US Navy 6th Gen Fighter - F/A-XX

[In_A_Dream]

It's just my view, but it seems unlikely that the Government would award both fighter programs to BA; F/A-XX and the F-47. LMT is out - or at least that's what we're told. In my view, NOC was the likely F/A-XX winner since the F-47 was announced.

That might explain why NG has lost some of the high value space contracts they were chasing.

B-21, F/A-XX, Sentinel - solid revenue stream.

 

[dark sidius]

New Boeing F/A-XX Rendering Hints At Possible Similarities To F-47 | Aviation Week Network

A new rendering of Boeing’s proposed F/A-XX design provided to Aviation Week indicates the company may be incorporating parts of its design for the U.S. Air Force’s F-47.

aviationweek.com

New Boeing F/A-XX Rendering Hints At Possible Similarities To F-47
Brian Everstine August 28, 2025



F/A-XX rendering provided by Boeing to Aviation Week.

Credit: Boeing
A new rendering of Boeing’s proposed F/A-XX design provided to Aviation Week indicates the company may be incorporating parts of its design for the U.S. Air Force’s F-47 into the Navy program.

The new rendering, first shown in a presentation at the Tailhook Symposium last week, shows the aircraft highly obfuscated by clouds as it flies over a Navy carrier. The clouds are covering sections of the aircraft where potentially canards and wingtips would be visible. No tail is visible.

Both the F/A-XX rendering and the two released depictions of the F-47 are designed to hide much of the aircraft’s shape. The two aircraft, while both sixth-generation fighters, are expected to be significantly different. Navy officials have said they are targeting increased range—about 25% more than current strike fighters—along with survivability. However, the F/A-XX will use a derivative engine as opposed to the F-47, which is expected to use a new adaptive power plant.

Details of the F-47 posted by the Air Force state the aircraft will have a combat radius greater than 1,000 nm and a top speed over Mach 2.

The F/A-XX design’s cockpit appears to have a similar shape to the F-47. The Navy version’s radome appears significantly smaller than the wide radome of the Air Force fighter, which appears to lead to two canards. Previously released Boeing Navy concepts had shown a tail-less fighter.

The rendering comes shortly after Northrop Grumman released a rendering of its design for the program. The two companies are vying for a contract award, which now appears more likely following Congressional support and advocacy from some Navy officials. The Pentagon, in its fiscal 2026 budget request, called for pausing the program, using limited funding to complete a design and leave the program as an option as it goes all-in on the F-47.

Navy and Pentagon budget officials raised concerns about the defense industry’s capacity to build two high-end fighters at the same time. Company officials have sought to downplay the concerns. In June, Steve Parker, Boeing Defense and Space CEO, said he doesn’t see this as an issue, as the company designed its F/A-XX and F-47 strategy to compete and win both.

Boeing has invested about $2 billion in new facilities for air dominance programs, including the under-construction Advanced Combat Aircraft Assembly Facility in St. Louis.

 

[Training_Dummy]

I recoiled

 

[B2Blain]

“If you have air superiority, then you have sea control. Those things go together,” Cheever says. “So, you need that fourth-, fifth-, sixth-generation mix. And as fourth-generation comes down in numbers, then you need that … fifth-, sixth-generation mix. And I think the Navy’s done it well with the fourth-, fifth-, sixth-generation mix of what’s coming.”

Seems to be a recent talking point Cheever has been using. Said it at CSIS too.

Sixth gen is necessary for air superiority which results in sea control. Wonder if he is trying to market it as the Navy's version of the F-47. He has a point. The farther you get from the Chinese mainland, the air environment is a little bit more forgiving.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HVh3wkKupA&t=1447s

 

[Brett Davidson]

Something for the wall of crazy: is the kink in the silhouette in the first ellipse the root of a canard or a cheek inlet? Or, is the paler stripe with a darker shadow above indicative of a bulge to starboard matching one to port flanking the fuselage, a clue to [drumroll] dorsal inlets?

Are vapour cones the aeronautical art equivalent of fig leaves? Do canards and inlets cause unclean thoughts?

Fig leaf - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Note to self: get more red string and drawing pins, I'm running out.

 

[NMaude]

Do canards and inlets cause unclean thoughts?

"Look at the size of my canards".

