or F-35 performing the down and dirty work of a Warthog? Please.

  9. I say we just go straight for 7th gen. 6 gen is for pussies!

  10. why not just build a stealth AWAC and let the stealth drones carry the bombs/missiles so the AWAC can have constant supply of firepower and can loiter around battlefield much longer, higher and further away from danger?

  11. this is super crazy…. keep this up and other might overtake

  12. Sigh….. They're just asking for some ideas, they aren't flat-out buying a paper (blueprint only) plane yet. They're kicking around the idea because our fleet is aging, albeit slowly as we upgrade and refurbish everything. Hell, it's 2012, it's the year 2000, let's do something fun!

  13. The Navy's stupidity knows no bounds. They want something that will loiter well and handle big loads, and will be a great fighter? Yeah, no problem. There's plenty of overlap on mission capability there. One's a fast mover with a razor thin wing and the other is a slow mover with a thick subsonic wing. Oh sure, one airplane can do all of that poorly or not at all.

    Hell, if they'd have gone for the Common Support Aircraft (CSA) proposal Lockheed made in the 1990s, and even then Lockheed had a hard time coming up with a better plane for carrier based anti-submarine warfare, STW, AAR, RSTA, and AEA than the C-2 Greyhound. The original version of the C-2, the E-2 already handles the airbone early warning mission. I always thought if Lockheed's proposal had been a reduced signature or stealthy vehicle for CSA, they'd have gotten a lot farther. At least that would have brought something new to the carrier. As it was, their lies about how a turbofan airplane was going to out loiter a turboprop sounded pretty good until they got caught by someone who knew something about aircraft.

  14. Our largest prospective threat militarily has been killing us off with lead, mercury, asbestos, low-grade radiation and choking hazards 25 cents at a time from gumball machines for the last 30 years. Doubt a 6th Gen aircraft will be able to defeat that.

  15. More money down the hole when we haven't even ironed out the F35 problems.

  16. Where is the money coming from to fund these Mr.Navy and Air Force?

  17. Folks, [nothing happens] until the economy is turned around and hopefully it will with the next election!!!

  18. They should put in there the ability to transform into a robot, and must have a kitchen sink.

  19. The Navy has spent more money publishing RFP and RFI than actually buying aircraft. There's the NATF and A-12 that readily come to mind. Millions of dollars later – no hardware. Guess what – STOP guilding the lily and find a cheap, capable airframe for each type of jet needed. Instead we have the F-18 on the deck and the F-35 waiting to come aboard. Each of these were supposed to be fighters, interceptors, and bombers – all in one package. Which means they don't excell in any one phase of warfare but they do put an airframe over target. The outcome is another matter that mostly counts on the pilot training to win the battle.

  20. It sounds like they are requesting an F-35 (as its supposed to work anyway). The 35 is supposed to be a super networked aircraft, meaning a baby AWACs. Its stealthy-ish and I think it can buddy fuel. The 35 is supposed to be what is in this RFI. So why are we asking again? Is confidence low in the 35? I wonder why.

    But really it would be much cheaper to saturate the air with jamming and use sensible LO characteristics that don't turn the plane into a hanger queen. While they are at it, bringing back the Vikings (or a modernized version) for basic sea control, tanking and patrol work would go a long way to preserving the lifespan of the pointy noses too.

  21. Gee, and here I was believing that the F-35 was being built for this very issue. We haven't even got that dog up and running, and the Navy wants another new toy? HOW exactly are you Navy types going to fund this dream?

  22. We seem to have concept sketches generated with today's outlook of what the future will require. With that in mind then China and Russia will be copying what they see and having to counter by 2030 and wind up with equal to equal equipment by then. I hope we have something a bit more advanced than what we are showing. Maybe with something like a flying saucer propelled on electromagnetic waves and pilotless so the craft can turn or move up and down without killing the pilot; therefore pilotless. Maybe even invisible.

    To give an example, my brother has a garden hose nozzle that is placed in a specific part of a garden that is locatable by GPS and can sense when that hose should turn on and sends a signal to activte the valve and shuts it off depending on the moisture content of the soil at the nozzle end. So by 2030 I would rest assured that GPS will by then be accurate enough to launch an aircraft and do everything it will be capable of doing; even dogfighting if need be without a pilot by then.

    Ya thank!

  23. I guess I'm just old fashioned. So flog me if I'm incorrect. A "Jack of all Trades" is a very complicated piece of equipment. I'm a Viet Vet and a former menber of the A-6 community, so I have some experience in these affairs. We are told it is too expensive to field a specific airframe for each discipline. Then spend billions attempting to produce a compromise that will be semi-capable in all of the required areas. By the way…, where are we with the f-35 ???

  24. stephen russell | April 17, 2012 at 8:30 pm | Reply

    New names for plane: Bearcat 2, Panther 2, Hellcat 2, Puma, Buckaneer?, Cutlass,

  25. Why develop a plane when there is one on its way already. It kind of defeats the purpose of the F/35

  26. From what I can see , whats takes so long is that they spec these things and then hang around waiting for the tech to mature to the point that they can implement them, and with BAE and Lockheed waiting to extract every pork barrel cent they can out of you guys thats a recipe for disaster. Just build an updated version of say the F-15, with better materials and Avionics but a lot cheaper than the F-22. What you can't outfly, you will out number to the point that any slight superioty is negated.

    Its what the USN with the Wildcat and then the Bearcat in WW2.

  27. I read an article written on here that the only plane better at air-ground than the F-22 was the F-35, and the only plane better at air-air than the F-35 was the F-22. I think the Navy doesn't like having a true Air-Air fighter like they use to with the F-14. So they will get the 6th Generation fighter that will be used for mainly an Air-Air role with extensive air-ground capabilities, but designed as an air-air first just like the F-22.

    Remember that China and Russia both have 5th generation fighters coming very soon, and depending on how they perform, the US needs to be a step ahead of those 2 militaries.

  28. IOC of 2030, really ?? That's about when F-35C will reach IOC at the rate they are going. Speaking of F-35C, they need to terminate that turkey before it destroys Naval Aviation. F-35C is going to continue to escalate in price leaving no money for a 6th Gen aircraft yet it lacks the range and payload needed to go up against China. It is also not as survivable as F-22 or what the 6th Gen aircraft will be leaving it vulnerable to high loses as it tries to use its short range internal carriage weapons againsts its targets (although highly compromised weapons like JSM or JSOW-ER may eventually be there). It also lacks the air dominance capability of the F-22 ( signature, aero performance, firepower etc.) . We need a 6th Gen fighter in the Navy, do we need F-35C?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*