Boeing 6th Gen Fighter - F/A-XX

Im gonna go get hammered this weekend.

Still shocking to hear even though it was said before. Not sure how theyll have enough space where the new campus is being built. Forgot hornet line is closing down.

It should probably also be said that if the government ownership and constant recompetition part for the F-47 does pan out and also rings true for F/A-XX, it may well be that the OEM changes down the line - however difficult that may be.
 
Last edited:
Jimmo952 said:
Boeing wins! Yikes.

https://breakingdefense.com/2026/09/boeing-navy-ngad-faxx-next-gen-fighter-competition-northrop/
Click to expand...
Now Boeing's OFFICIALLY developing both Sixth-Generation fighter projects? That's...something

Maybe there will be some shared parts and technologies between the F-47 and the F/A-XX or it would just be a navy-compatible F-47 altogether. But given that the Navy wants something different from the Air Force, a wholly different aircraft with some shared technology and parts is more likely.
 
Last edited:
La-Fuente Technologies said:
Same obscurity clouds as the F-47, but not so much that we see a bit more of it
Click to expand...
No canards, but the cockpit / nose looks exactly like the F-47 render. And ofcourse the 3d render has to be positioned at exactly the perfect angle so that those chine lines mean absolute nothing.

Still - if the fuselage is sufficiently different, insidersource can stay banned. We'll see in a few years.
 
Congrats to Boeing, their design from the start was dual-use and I hope they did not bite off more than they could chew and I wish much success. Now my speculations:

1. NG could be the principal subcontractor keeping the relationship as with F-18 E/F. If yes, NG building their section(s) in the new FL facility.
2. Boeing F/A-XX could also have some NG advanced configuration features from the NG platform.
3. If no to 1. NG working with Boeing, NG probably has a very advanced program going, possibly a high performance, VLO advanced strike platform (don't go crazy ribbing me right away, here me out). With B-2 and B-21, NG could offer an FB-23-like advanced platform, NG seems to be the strike platform master now and this makes sense.
4. LM ADP, more than likely an SR-72-type program and concentrating on advanced air-breathing LO reconnaissance, again, makes sense. See how programs are now being parsed out based upon the individual corp strengths. LM ADP U-2, RQ-170, legacy SR-71, Darkstar etc. They are also probably going to sell variants of Vectis.

Also, there is China and there massive build up. These advanced programs may have been in the works for while. Again folks, don't beat me up, just trying introduce some logic hear. Remember, there are US programs going which are pretty well hidden and more than likely in advanced development and flight testing. Times are changing my friends.
 
It's a massive relief to see it awarded, and the render looks nice imo.

I was in the camp that interpreted the delay from early 2025 to now as an advantage to NG, due to continued development of B-21, the decision for AWACS to be space based & E-7s rather than the Wicker plan of Hawkeyes, the non-selection of the NG CCA for phase 1 despite rumors of its growing following last year, its withdrawal from the Navy trainer program, and more. I definitely thought the remarks about only one contractor having the short term resources to get this done quickly was an expression of skepticism about Boeing, schedule wise but not ability wise. Very interesting that the view from early 2025 turned out to still be the case.

Will also be interesting to see what materializes on the protest front. *IF* it was true that NG was assessed as having the capacity advantage, it makes one wonder which the Navy picked. No sour grapes on my part to Boeing or the ongoing legacy of McDD though. Ever since X-36 it's been thrilling to imagine what they might do next.
 
Last edited:
Fessus said:
That render definitely has canards, big ones too. The whole thing looks really wide.View attachment 824959
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharpening that up! One can now see that there is the upward camber on the main wings, as well, like the F-47 renders. Initially I thought it had a flat dorito-style shape, but it seems like that was just the canards.
 
JS23 said:
Thank you for sharpening that up! One can now see that there is the upward camber on the main wings, as well, like the F-47 renders. Initially I thought it had a flat dorito-style shape, but it seems like that was just the canards.
Click to expand...
i bet the cannards are for better carrier landings, since it might be heavy it would need all the lift it could get.
 
Is the F-47 Boeing's original submission for F/A-XX? Why not put inlets on top? MTOW estimates? Max dash estimates?
 
books said:
Edit: are those inlets under the canards?
Click to expand...

FlyGuy369 said:
Yes
Click to expand...
Am guessing then that similarities in nose with the F-47 imply similar inlets as well? That is, it might be time to update the F-47 renders too! Betting Reddington is already doing so : )

They look caret like to me, but I'm nevertheless wondering if others see a bit of DSI as well? I think I do, but it's so easy to be deke'd by imagery angles & smoke... With the apparent airflow volume, I'm feeling good about it being likely a twin engine setup, which briefly I worried it might not be due to that empennage bump.
 
Last edited:
djj said:
Is the F-47 Boeing's original submission for F/A-XX? Why not put inlets on top? MTOW estimates? Max dash estimates?
Click to expand...
No. Boeing did the navy demonstrator for AII-X. Demonstrator didnt have much to do with final design of either aircraft. Now just how much they are related design wise - im not comfortable enough with making a judgement anymore lol.

I still doubt that a strike fighter will share too much with an air superiority fighter, but we'll see. I can see an air superiority design get turned into a multirole/ strike design, but not vice versa.
 
Last edited:
books said:
Am guessing then that similarities in nose with the F-47 imply similar inlets as well? That is, it might be time to update the F-47 renders too! Betting Reddington is already doing so : )

They look caret like to me, but I'm nevertheless wondering if others see a bit of DSI as well? I think I do, but it's so easy to be deke'd by imagery angles & smoke... With the apparent airflow volume, I'm feeling good about it being likely a twin engine setup, which briefly I worried it might not be due to that emo engage bump.
Click to expand...
I mean perhaps! What I can tell is if you do there research into Boeing's inlet methodologies, it can be anything from a DSI to a rotating spike inlet.

Also, the canards are slightly tilted down with the actual rotation line offset and askew from longitudinal axis it appears.
 
Last edited:
I always felt Boeing would win it since they did the navy demos and the pause in contract award was supposedly over concerns about industry capacity. And I always assumed canards would be on it for low speed handling. Perhaps the USAF realized runway length is a very serious consideration for their ACE deployment scheme and that low speed handling is huge value for them as well, or perhaps Boeing just had other traits and values that made their design more useful to the USAF. I believe several people have repeatedly stated that the Boeing design was quite novel and capable.
 
JS23 said:
Thank you for sharpening that up! One can now see that there is the upward camber on the main wings, as well, like the F-47 renders. Initially I thought it had a flat dorito-style shape, but it seems like that was just the canards.
Click to expand...
well if MTI satelites are going to be a thing I will say it right now, 3D Stealth will be the new paradigm shift. J-36 / J-50 with straight wings will look great to an MTI Awacs Space Constellation but say a Bird Of Prey layout would offer exceptional Stealth in all planes. I suspected this after F-47 (Boeing did build the Bird of Prey and the X-36 and who knows what since) reveal but if F-A-XX render is accurate we are looking at 3D stealth which would explain the Navy and USAF choosing a similar concept tailored very smartly from Boeing for both services avoiding the mistake Northrop made with F-23 and NATF being VERY different. If we are talking low-risk, a shared design but optimized for each service planform would reduce a lot of risk.
 
Perhaps I'll be shouted down and not trying to ruin anyone's fun but I was under the impression the F-47 renderings were just that, artists concept renderings that don't represent the actual design. I am sure the USAF said it was heavily doctored and edited to deliberately obscure the real design.

What are the odds then the same/similar image has been fed into the machine and told to spit out an F/A-XX carrier version sitting on a deck surrounded by steam because the Head Honcho likes steam...? What I'm trying to say is I think there is too much stock being put into an artist impression/AI graphic that may not actually represent the proposed aircraft design.
 
Ozair said:
Perhaps I'll be shouted down and not trying to ruin anyone's fun but I was under the impression the F-47 renderings were just that, artists concept renderings that don't represent the actual design. I am sure the USAF said it was heavily doctored and edited to deliberately obscure the real design.

What are the odds then the same/similar image has been fed into the machine and told to spit out an F/A-XX carrier version sitting on a deck surrounded by steam because the Head Honcho likes steam...? What I'm trying to say is I think there is too much stock being put into an artist impression/AI graphic that may not actually represent the proposed aircraft design.
Click to expand...
That might be true, altough they could just vaguely hide some details in plain sight, and most of the renders somewhat match previous X-planes such as the X-36 and the bird of prey, so i wouldnt call renders too far off from the truth.
 
Ozair said:
Perhaps I'll be shouted down and not trying to ruin anyone's fun but I was under the impression the F-47 renderings were just that, artists concept renderings that don't represent the actual design. I am sure the USAF said it was heavily doctored and edited to deliberately obscure the real design.
Click to expand...
I think for a lot of us (or just me) they've been edging this so hard for the past ten years that people want something to tickle the imagination with. Those of us who do spend time staring at renders and speculating also understand that theres a good likelihood that its a waste of time too. I do apologize though if we are clogging up the threads. Maybe we can go back to the Boeing F/A-XX thread or something.

As far as the renderings go, hell - It may even be the same underlying model from the F-47 and just doctored differently.
 
I'm just hoping Boeing can execute on both programs. Their performance on KC-46, MQ-25, and the T-7 certainly doesn't instill confidence, giving how far behind all those programs are and they aren't nearly as complex as the F-47 or F/A-XX. I honestly thought NG would win it, due to their performance on the B-21, but I guess that didn't really count for much.
 
JS23 said:
F-35 is going to keep them humming happily for a generation (seriously, people forget the *scale* it's being made and operated on), especially when the inevitable "Gen 5.5" refresh happens, and there are CCAs and hypersonic drones yet to design to keep the CADers busy. Weep not for LockMart.
Click to expand...
It's why I specified combat aircraft design, rather than combat aircraft production. Production of an existing design is one thing, but keeping a full aircraft design capability on hand is expensive. CCAs may be the saving grace for that, but Anduril and co are making inroads there, while probably not yet at the level you'd want for design of an NGAD-level capability that you could entrust to NG or LM.
 
So logically, given the constant statements from the american MIC about not being able to support two 6th gen programs at once, FA-XX must be a variant of F-47? Just like F-4 and F-111 back in the day.
 
Of course it's all gut feeling at the moment, but we have been led to believe that the F-47 is a relatively small plane, and that FA-XX rendering looks huge.
 
lancer21 said:
So logically, given the constant statements from the american MIC about not being able to support two 6th gen programs at once, FA-XX must be a variant of F-47? Just like F-4 and F-111 back in the day.
Click to expand...
Wait a min, F-14 isn't even a variant of F-111. F-111B was the initial contender for what the navy wanted but it was pretty crap so they canned it and started the F-14 project (VFX).
 
lancer21 said:
So logically, given the constant statements from the american MIC about not being able to support two 6th gen programs at once, FA-XX must be a variant of F-47? Just like F-4 and F-111 back in the day.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced yet that F/A-XX and F-47 are the same design. Could see them sharing a lot of systems but the planform, to me, is probably different and mission sets are different enough that they are two aircraft that share a design heritage but won't be the same ALA F-4 and F-35A & C.

If the F/A-XX is a clear variant in the F-4/F-35 mold then
- Will the USN continue with a derivative of a current in service engine to power the aircraft or would they go for an XA as the USAF eventually will with F-47?
- Will the weapons bays on F/A-XX and F-47 be essentially the same?
- Will the USN follow the USAF in the digital century concept of making production available open to other vendors?
- If the aircraft are the same then I would suggest Boeing should not require 20 billion to modify it for naval operations.
- Same core centre fuselage but different wings?
- Will the F/A-XX have a range increase beyond the suggested approx 750nm and be closer to the USAF F-47 range.
- Did Boeing's F-47 give them an advantage in that they could reduce EMD costs as they already had portions of the aircraft in development?


So many questions...
 
Tomboy said:
Wait a min, F-14 isn't even a variant of F-111. F-111B was the initial contender for what the navy wanted but it was pretty crap so they canned it and started the F-14 project (VFX).
Click to expand...
He said F-4 not F-14. F-4 being a USN aircraft adopted by the USAF.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom