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

Sferrin said:
And where they're not based on the same design, or even from the same contractor (potentially). Not like the ATF/NATF.
Click to expand...
I'm most curious regarding the designation number. If we look at the ATF/NATF proposals from Lockheed the Navy F-22N design had a swing swing and had less than 50% commonality with the USAF F-22. Yet they kept the 22 number for the Navy.

Boeing winning F/A-XX might result in an aircraft with 50+% commonality with the F-47. That might be high enough for the Navy to keep the 47 number.

I think 50% commonality is a good point where the aircraft shares the same designation number. The F-35 family has 60+% commonality between two or more variants.
 
totoro said:
https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...xt-generation-fighter-sources-say-2025-10-07/

For those behind a paywall, article suggests Hegseth decided to move forward on Friday and that the decision results would be announced sometime this week. Though, as before, it alao says that there might again be a delay in the announcement.
Click to expand...

If it´s gonna be this week and on a working day, the clock is ticking fast...
 
insidersource said:
I'm most curious regarding the designation number. If we look at the ATF/NATF proposals from Lockheed the Navy F-22N design had a swing swing and had less than 50% commonality with the USAF F-22. Yet they kept the 22 number for the Navy.

Boeing winning F/A-XX might result in an aircraft with 50+% commonality with the F-47. That might be high enough for the Navy to keep the 47 number.

I think 50% commonality is a good point where the aircraft shares the same designation number. The F-35 family has 60+% commonality between two or more variants.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but I think it's time to let go...
You've been promoting this idea everywhere the past month or so and despite a lot of very knowledgeable people disproving your point thoroughly you refuse to accept that you're most likely wrong, and are still blindly promoting the Idea that the F-47 is just a repurposed boeing F/A-XX.
 
Last edited:
Is it locked down that the designation will start with F/A- or there is a chance they can go with F-?

I feel like Thump may miss to say it correctly and they will have to update the designation.
If fact, I researched the issue and found he always says F-18 in public and they later correct the transcript.

I get that if Boeing wins and there is a lot of commonality, there is a historic precedent to use the same number ... so F/A-47
But that's from a different time when officials chose the number to infer commonality and reduced development cost (F-35, F/A-18). We are not in this era any more and the aircraft is really needed. Also if NG wins that can't be the case.

Finally, I don't think anybody would want to make that call with Thump in the office.
Having T-45, F-45 is less likely now so my money is on F-55 and they will create the backstory.
 
Last edited:
I will be highly surprised if the designation does not begin with F/Alantinian as the F/A-XX is going to be multirole and not a pure fighter unlike Boeing's F-47.
 
FighterJock said:
I will be highly surprised if the designation does not begin with F/Alantinian as the F/A-XX is going to be multirole and not a pure fighter unlike Boeing's F-47.
Click to expand...
It’s funny but the first and last last time so far the Navi has designated an aircraft with F/A in front was the Hornet and Super Hornet by extension.

We don’t have a F/A-35. We had F/A-22 for a brief moment until cooler heads prevailed that all new fighters have strike capabilities and this just creates unnecessary paperwork.

I could be wrong but I will be surprised if is has F/A in the designation.
 
lantinian said:
It’s funny but the first and last last time so far the Navi has designated an aircraft with F/A in front was the Hornet and Super Hornet by extension.

We don’t have a F/A-35. We had F/A-22 for a brief moment until cooler heads prevailed that all new fighters have strike capabilities and this just creates unnecessary paperwork.

I could be wrong but I will be surprised if is has F/A in the designation.
Click to expand...
F/A-XX is a strike fighter, strike first, fighter second.

But yes, the F-35 has the same role and doesn't have the "/A".
 
EmoBirb said:
Closest thing you could get is some of the more interesting demonstrators of the past getting declassified. But what exactly would be the gain for the Americans? The PR? Is this really so important? The American public will say it's the best thing ever and the Chinese public will laugh at it because they were first no matter when or how it gets finally revealed in full form. While keeping everything under tight wraps does have advantages, especially for the US.
Click to expand...
I think its important to place this into the context of the media strategy in the US right now.

China has been pursuing modernization much more seriously than the US. Had there been this level of urgency back in 2014, we'd know what these two fighters look like in the flesh now. The PLA's modernization began a lot earlier than 2014 whereas in 2014, the recognition of renewed neer peer competition had barely just begun to happen in the US.

2014 compared to now is a difference of night and day to me. In 2014 I was still on reddit trying to convince people China wasnt that bad (and look at how crazy ive become now). Off the top of my head, I can count on one hand the major military programs between 2014 and 2018.

Compared to after 2018, almost all the major programs we follow now happened after 2018 and we're awarded in the 2018 - 2022 timeframe. By now the reporting on China is frenetic and deafening while many of the programs began in the 2018 to 2025 time frame have been fairly low key or remain nothing more than a thumbnail on a PPT (AIM260 despite entering low rate prosuction).

The locomotive of urgency runs entirely on the disparity that we see for things like the 6th gen planes or shipbuilding. That disparity could be very real or it could be entirely manufactured and unless you were an expert in a particular field, youd struggle to know any better. And so for every day a chinese 6th gen flies and a US answer remains in the shadows, another ounce of urgency is imposed and another added possibility of greater funding / actions taken. It makes sense both organizationally and strategically. So as much as I hate shitty reporting, click bait headlines overexaggerating Chinese hardware, and whatever ridicule the Chinese want to throw, I think smoke, mirrors and silence is the best strategy.
 
Last edited:
totoro said:
https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...xt-generation-fighter-sources-say-2025-10-07/

For those behind a paywall, article suggests Hegseth decided to move forward on Friday and that the decision results would be announced sometime this week. Though, as before, it alao says that there might again be a delay in the announcement.
Click to expand...
Week passed, nothing came of it, another Reuters classic
 
EmoBirb said:
Week passed, nothing came of it, another Reuters classic
Click to expand...
Could see it being delayed a bit while Trump basks in the supposed glory of the Gaza peace deal. Suggestions were also that they would find an opportune time and location to announce.

The other side of this is the evaluation and financial commitment. Has the USN actually made their decision and identified a winner and then funding not just this year, with the house/Senate top up, but the next five look like for program certainty.
 
Ozair said:
Could see it being delayed a bit while Trump basks in the supposed glory of the Gaza peace deal. Suggestions were also that they would find an opportune time and location to announce.

The other side of this is the evaluation and financial commitment. Has the USN actually made their decision and identified a winner and then funding not just this year, with the house/Senate top up, but the next five look like for program certainty.
Click to expand...

The USN and Congress have always been pro; the administration is the one delaying.
 
Josh_TN said:
The USN and Congress have always been pro; the administration is the one delaying.
Click to expand...
Yes both have supported the airframe except when they removed funding to meet readiness requirements.

The issue remains, if the Administration agrees to F/A-XX then it has to also support that with future budget allocation. It didn't this year as their FY26 defense budget proposal only funded $74 million. Yes Congress topped that up but will the Administration play this game again and expect Congress to top up F/A-XX funding again for FY27, 28, 29 etc?

The other potential issue for delay is the shutdown and the civilian DoW workforce allocated to the program. Do they actually have staff present and able to even execute the contractual mechanisms required?
 
I do so wish that the government gets the problems with the current shutdown sorted and the defence workforce gets back to work so that the F/A-XX result gets announced. They were quick to announce the result of the NGAD program the F-47.
 
I went to bar in Norfolk to have a little watch party when the B-21 was revealed on YouTube.

When the F-47 and F/A-XX finally makes their appearance, im gonna get hammered. If anyone wants to join me on zoom whenever that day comes, do call in.

Honestly I couldn't care less whose in power anymore. I just wish the defense industrial base would get some goddamn consistency. No contradicting policies, no drastic changes in admin, no 360s in policy, no shifty procurement policies and no more shutdowns. Just let people who actually do work go and do work.
 
What an absurd shit take. Ofcourse he writes for TWZ.

Its astounding how people either shit on AI or think AI/autonomous systems are the solution to all your problems. Maybe people who write about military hardware should have majored in aerospace or some science degree rather than journalism....indeed all the english majors in my school knew absolutely nothing about what they wrote about ever.
 
One does wonder how much effect a pair of JDAMs…or even eight SDB sized pieces of ordnance…will have on anything.
 
Josh_TN said:
One does wonder how much effect a pair of JDAMs…or even eight SDB sized pieces of ordnance…will have on anything.
Click to expand...
It was seen as adequate for the F-117. And for the F-35.

Personally, I'm expecting the design mission load for FAXX to be broadly the same as the old A-12 Avenger II ATA: 2x 2000lb JDAMs, 2x AARGM-ERs, and 2-4x AMRAAM/AIM-260s. Twice that of an F-35, more or less.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It was seen as adequate for the F-117. And for the F-35.

Personally, I'm expecting the design mission load for FAXX to be broadly the same as the old A-12 Avenger II ATA: 2x 2000lb JDAMs, 2x AARGM-ERs, and 2-4x AMRAAM/AIM-260s. Twice that of an F-35, more or less.
Click to expand...

If you are going to base platforms on decades old requirements, ok.

As to fa-XX, I also am expecting something like twice the F-35 hopefully, but with external pylon options for far more stand off weapons for non stealth missions. We shall see.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Personally, I'm expecting the design mission load for FAXX to be broadly the same as the old A-12 Avenger II ATA: 2x 2000lb JDAMs, 2x AARGM-ERs, and 2-4x AMRAAM/AIM-260s. Twice that of an F-35, more or less.
Click to expand...
2x JASSM-ER/LRASM internally seems more useful?
 
Training_Dummy said:
Tyler shouldn’t drink before posting
Click to expand...
I am clearly in the minority here and disagree with Tyler on just about most things but here I think he is not far off.

If you caveat what he has said that if you had to choose only one and the UCAV had the following characteristics, carrier based, survivable so would need full autonomous ops capability and VLO, 1100nm combat radius, 4.5klbs payload maybe bumped up slightly to cover two internal LRASMs, 2.7klbs each so 5.5klbs, then I agree with him and I would make that trade.

MQ-25 could refuel this as well as it can a manned fighter. It is probably going to cost a third to a half of what F/A-XX would to acquire so you get minimum twice as many, and the USN soldier on the SH fleet for a few more years in a A2A role only then this UCAV clearly meets a need.
 
Josh_TN said:
If you are going to base platforms on decades old requirements, ok.
Click to expand...
It seems to have been the requirement for both ATA and A/F-X. Plus it's a little less than what the Super Bug can haul.



Josh_TN said:
As to fa-XX, I also am expecting something like twice the F-35 hopefully, but with external pylon options for far more stand off weapons for non stealth missions. We shall see.
Click to expand...
With as much fuel as is required for the range, I'm not sure how much more you'd be able to carry and still be within carrier takeoff limits. Plus you'd have to dump a lot to be within landing limits.

I've been thinking some 12k internal load (assuming 4x LRASM plus 4x AMRAAMs), with a roughly 80k launch weight and 40k empty weight, making a ~55k landing weight if you haven't launched the LRASMs.

You absolutely could add more under the wings, but then you're getting into 90+k launch weights and I don't believe those are viable for a carrier. Certainly not for a Nimitz-class. So that would be limited to Fords (the French have been saying that EMALS can do launches up to 100k) or to land bases only. Or to launching with a very light fuel load from Nimitz-class, and needing to immediately load ~15k of fuel.



whatismoo said:
2x JASSM-ER/LRASM internally seems more useful?
Click to expand...
Thing is, AGM-158s are the same width as AARGM-ERs, ~22". So if you're designing your main weapons bay around "carrying 2x AARGM-ERs and 2x AGM-158s" dimensionally it can also hold 4x AGM-158s.

JASSM-ERs are more likely to be carried under the wings, with a few extra AIM-120s/AIM-260s in the main bays.
 
Ozair said:
I am clearly in the minority here and disagree with Tyler on just about most things but here I think he is not far off.

If you caveat what he has said that if you had to choose only one and the UCAV had the following characteristics, carrier based, survivable so would need full autonomous ops capability and VLO, 1100nm combat radius, 4.5klbs payload maybe bumped up slightly to cover two internal LRASMs, 2.7klbs each so 5.5klbs, then I agree with him and I would make that trade.

MQ-25 could refuel this as well as it can a manned fighter. It is probably going to cost a third to a half of what F/A-XX would to acquire so you get minimum twice as many, and the USN soldier on the SH fleet for a few more years in a A2A role only then this UCAV clearly meets a need.
Click to expand...
I mean X-47 had an impressively small spotting factor for its performance.

Back of the napkin math put a plausible air wing at 12x X-47B, 24x F-35C, 31x F/A-XX, 6x MQ-25, plus the standard 11 shipboard H-60/V-75, 3x CMV-22 and 5 E-2D at give or take the 106 spots of a Cold War Nimitz air wing.

This is all converted into F/A-18A/C spotting factors, and assuming that F/A-XX has a spotting factor equivalent to F-111B, and assuming replacing EA-18G 1:1 with F/A-XX. You could also swap those 7 extra F/A-XX for another dozen or so X-47B.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Thing is, AGM-158s are the same width as AARGM-ERs, ~22". So if you're designing your main weapons bay around "carrying 2x AARGM-ERs and 2x AGM-158s" dimensionally it can also hold 4x AGM-158s.

JASSM-ERs are more likely to be carried under the wings, with a few extra AIM-120s/AIM-260s in the main bays.
Click to expand...
I was more concerned with length and weight. Also drag, for long range stand off!
 
I think Tyler missed the fact that FAXX will be covering both A2A and ATG roles... Compound that onto the realization that China currently has >200 5th gen heavy AirSup fighters, a nascent 5th gen multirole bird and 2 6th gen on a roadmap to service and you'll see what's getting filled in.
 
Scott Kenny said:
2x 2000lb JDAMs, 2x AARGM-ERs, and 2-4x AMRAAM/AIM-260s. Twice that of an F-35, more or less.
Click to expand...
What I'd want to see is room for two 5K class penetrators that will hold pretty much every HDBT in range at risk and a goal to translate that into an equivalent weight of thermobarics to knock out large staging areas or march formations, of course with a complement of AIM-260s and MSDMs.

But there's a genuine believe that this mission is going away to the surface navy in the vein of what Fleet Air Defense eventually gave genesis to.
 
whatismoo said:
I was more concerned with length and weight. Also drag, for long range stand off!
Click to expand...
Weight is a potential issue, though the difference between JASSM and JASSM-ER is only 350lbs (2250 versus 2600, and LRASM is ~2800). They're all the same length! I believe you're thinking of the JASSM-XR, which does have like a 4ft stretch to it compared to the rest of the family.



yeetmahboi said:
What I'd want to see is room for two 5K class penetrators that will hold pretty much every HDBT in range at risk and a goal to translate that into an equivalent weight of thermobarics to knock out large staging areas or march formations, of course with a complement of AIM-260s and MSDMs.
Click to expand...
If the FAXX has one super long bay instead of two bays in tandem (or can join the bays like a B-1), it'd be doable with GBU-28s. Stupid things are 20ft/5.8m long with the Paveway seekers fitted. It might be able to fit inside a 16ft bay with a JDAM seeker instead.

And I do expect the general concept of two bays in tandem. With the sheer width of carrying 4x 22" wide weapons plus access width I think it'd be difficult to make that go supersonic (it'd be half again as wide as the F-22 at the bays!). But having a single ~33ft long by 4.5ft wide bay between the engines and two side bays for AAMs would be a pretty viable design for supersonic. And that long bay would have the internal volume for a pair of GBU-28s or the A5Ks. Frankly, depending on just how long the 5000lb penetrator is, you might be able to stuff it into a bay sized for AIM-174s (~16.5ft long) using Laser JDAM seekers instead of Paveway.

It'd be a pain to wrangle, but a conversion kit to stick the SM6 booster (Mk104? Mk72) onto the back end of a BLU-109 would be hilarious. Wouldn't be possible to send it up the weapons elevators assembled, but Ordies are capable of assembling such weapons with a little planning and maybe some help from modified bomb carts. Have the guidance fire the booster once the bomb was ~12sec from impact on target, and impact at Mach holy shit instead of just over Mach 1.



yeetmahboi said:
But there's a genuine believe that this mission is going away to the surface navy in the vein of what Fleet Air Defense eventually gave genesis to.
Click to expand...
Replacing airdropped penetrator bombs with what, CPS? I don't think that CPS in any flavor will have the same penetration as a 5000lb class bomb dropped from 30km up.
 
Last edited:
At the moment the number of US airframes that could deliver an internally carried JASSM-XR could be counted with fingers, thumbs and toes. The Raider buy will increase this, dramatically, hopefully.

Yet the only USN airframe extant or planned that could do this would be F/A-XX. The USN wants to kill ships as much as the USAF, probably more, right? So my thinking is perhaps F/A-XX is baselined for internal carriage of two XR or whatever more-better surface or land attack weapon is in the works, plus at least two or more on external pylons (which is a whole other discussion that probably warrants a separate thread). Four XR type weapons on F/A-XX would be a potent capability for a future air wing. A long range unmanned striker would be valuable and is a natural horizon to focus on, but while the idea may be necessary it is insufficient in my view, especially since the USN shows no sign of yielding the manned strike fighter nuclear capability.
 
Training_Dummy said:
At the moment the number of US airframes that could deliver an internally carried JASSM-XR could be counted with fingers, thumbs and toes. The Raider buy will increase this, dramatically, hopefully.

Yet the only USN airframe extant or planned that could do this would be F/A-XX. The USN wants to kill ships as much as the USAF, probably more, right? So my thinking is perhaps F/A-XX is baselined for internal carriage of two XR or whatever more-better surface or land attack weapon is in the works, plus at least two or more on external pylons (which is a whole other discussion that probably warrants a separate thread). Four XR type weapons on F/A-XX would be a potent capability for a future air wing. A long range unmanned striker would be valuable and is a natural horizon to focus on, but while the idea may be necessary it is insufficient in my view, especially since the USN shows no sign of yielding the manned strike fighter nuclear capability.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don't see the USN buying JASSM-XRs for internal carriage. A single long bay like I've been talking about could, but I don't think it would. I'd expect JASSM-XRs to be external carriage only, and leave the internal bay with a fuel tank inside it instead. 4x XRs under the wings and 4x AMRAAM/JATMs as the weapons load.

Frankly, I'm not sure the USN would buy JASSM-XRs for air launch.

Why have XRs when you have a long-ranged aircraft sufficiently stealthy to enter the A2AD with 4x JASSM-ERs?
 
The idea of carrying AGM-158s is stupid. It’s a weapon that exists in the hundreds that has a long range such that internal carriage is not necessary, and while width might be AARGM-ER, height/depth most certainly is not. I also would not assume AARGM is a prereq either.

Talk of 5000 lb penetrators is simply insane.

I would assume something like four 2000 lb class GP/penetrators, or alternatively 16 SDB as internal payload, since less than that does not improve much on F-35 (perhaps four mk83 as a fallback position). I also would assume a modestly sized cruise missile (say Baracuda 500) and/or a high speed direct attack missile (what ever equates to the ACME study) was also an option, though not necessarily AGM-88G given the width issues. I still think a healthy number of pylons would be present for light stand off weapons (MACE ish), ideally ejectable with low RCS penalty post jettison.

That I think would give you a well rounded strike fighter that still could extend range. Four largish weapons internally for direct attack, or 16 small diameter bombs, and maybe four pylons for four more 2000 lb class weapons or a pair of something smaller on a random ejector. About a dozen 1000 lb class bombs/cruise missiles on the heavy payload end.
 
Josh_TN said:
The idea of carrying AGM-158s is stupid.
Click to expand...
AGM-158s are simply the replacement for the AGM-84 Harpoon/SLAM.

Any mission that historically would have been "carry Harpoon/SLAM" is now "carry AGM-158"

As to the difference in depth between AGM-158 and AARGM-ER, yes, the AGM-158 is like 6" deeper through the fuselage/body. But the AARGM-ER does have tail fins, and IIRC they do project far enough that the box shape of the two weapons is identical.



NMaude said:
You're thinking of the Mk-72 launch-booster.
Click to expand...
Thank you, fixing.
 
Training_Dummy said:
At the moment the number of US airframes that could deliver an internally carried JASSM-XR could be counted with fingers, thumbs and toes. The Raider buy will increase this, dramatically, hopefully.

Yet the only USN airframe extant or planned that could do this would be F/A-XX. The USN wants to kill ships as much as the USAF, probably more, right? So my thinking is perhaps F/A-XX is baselined for internal carriage of two XR or whatever more-better surface or land attack weapon is in the works, plus at least two or more on external pylons (which is a whole other discussion that probably warrants a separate thread). Four XR type weapons on F/A-XX would be a potent capability for a future air wing. A long range unmanned striker would be valuable and is a natural horizon to focus on, but while the idea may be necessary it is insufficient in my view, especially since the USN shows no sign of yielding the manned strike fighter nuclear capability.
Click to expand...
woah that's true, the xr doesn't fit in the secondary weapons bay of the B-1 and the main weapon bay will only fit one loaded 8 slot rotary launcher due to length, same for the b-21, the b2 will still be able to carry 16 tho
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom