At last week’s
Office of Naval Research expo in D.C., ADM Greenert made several statements
about the proposed next-generation F/A-XX fighter that are getting a lot of
play.
CNO Adm.
Jonathan Greenert described options for the next Navy fighter - the F/A-XX -
that would overwhelm or suppress enemy air defenses instead of outrunning or
hiding from threats.
“You know
that stealth maybe overrated,” Greenert said during a keynote at the Office of
Naval Research Naval Future Force Science and Technology Expo.
“I don’t
want to necessarily say that it’s over but let’s face it, if something moves
fast through the air and disrupts molecules in the air and puts out heat - I
don’t care how cool the engine can be - it’s going to be detectable.”
That also
may mean developing new weapons for future threats.
“It has to
have an ability to carry a payload such that it can deploy a spectrum of
weapons. It has to be able to acquire access probably by suppressing enemy air
defenses, Greenert said.
“Today it’s
radar but it might be something more in the future.”
As for
speed, he said the proliferation of high-speed anti-air weapons could lead the
Navy to develop an aircraft that would not need to travel at a high speeds.
“I don’t
think it’s going to be super-duper fast, because you can’t outrun missiles,” he
said.
I’ve seen a few
people interpreting his remarks on stealth to mean that F/A-XX will not be ‘low
observable.’ Well, given that the officially defined bounds of ‘low observable’
aren’t exactly quantified for public consumption, I find it hard to prejudge
how much Radar Cross Section and infrared signature suppression might be
envisioned for the fighter. Suffice to say that it probably won’t be broadband
‘very low observable’ like the B-2 or its proposed LRS-B successor (which owes
a lot to these bombers’ physical sizes in any event). On the other hand, it
probably will have more signature suppression than ‘reduced observable’ legacy
fighters.
Stealth is more
than just platform shaping and coatings, though. It’s also about when, where,
and how you use the platform. It includes activities by the platform or other
supporting forces to suppress the adversary’s sensors using kinetic or
non-kinetic means. In the latter regard, F/A-XX’s degree of ‘structural’
observability will probably be designed low enough to allow for considerable
use of electronic countermeasures. F/A-XX’s overall observability will also
depend on how it senses the battlespace and communicates with other forces. The
ability to classify threats with high confidence at a significant standoff
distance and then report findings to other friendly platforms via highly-directional
communications pathways, and vice-versa, will be key. In turn, both the onboard
and external sensor inputs will support onboard weapons employment. Payload
over platforms, indeed.
F/A-XX’s other
major attributes ought to be range and endurance with a reasonably large
weapons loadout. As ID readers well know, I disagree with arguments that
carrier-based aircraft must to be able to strike targets deep within an
adversary’s territory—or even the innermost reaches of a maritime contested zone—during
the first days of a major war in order for the carriers to have high
value in the context of a protracted conflict.
That said, the
greater F/A-XX’s tactical reach or on-station duration, the more Joint and Navy
operational options that open up. This is about more than just strike
missions—this is also about the outer
layer screening of Surface Action Groups or carrier battleforces. This is
about providing air support to frontline forces within a contested zone. This
is about creating opportunities for offensive anti-air warfare. The ability to
carry a sizable number of long-range air-to-air or air-to-surface missiles will
be central.
It should be no
surprise, then, that when I picture what I would want in F/A-XX, I think of several
of the roles once performed by this aircraft:
 |
| F-14D Tomcat at Udvar-Hazy Center of the National Air and Space Museum (author's photo) |
Oh, and note
the AAS-42
electro-optical/infrared system under the nose. Back in the day, a terrific
sensor for standoff-range,
silent visual classification of air contacts…
 |
| (author's photo) |
The views expressed herein are solely those of
the author and are presented in his personal capacity. They do not reflect the
official positions of Systems Planning and Analysis, and to the author’s
knowledge do not reflect the policies or positions of the U.S. Department of
Defense, any U.S. armed service, or any other U.S. Government agency.
--Updated 2/11/15 10:53PM to correct typo in 3rd paragraph--