 

[VTOLicious]

Something for the wall of crazy: is the kink in the silhouette in the first ellipse the root of a canard or a cheek inlet? Or, is the paler stripe with a darker shadow above indicative of a bulge to starboard matching one to port flanking the fuselage, a clue to [drumroll] dorsal inlets?

Are vapour cones the aeronautical art equivalent of fig leaves? Do canards and inlets cause unclean thoughts?

Fig leaf - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Note to self: get more red string and drawing pins, I'm running out.

They did a good job of disguising almost everything... My analysis: It has a canopy

 

[dark sidius]

Something for the wall of crazy: is the kink in the silhouette in the first ellipse the root of a canard or a cheek inlet? Or, is the paler stripe with a darker shadow above indicative of a bulge to starboard matching one to port flanking the fuselage, a clue to [drumroll] dorsal inlets?

Are vapour cones the aeronautical art equivalent of fig leaves? Do canards and inlets cause unclean thoughts?

Fig leaf - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Note to self: get more red string and drawing pins, I'm running out.

This picture is very simple.

 

[Rodrigo Avella]

Something for the wall of crazy: is the kink in the silhouette in the first ellipse the root of a canard or a cheek inlet? Or, is the paler stripe with a darker shadow above indicative of a bulge to starboard matching one to port flanking the fuselage, a clue to [drumroll] dorsal inlets?

Are vapour cones the aeronautical art equivalent of fig leaves? Do canards and inlets cause unclean thoughts?

Fig leaf - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Note to self: get more red string and drawing pins, I'm running out.

Hello!
I'm sharing a design I've been working on for some time and posted a few months ago on my Instagram profile.
It's what I imagine an F/A-XX might look like, prioritizing stealth, range, and payload capacity. Apparently, it has some features that fit this concept.
I'll finish it in a few days.
Best regards, and I hope you like it.

 

[VTOLicious]

Hello!
I'm sharing a design I've been working on for some time and posted a few months ago on my Instagram profile.
It's what I imagine an F/A-XX might look like, prioritizing stealth, range, and payload capacity. Apparently, it has some features that fit this concept.
I'll finish it in a few days.
Best regards, and I hope you like it.

View attachment 783002

Great work!
However, I'm skeptical whether such an air intake configuration would work well on a supersonic fighter, especially in combination with a chisel nose. You want to avoid the engine(s) ingesting turbulent air at higher angles of attack.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Great work!
However, I'm skeptical whether such an air intake configuration would work well on a supersonic fighter, especially in combination with a chisel nose. You want to avoid the engine(s) ingesting turbulent air at higher angles of attack.

The only thing I can think of is that the chisel nose puts a vortex straight into the inlets at high AoA.

 

[pedrospe]

View attachment 783051

F/A-XX rendering provided by Boeing to Aviation Week.

It looks more like this one

 

[Ainen]

So, at this point, boeing killer feature appears to be smoke generator.
Northrop, per their render, doesn't have this tech!

 

[Rodrigo Avella]

Great work!
However, I'm skeptical whether such an air intake configuration would work well on a supersonic fighter, especially in combination with a chisel nose. You want to avoid the engine(s) ingesting turbulent air at higher angles of attack.

Hello.
Thanks for your message!!! Yes, in the final version of this design I'm finishing, the chisel tips are rounded.
Something similar to what's shown in this NGAD patch:

In the Boeing image, from what I see, the nose isn't completely curved. Rather, it resembles a chisel with rounded tips.
Best regards!

 

[Brett Davidson]

They did a good job of disguising almost everything... My analysis: It has a canopy

I'm pretty sure it as a wing to port. Possibly a starboard one too.

 

[Hydroman]

Hello.
Thanks for your message!!! Yes, in the final version of this design I'm finishing, the chisel tips are rounded.
Something similar to what's shown in this NGAD patch:
View attachment 783056
In the Boeing image, from what I see, the nose isn't completely curved. Rather, it resembles a chisel with rounded tips.
Best regards!

Look, the patch has the Chinese jet on it!

 

[WatcherZero]

The Boeing image certainly matches the rumours the administration were considering a navalised F-47 for F/A-XX for the purpose of design and manufacturing commonality as they didn't think US industry could manage to develop two 6th gen fighters at the same time. Also that Boeing had based their Air Force submission on their carrier fighter design rather than them being two original designs.

 

[books]

Twenty bucks says TWZ might have a new article asking if that’s “actually a plasma stealth field generated along the unusually conical nose” in the coming hours.

Boeing, after all, had an ambitious approach to these programs, dontchaknow….

 

[ubiquitous08]

"I'm Alex Hollings..." Dreading the clickbaity sandboxx video we all know is coming already.....

 

[Bounce]

I'm sure I've seen this canopy shape before in another rendering a few years ago but for the life of me I can't find it, I'm already 1hr into the rabbit hole...

 

[quellish]

The Boeing image certainly matches the rumours the administration were considering a navalised F-47 for F/A-XX for the purpose of design and manufacturing commonality as they didn't think US industry could manage to develop two 6th gen fighters at the same time. Also that Boeing had based their Air Force submission on their carrier fighter design rather than them being two original designs.

The commonality is mostly internal. There was no “navalized” NGAD, they were entirely different efforts.

They always intended to develop two 6th gen aircraft at the same time. It’s the production capacity that uninformed people are concerned about.

 

[raptor82]

I'm sure I've seen this canopy shape before in another rendering a few years ago but for the life of me I can't find it, I'm already 1hr into the rabbit hole...

View attachment 783067

Boeing Touts 'Next-Generation' Aircraft After F/A-18 Production Ends | Aviation Week Network

Although Hornet production is forecast to end in 3-5 years, Boeing officials seem confident that a new generation of fighter production soon will begin.

aviationweek.com

 

[Bounce]

Boeing Touts 'Next-Generation' Aircraft After F/A-18 Production Ends | Aviation Week Network

Although Hornet production is forecast to end in 3-5 years, Boeing officials seem confident that a new generation of fighter production soon will begin.

aviationweek.com

View attachment 783069

Yup that was it!

 

[WatcherZero]

The commonality is mostly internal. There was no “navalized” NGAD, they were entirely different efforts.

They always intended to develop two 6th gen aircraft at the same time. It’s the production capacity that uninformed people are concerned about.

There was talk several months back that their winning NGAD submission was a minor variation on their F/A-XX submission and that because of that they were going to be down selected for F/A-XX as well despite the obvious risk and industrial capability erosion of selecting one company for both programs. The talk seems to have been correct with them now posting this render with the same canard arrangement, nose, fuselage and forward wing form with the biggest difference between the two simply being the canopy glass.

 

[Forest Green]

Hello.
Thanks for your message!!! Yes, in the final version of this design I'm finishing, the chisel tips are rounded.
Something similar to what's shown in this NGAD patch:
View attachment 783056
In the Boeing image, from what I see, the nose isn't completely curved. Rather, it resembles a chisel with rounded tips.
Best regards!

Ironically that little patch may bear more resemblance to the final aircraft than all the artist's impressions.

 

[flateric]

Yup that was it!

A little bit earlier...

 

[Forest Green]

Boeing’s New F/A-XX Next Gen Naval Fighter Concept Looks Familiar​

Boeing's New F/A-XX Next Gen Naval Fighter Concept Looks Familiar

Boeing's official art showing its F/A-XX contender is unsurprisingly similar to the F-47, which the company is building for the Air Force. The latest iteration of the Boeing F/A-XX is notably similar to the F-47, which the same company is building for the Air Force.

www.twz.com

 

[JetBrain]

Boeing’s New F/A-XX Next Gen Naval Fighter Concept Looks Familiar​

Boeing's New F/A-XX Next Gen Naval Fighter Concept Looks Familiar

Boeing's official art showing its F/A-XX contender is unsurprisingly similar to the F-47, which the company is building for the Air Force. The latest iteration of the Boeing F/A-XX is notably similar to the F-47, which the same company is building for the Air Force.

www.twz.com

Above all, canards are a feature that’s not immediately associated with an aircraft optimized for low observability (stealth), range, payload, and speed. Instead, this is a feature that’s normally included on tactical fighters on the basis of maneuverability.

However, canards would be of particular benefit for a carrier-based aircraft like the F/A-XX. In this case, the foreplanes enhance low-speed maneuverability, which is especially important during carrier approaches and landings.

 

[Reddington777]

The talk seems to have been correct with them now posting this render with the same canard arrangement, nose, fuselage and forward wing form with the biggest difference between the two simply being the canopy glass.

Its a render. Its creator may or may not even be from Boeing itself. It may or may not even be associated with the actual deaign of the prototype. You cant "minor variation" an air force aircraft on to a carrier. The opposite also doesnt happen easily either.

The "choosing of the navy aircraft" just flat out did not happen. You dont wait for a whole design from the navy to be complete then say "oh that looks good lets just go with that" without several more years of redesign. Why? Because the air force's initial stated goals for their fighter also differs greatly from the navy. They dont even use the same engines. Their inteded emgines arent the same size either. The flip option of having the navy try to shoehorn an air force design happens even less and arguably never happens.

What did happen was that in the demonstrator phase, Boeing flew the navy's demonstrator, which also demonstrated tech that the air force wants (it was purposefully designed to appeal to both parties). That was where the "air force picked the naval option" so to speak. What was being picked wasnt the airframe or the production design there. It was the tech offerings from one company vs another.

Any similarities you see could be do to any number of reasons. They might share key shaping attributes or they may not. They might well both have canards too. They might even look close to each other like any number of F35 x F22 babies do to each other. It shouldnt be surprsing that two stealth fighters designed by the same company may share similar attributes, but again - still not evidence of them being closely related. Yet even those say absolutely nothing about two aircraft being just a variant of another. It would be very hard to design a fighter that can achieve the airforce request for a fast, stealthy and long legged air superiority fighter and be a dedicated strike fighter for the navy, have the design be able to land and takeoff from carriers while also having different sized and powered engines. It doesnt make any sense at all to have a variant if your design goals differ so dramatically.

Not to mention there's zero guarantee the render is even accurate. Any number of modelers either inside, outside or contracted by Boeing could have made that with zero ovligation to reflect anything about the real aircraft. The only consistency from boeing about any of its released renders is the chisel nose.

 

[insidersource]

The "choosing of the navy aircraft" just flat out did not happen. You dont wait for a whole design from the navy to be complete then say "oh that looks good lets just go with that" without several more years of redesign. Why?

That is exactly what happened with the F-4 Phantom. It is a repeat in history.

The Lockheed NGAD is just like the large and expensive Mach 3 XF108 interceptor with their 100,000+lb MTOW. The F-4 Phantom had its first flight in 1958 and the XF108 was cancelled by the USAF in 1959. The USAF did wait for the whole F-4 design from the navy to be complete and said "oh that looks good lets just go with that". The USAF purchased the F-4 Phantom for all the same reasons and justications they would have for selecting the F/A-XX design.

Many other countries have selected carrier capable US Navy aircraft and operated them entirely land based. It should not be a shock.

Here is my first post on this forum from back in march.

Lockheed Martin made the US NGAD demonstrator.
Boeing made the US Navy F/A-XX demonstrator.

The Lockheed demonstrator was the big, long ranged, F-111 sized aircraft everyone was talking about. Most likely powered by two 45,000lb thrust XA100 engines. This was the aircraft that was going to cost "hundreds of millions of dollars"

6 months ago the USAF was talking about buying a cheaper NGAD or an "F-35 Follow-on". The USAF then selected the Boeing demonstrator that was originally designed for the US Navy. This is why this aircraft has canards. Canards are needed to provide lift at the nose so the aircraft stays flat at low speeds during carrier landings. Thrust vectoring is a much better and more stealthy way of improving agility so there is no other reason to add canards besides for carrier landings.

Boeing will then win the US Navy contract so both aircraft will have high commonality and a very large production run that will further reduce unit cost. I would not be surprised if the aircraft costs only $150 million each. People have mentioned that it would be dangerous to out all the eggs in the Boeing basket. But any delays would be covered by extra F-35A and F-35C.

Back in March there was no public information that Boeing made the Navy demonstrator and Lockheed made the USAF demonstrator. Now this is fact.

Now we have senior members on here saying that FA-XX and NGAD "commonality is mostly internal". Back in March the same members were saying both designs were totally unrelated.

This will be just like how the F-35A and F-35C came from the same X-35 demonstrator.

 

[NMaude]

The USAF did wait for the whole F-4 design from the navy to be complete and said "oh that looks good lets just go with that". The USAF purchased the F-4 Phantom for all the same reasons and justications they would have for selecting the F/A-XX design.

No, McNamara forced the USAF to purchase the F-4 (Which they called the F-110A Spectre before McNamara introduced his tri-services designation system), they did NOT want to buy a navy fighter.

 

[yeetmahboi]

That is exactly what happened with the F-4 Phantom. It is a repeat in history.

The Lockheed NGAD is just like the large and expensive Mach 3 XF108 interceptor with their 100,000+lb MTOW. The F-4 Phantom had its first flight in 1958 and the XF108 was cancelled by the USAF in 1959. The USAF did wait for the whole F-4 design from the navy to be complete and said "oh that looks good lets just go with that". The USAF purchased the F-4 Phantom for all the same reasons and justications they would have for selecting the F/A-XX design.

Many other countries have selected carrier capable US Navy aircraft and operated them entirely land based. It should not be a shock.

Here is my first post on this forum from back in march.



Back in March there was no public information that Boeing made the Navy demonstrator and Lockheed made the USAF demonstrator. Now this is fact.

Now we have senior members on here saying that FA-XX and NGAD "commonality is mostly internal". Back in March the same members were saying both designs were totally unrelated.

This will be just like how the F-35A and F-35C came from the same X-35 demonstrator.

Horrible history overall.

 

[insidersource]

No, McNamara forced the USAF to purchase the F-4 (Which they called the F-110A Spectre before McNamara introduced his tri-services designation system), they did NOT want to buy a navy fighter.

Lets change a few words.

Trump forced the USAF to purchase the F-47 (Which they called something else before Trump introduced his arrogant designation system), they did NOT want to buy a navy fighter.

History repeats itself.

 

[Reddington777]

The F-4 Phantom had its first flight in 1958 and the XF108 was cancelled by the USAF in 1959

The USAF did wait for the whole F-4 design from the navy to be complete and said "oh that looks good lets just go with that".

The source-cited excerpts from wikipedia says otherwise:

"649 F-4Bs were built with deliveries beginning in 1961"

"After an F-4B won the "Operation Highspeed" fly-off against the Convair F-106 Delta Dart, the USAF borrowed two Naval F-4Bs, temporarily designating them F-110A in January 1962, and developed requirements for their own version."

so ... it would appear that the USAF did wait for the whole F-4 design from the navy to be complete and said "oh that looks good lets just go with that", but this is still not in the same situation we are in with F/A-XX and F-47.

Aside from McNamara's decision making, the Air force also didn't have anything definitively superior in the pipeline to the F4. The air force didn't give up a design to pick the F4. The air force didnt' spend years on flying demonstrators only to then pick the navy's design at annoucement. They didn't have a good excuse not to accept an F-4. If anything, F-47 and F/A-XX were parallel efforts after the AII demonstrator program concluded and every single time these two programs were spoken of, the navy has expressed priorities and used language to suggest the the air force and the navy are separate and NOT heading in the same direction.

Lets change a few words.

Trump forced the USAF to purchase the F-47 (Which they called something else before Trump introduced his arrogant designation system), they did NOT want to buy a navy fighter.

History repeats itself.

For people who haven't read both threads from start to finish, this is just not true. At no point in time, ever, has the air force or navy suggested that their designs are some variant of each other or closely related enough to be such.

At least there are veritable sources/rumor mills praising the Boeing option as "revolutionary". The source of said rumor was a certain reporter on X and also from the transcript of his interview provided by quellish here. What the air force has said about the F-47 was that it was the "the best overall value", for which some explanation can be found here and is not in scope of this thread any longer. Nothing says the air force went for the navy aircraft save for a convoluted reddit post that cherry picks information to fit the narrative (and might quite possibly be your reddit account).

The Air Force's review of NGAD also showed no signs of picking the navy's option or even picking a different vendor as the review was about the right capability and affordability and concluded to continue with the manned component. Might I add that it's highly likely there was already a winner by then. The delay was for whether the program would be cancelled or not by the president and not "which vendor" or "which designs". The air force decided what they wanted and picked the design they thought best. The government had the final say in whether the whole program would be funded or not and that's all that appears to have happened.

To pick the naval design or be forced to do so, the Air force would have had to give up on their own design and apply their requirements to the navy design. Again - unlike the F-4, the air force clearly had it's own requirements and designs in mind. If cancelling F/A-XX made so much noise already, it would stand to reason that the air force would have complained about being forced to give up their own design for the navy's too. It makes zero sense that two "variants" or closely related jets that share majority of airframe AND internals would need two separate programs that have been separated and been undertaken in parallel for almost as long as the NGAD initiative has been a thing.

I've been through this whole thing with you on multiple threads - as have others. You've offered literally zero evidence for your conjectures. What evidence you did offer has not at all definitely justified your conclusions either. If you think people are wrong here, well your conjectures still don't line up with official reporting whereas the conclusions of said senior members do line up or at least don't disagree with official reporting. If somehow your conjectures are right, then theres a whole lot of explaining to do by the government and there ought to be an inquiry into how and why billions for two separate programs just disappeared into one program.

Ill also add that your story keeps changing. First you say that the air force picked the navys design. Then when questioned before, you said Trump forced them to pick the navy design. Why does your narrative keep changing? With all do respect, would you at least post definitively evidence like reputable articles, quotes, or budgetary data that backs up literally anything you are suggesting?

Now we have senior members on here saying that FA-XX and NGAD "commonality is mostly internal". Back in March the same members were saying both designs were totally unrelated.

This will be just like how the F-35A and F-35C came from the same X-35 ddemonstrator.

You do realize these are not mutually exclusive right? I would expect that planes that share some non insignificant amount of common armaments have the shared internal components like sensors and certain weapon systems. Why wouldnt they? Hell I wouldn't even be surprised if they shared similar shaping and control features, but they can be and are still separate efforts, separate programs and separate designs. Id even go so far as to say that that aviation weekly article is, for all intents and purposes, trash considering the conjectures being made upon a rendering whose origin and intent is unknown. You would need something like the F4 to say "they are variants/ closely related/ airforce picked navy fighter". Not in the least among these differences are the intended power plants for the two fighters.

Now before you start going into how you think adaptive engines are going on navy jets again (which we've already spent like two whole pages talking about in the same thread), let me put a stop to that by reminding readers that the navy has explicitly said its not going with an adaptive cycling engine. If they 180'd, theres also zero reason not to say so. Thats not a difference you can just wave away into a shared airframe. We've heard zero indications of any reversal being considered.

 

[joshjosh]

Trump forced the USAF to purchase the F-47 (Which they called something else before Trump introduced his arrogant designation system), they did NOT want to buy a navy fighter.

From the March 27 Defense & Aerospace podcast episode with Frank Kendall, former Secretary of the Air Force, and Air Force acquisition executive Andrew Hunter:

Q: But during that pause [of the NGAD program in 2024], did anything change that surprised you when the announcement was made [that Boeing had won the NGAD contract]? Did you have, for example, a preferred candidate and they chose a different one?

Kendall: To my knowledge, nothing significant changed. Andrew, do you agree?

Hunter: The only thing that was new to me was the nomenclature of F-47.

Q: What can you tell us about what Boeing was doing in the course of this competition that differentiated itself from Lockheed and indeed from Northrop?

Kendall: Both of the bidders had viable alternatives for us, and I think it could have gone either way. One of them moved faster to demonstrate the key technologies, but the other one did get there to demonstrate them as well. The designs are quite different from the different competitors...The source selection was not based on industrial base factors.

Hunter: That's correct, it was a competition based on this aircraft and its capabilities. What you see sometimes in these things is the incumbent is a little more risk-averse than the company that doesn't have the installed base at risk. And so, sometimes they can be a little more innovative or risk a little more in the proposal... What was interesting to me in this competition is that both designs were quite creative. Part of that was the nature of the requirements... you couldn't just get there from taking something and modifying it modestly. You really needed something new. I think both sides really came to it with a lot of creativity.

 

[Reddington777]

Hunter: That's correct, it was a competition based on this aircraft and its capabilities. What you see sometimes in these things is the incumbent is a little more risk-averse than the company that doesn't have the installed base at risk. And so, sometimes they can be a little more innovative or risk a little more in the proposal... What was interesting to me in this competition is that both designs were quite creative. Part of that was the nature of the requirements... you couldn't just get there from taking something and modifying it modestly. You really needed something new. I think both sides really came to it with a lot of creativity.

My god that was the quote I kept thinking I read somewhere. It's literally been annoying me all morning. Thank you for soothing my OCD.

 

[joshjosh]

My god that was the quote I kept thinking I read somewhere. It's literally been annoying me all morning. Thank you for soothing my OCD.

Until just now, I was under the impression that Frank Kendall had literally said that Boeing's pitch was "revolutionary" and Lockheed's was "evolutionary," but now I can't find that quote at all. I also can't find Andrew Hunter or Will Roper saying this. Was this quote something we collectively imagined and created ex nihilo?

 

[Reddington777]

Until just now, I was under the impression that Frank Kendall had literally said that Boeing's pitch was "revolutionary" and Lockheed's was "evolutionary," but now I can't find that quote at all. I also can't find Andrew Hunter or Will Roper saying this. Was this quote something we collectively imagined and created ex nihilo?

From an interview with (what I assume to be a reporter) Vago Muradian courtesy of @quellish on the F-47 Speculation thread page 24 comment #941:

[00:04:33] Vago Muradian: It is very tough to call because they're two of the Navy's favorite contractors right. Mcdonnell from Saint Louis, which was sort of the Navy fighter company, and of course, Grumman in the form of iron works, although their presence in Long Island and in Bethpage is now relatively minor. So it's definitely going to be interesting to see how this plays out. And obviously, we discussed that a little bit with Frank and Andrew as well, seeing as how all of these programs were conjoined in a sense, when Frank launched some of these efforts many years ago, I would be remiss, even though the main event is going to be talking about NGAD, the history of NGAD, how it was formed, and how we got to Boeing winning that program. You and I have been discussing this on and off, and actually broke quite a lot of news over the last many years on this program. Obviously, last Friday, the president of the United States from the Oval Office announced that Boeing had beat Lockheed Martin for this. I have been saying for some time that even though the consensus is Lockheed was going to win it, that the folks were telling me, hey, you know, Boeing brought a fresh approach, really put a lot of investment in and developed a lot of capability. And the customers seem to like what they were seeing from the company. From your standpoint, what was interesting about the announcement.

This is another reference to the same reporter's comments:

On the Next Generation Air Dominance #NGAD program, it is claimed that USAF prefers Boeing over Lockheed's design. Vago Muradian reports that LM has pursued an "evolutionary" capability building on its F22 & F35 prgms, while Boeing has pursued a more ambitious "fresher" approach.

I'm not sure but they might even be from the same interview. I guess depending on how "fresher" relates to "evolutionary", your reading of this quote might differ. I think in the bit you quoted, Hunter essentially says the same thing.

 

[zebra159357]

Until just now, I was under the impression that Frank Kendall had literally said that Boeing's pitch was "revolutionary" and Lockheed's was "evolutionary," but now I can't find that quote at all. I also can't find Andrew Hunter or Will Roper saying this. Was this quote something we collectively imagined and created ex nihilo?

Defense & Aerospace Air Power Podcast [Nov 02, 23] Ep40: Ask Dr. Science - Defense & Aerospace Report

Whether high-end fighters, swarming drones, or hypersonic weapons, former Director of Defense Research and Engineering and former Air Force chief scientist Dr. Mark Lewis has been deep in the details. He joins us to look at how to turn the latest technologies into successful programs. And NGAD...

defaeroreport.com

Skip to 5:55

 

[joshjosh]

From an interview with (what I assume to be a reporter) Vago Muradian courtesy of @quellish on the F-47 Speculation thread page 24 comment #941:

This is another reference to the same reporter's comments:

I'm not sure but they might even be from the same interview. I guess depending on how "fresher" relates to "evolutionary", your reading of this quote might differ. I think in the bit you quoted, Hunter essentially says the same thing.

Yep that podcast is the same that I was quoting, but Kendall did not say "revolutionary" or "evolutionary." Neither did Hunter or Vago Muradian. That twitter post doesn't seem to provide a source either. Specifically, it's the comparison between "Boeing's revolutionary design" and "Lockheed's evolutionary design" that I was looking for and now cannot find.