Boeing 6th Gen Fighter - F/A-XX

[Hydroman]

F/A-XX may also come in single and two-seat versions just like F-18 E/F.

 

[Sferrin]

Not sure what you guys misunderstood from my post, the likes of F-4, A-7, F-111 and later F-35 were ordered from the top to be used by both USN and USAF. Imo the same case seems to be applied to F-47 too (as the F/A-XX for USN), unless you think Boeing can design two entirely different 6th gen fighters from scratch more or less simultaneously.

After the F-35 I'd think they'd have learned the lesson. (Granted, if they ever wanted a Harrier replacement, it had to be that way.)

 

[quellish]

Broadly speaking, I feel a bit like it's 1992 and the news is showing neato A/F-X art.

I think my big picture takeaway (other than relief at an award) so far is that while F/A-XX has been widely described as a strike fighter, and no doubt accurately, statements over the last day or two have also been talking air superiority and FAD, while the art also looks to show an aircraft with intakes I associate with supersonic aircraft, and indeed Mach 2+ ones. To me that makes F/A-XX seem like the latter day realization of A/F-X, moreso than ATA.

Contrary to what you may have read in the forum, supercruise was a requirement at least earlier in the program. But supercruise != interceptor/“air superiority”

 

[timmyjohn]

Contrary to what you may have read in the forum, supercruise was a requirement at least earlier in the program. But supercruise != interceptor/“air superiority”

Still the case.
USN F/A-XX = Supercruise
USAF F-47 = Subsonic cruise, supersonic capable
Big difference in service requirements

 

[quellish]

Still the case.
USN F/A-XX = Supercruise
USAF F-47 = Subsonic cruise, supersonic capable
Big difference in service requirements

Huh?
Both had supercruise requirements. F-47 it was a hard requirement at contract award. F/A-XX it was a hard requirement, then a stretch goal, then a hard requirement at the time of two different AOAs, and then during the last year F/A-XX requirements were changed and I do not know if supercruise was affected.

 

[Hydroman]

Contrary to what you may have read in the forum, supercruise was a requirement at least earlier in the program. But supercruise != interceptor/“air superiority”

And the USN needs fleet air defense just like what the F-14 provided. Additionally, the USN does not even have one dedicated attack platform, strike fighters everywhere, my personal opinion, not a good idea.

 

[Hydroman]

And the USN needs fleet air defense just like what the F-14 provided. Additionally, the USN does not even have one dedicated attack platform, strike fighters everywhere, my personal opinion, not a good idea.

Let me clarify and add to, or dedicated unmanned strike platforms as well.

 

[timmyjohn]

Huh?
Both had supercruise requirements. F-47 it was a hard requirement at contract award. F/A-XX it was a hard requirement, then a stretch goal, then a hard requirement at the time of two different AOAs, and then during the last year F/A-XX requirements were changed and I do not know if supercruise was affected

Providing what I know as of March 2025.

 

[quellish]

And the USN needs fleet air defense just like what the F-14 provided. Additionally, the USN does not even have one dedicated attack platform, strike fighters everywhere, my personal opinion, not a good idea.

The Navy needed a high altitude penetrating strike aircraft in the 1980s. They wanted a low altitude “penetrating” bomber with A2A capability.

What the Navy needs and what the Navy wants are two different things. To their credit in more recent years that gap has closed significantly. Right now what they want and how to get there quickly is a problem.

 

[Training_Dummy]

shocker: NAVAIR saw what the surface guys were doing in terms of 180s on critical performance parameters of key programs and said “hold my paddles”

Oscillations of the importance or even feasibility of supercruise from the USNs perspective were bound to happen over time as NAVAIRs “understanding” of the F/A-XX trade-space was slowly, over time, mugged by contractor and budgetary reality, as well as “reality reality”.

I’ve said enough in the above about the tendency for the USN to engage in not a tiny amount of magical thinking when it comes to new programs but I’m hopeful the reality is much simpler:

F/A-XXs planform, effector system and overall aerodynamics fully accommodate mission useful supercruise (and perhaps even a higher dash speed than Fat Amy II doomers had feared), but the initial spiral(s) of F/A-XX plan for a less exotic engine than an ACE, with a relatively straightforward path to ACEs, if/when USN believes that is capability cost effective.

To the extent this is the case, the USAF and USN NGAD programs would go through a similar “engine two-step”, albeit bc of clearly different reasons.

 

[Sferrin]

If Boeing's F/A-XX has canards, it's amazing the USN did not want the NATF-23 at the time, the USN was kind of screwed up back then.

I thought the reason they didn't want it was because it was basically a completely different aircraft than the YF-23.