Boeing 6th Gen Fighter - F/A-XX

[Sferrin]

I wonder if you have seen renderings. Yes, they do both.

Assuming we're not just having a repeat of the ATF. Here's are some of LM's ATF renderings they released, followed by the real deal:

 

[Josh_TN]

@Josh_TN I would be surprised if F/A-XX used anything besides an F110-129 or one of its growth steps, given the higher growth margins for cooling/power generation compared to the F-414 and the rumors that the initial F-47 will use an F110 derivative.

The Navy already rejected the F-414 EPE for Superhornet Block III due to its decreased TBO and seemed happy with the F110s in the F-14D.

OOTH, the Navy seems quite unhappy with the higher expense, shorter TBO, and poor parts availability for the F-135, not to mention that 2 F-135s would probably be way overkill for anything smaller than an F-111.

@quellish's point about the logistics chain is certainly valid but I think that could be alleviated by having a "high-low" mix of carriers with F/A-XX and F-35C respectively so that the carriers only need to be resupplied with F-110 and F-414 OR F-135 and F-414, instead of all 3 together.

That was kinda my point - two F414 or one F135 seems like too little; two F135 seems like two much.

 

[Tomboy]

Assuming we're not just having a repeat of the ATF. Here's are some of LM's ATF renderings they released, followed by the real deal:

Most of these seem to be rendering of genuine ATF proposals by LM. It could very well be that the pictures depicted are based on the real proposal being evaluated at the time.

 

[Sferrin]

Most of these seem to be rendering of genuine ATF proposals by LM.

None of the Lockheed ATF proposals looked like those renderings. None had a canard for example. Those renderings fed into the expectations of the time. The perception it would be a canard-equipped, twin-tail, TVC aircraft was almost universal.

 

[timmyjohn]

Someone in this thread stated explicitly that ACE was off the table and that price was not the primary factor. They could not elaborate. I do not know that to be true..

Yes I wrote in 2025 that the Navy was not pursuing 3 stream, cost was reason 2. Reason 1 is something I choose not to divulge on a public forum.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

In the ATF program, artwork before contract award by vendors was mostly intentionally vague or misleading to not tip off competitors. However, the artwork presented by the Air Force was genuine, though somewhat censored. The B-21 continued in the same vein.

Its certainly possible that the images are completely fake for F-47 and F/A-XX. I think they are more like the F-117A photo, taken from a misleading angle with details obscured and Photoshopped clouds hiding key details.

 

[bring_it_on]

In the ATF program, artwork before contract award by vendors was mostly intentionally vague or misleading to not tip off competitors. However, the artwork presented by the Air Force was genuine, though somewhat censored. The B-21 continued in the same vein.

There were certainly attempts to distort the design in the renders which would suggest that the original was close to what Boeing pitched. If this was something Boeing commissioned an artist to draw up without knowing the final design configuration of the real design neither they or the DAF would have morphed the render. I would assume both the F-47 and the F/A-XX official artwork shared by the USAF and USN is somewhat representative of the real thing with key features distorted.

Sources said that, in anticipation of the NGAD announcement, Boeing artists produced images that already deliberately distorted some of the NGAD’s features, and the Air Force then further altered them..LINK

 

[timmyjohn]

Where is the "A" in this F/A-XX. Why not be honest & go back to the F-X moniker Admitting this craft is for carrier defense is to admit the USN is transforming into a self licking ice-cream cone. As has been previously pointed out.
'why is ur carrier primarily full of self defense fighters. We have to protect the carrier.' What is carrier's mission again? We have to protect the carrier."

Im guessing this is exactly the argument that was made by the CAPE Director and the 4star Gen Dale White, and enforced by DepSecDef Feinberg. The recent Congreesional testimony by CJCS Dan Caine seemed to have targeted these guys and this debate, and may have been key to breaking the 1-1/2 yr logjam.

 

[barry bozo]

This is the first time I've heard of FSDA, would you please give a brief summary of what this is for those of us who don't what it is and a URL (If it exists) to a website explaining this please.

I had already explained it for the most part in my previous post, but here's a link from Lockheed's website that explains exactly what it does and its benefits.

I chose to use one from LM's website since some like to diss Boeing for "outsourcing" (lol).

 

[timmyjohn]

Canards are not the interesting parts unless you’re European. The released renderings of both NGAD and F/A-XX intentionally obscure 5 things of interest that I am aware of and none of them are canards.

F-47 = no canard
F/A-XX = idk

 

[Explorer121]

Canards are interesting because of the J-20 drama and all, but is there a chance the F-47 or F/A-XX is using a LEVCON or LEVCON/canard hybrid? The AI enhanced picture makes the canard look like an oversized LERX

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Most of these seem to be rendering of genuine ATF proposals by LM. It could very well be that the pictures depicted are based on the real proposal being evaluated at the time.

No, all intentional disinformation.

 

[flateric]

Assuming we're not just having a repeat of the ATF. Here's are some of LM's ATF renderings they released, followed by the real deal:

Once more, we should separate contractors' released images from USAF released ones. This is important.

 

[Sferrin]

In the ATF program, artwork before contract award by vendors was mostly intentionally vague or misleading to not tip off competitors. However, the artwork presented by the Air Force was genuine, though somewhat censored. The B-21 continued in the same vein.

Its certainly possible that the images are completely fake for F-47 and F/A-XX. I think they are more like the F-117A photo, taken from a misleading angle with details obscured and Photoshopped clouds hiding key details.

The first is the only one I recall that was even remotely similar. The last two were released maybe a month or two before they rolled out the YF-23 IIRC,

 

[jsport]

View: https://youtu.be/60HMTVW1d6A

Start @ the 27:15 mark "It doesn't have the PCA mission of the F-47." Sounds of self licking...

PS: Warwick appears incorrect on
EW capabilities
Capabilities r lesser when attempted offboard. This is increasingly the case w increased digitization.
EW predominance in the current conflict further amplifies how much the EA-6 & EF-111 r missed & their proximity capabilities required.

...was vaguely aware of F-X as previous program via a previous thread. The AF should have a F-X program, but given the current that would be decades away.

 

[Josh_TN]

Start @ the 27:15 mark "It doesn't have the PCA mission of the F-47." Sounds of self licking...

PS: Warwick appears incorrect on
EW capabilities
Capabilities r lesser when attempted offboard. This is increasingly the case w increased digitization.
EW predominance in the current conflict further amplifies how much the EA-6 & EF-111 r missed & their proximity capabilities required.

FA-XX is primarily a strike platform, not counter air. Combined with the new USN CCA requirements, it seems pretty clear that the goal is to increase strike range and salvo size.

As for offboard/stand in EW - the big advantages are expendability, lower power requirements, and the potential to sample the signal and inject an effect after the fact. That last element cannot be duplicated by standoff systems.

 

[jsport]

FA-XX is primarily a strike platform, not counter air. Combined with the new USN CCA requirements, it seems pretty clear that the goal is to increase strike range and salvo size.

Both u & Trimble cant be right. What on earth is long range strike if one hasn't done the DEAD/SEAD. If Growler as an 18 is replaced then no DEAD. This is already tiring.

 

[Josh_TN]

Both u & Trimble cant be right. What on earth is long range strike if one hasn't done the DEAD/SEAD. If Growler as an 18 is replaced then no DEAD. This is already tiring.

My guess is that the USN envisions primarily using stand off weapons and effectors like LRASM, MALD-N, and MACE. (ETA: and I suspect there will be a bunch of other long range subsonic options soon as well)

Also EF-18G has a significantly shorter range than even F-18E/F due to drag, especially when the pods are in operation (ram air turbo generators). It seems unlikely it would have any offensive use at Pacific scale ranges, IMO.

 

[jsport]

My guess is that the USN envisions primarily using stand off weapons and effectors like LRASM, MALD-N, and MACE. (ETA: and I suspect there will be a bunch of other long range subsonic options soon as well)

Also EF-18G has a significantly shorter range than even F-18E/F due to drag, especially when the pods are in operation (ram air turbo generators). It seems unlikely it would have any offensive use at Pacific scale ranges, IMO.

Thank you for making the argument. Super-sonic all aspect S, non exportable & able to be scaled eventuality to a four seater r required This munitions/missile truck would best resemble the ancient NG mini-B-2 proposal. The fighter mafia would abhor, therefore it won't happen & carriers forever then questionable.

 

[Josh_TN]

Thank you for making the argument. Super-sonic all aspect S, non exportable & able to be scaled eventuality to a four seater r required This munitions/missile truck would best resemble the ancient NG mini-B-2 proposal. The fighter mafia would abhor, therefore it won't happen & carriers forever then questionable.

Just because counter air is not the priority does not mean a single mission aircraft is preferable. If the USN needs a stealthy penetrating bomb truck, at this point it should be a UCAV, not a manned aircraft.

ETA: In any case, this the FA-XX thread and the USN has made its choice. Speculation is best saved for other topics.

 

[MigLui]

I worry that the current Administration seems overly 'fond' of Boeing, and is placing all their 6th Gen eggs in one basket.
Boeing's track record for bringing projects to successful operational capability hasn't been great lately; I'm not sure they can handle all that's been heaped on their plate.

L-M had difficulties with the F-35 program, a 5th Gen, Boeing is tasked with two 6th Gen, a trainer and a tanker that are problematical, and on-going issues with the commercial division.

N-G seems to be enjoying 'smooth sailing' with their bomber program, and may have been a better bet.

Only things 'up for grabs' left, are CCA programs, and GA and Anduril seem ahead of the pack in that regard.

 

[Flyaway]

IDK, there have been a lot of indications lately that Boeing have stepped up their game:

1. They were able to design, manufacture and fly their AII-X demonstrator 3 years earlier than LockMart and, according to them, years faster than expected.

2. when the F-47 contract was awarded AF officials stated that the Boeing submission was more "revolutionary" than the "evolutionary" LockMart submission, which I more and more believe refers to their digital design methods achieving very high development speeds

It begs the question then why the development of Starliner has been such a CF. Does the company just not care enough about Starliner, is there not enough money in it for them compared to these other projects?

 

[Flyaway]

IIRC the “thesis” there was that F/A-XX was a navalized NGAD or vice versa. This isn’t correct. They are not variants of one design but share a common design language, exactly what you would expect if they were both designed by the same company.

It will be interesting to see if NG protests the award. It would not surprise me if the recent requirements changes favored one company’s design.

I’m pretty sure NG will. Rocket Lab have protested Blue Origin winning the Mars Telecommunication Orbiter, because of the way the requirements ended up being written by NASA. From where they started.

 

[Hydroman]

So do both of F-47 and F/A-XX have canards?

In regards to F/A-XX and as an example, the NATF-23 needed canards to meet take-off, approach, landing requirements plus it was to have 2D thrust vectoring like the F-22. We still needed canards even though we added another 100 sq-ft of wing area. Also check out Paul Metz's YF-23 book if you have a copy, great book. Good chance F/A-XX may have canards.

 

[Hydroman]

Just because counter air is not the priority does not mean a single mission aircraft is preferable. If the USN needs a stealthy penetrating bomb truck, at this point it should be a UCAV, not a manned aircraft.

ETA: In any case, this the FA-XX thread and the USN has made its choice. Speculation is best saved for other topics.

If the USN is placing counter air and fleet air defense behind strike/attack, I think that is a mistake. I do agree a UCAV with reasonable payload can handle the strike missions but they don't have one and current CCAs are small and have very limited payloads. The USN has not had any attack platforms since the A-6 and A-7, and A-12, I'm not going there.

 

[jsport]

Just because counter air is not the priority does not mean a single mission aircraft is preferable. If the USN needs a stealthy penetrating bomb truck, at this point it should be a UCAV, not a manned aircraft.

ETA: In any case, this the FA-XX thread and the USN has made its choice. Speculation is best saved for other topics.

Unmanned will generally require the nearby quarterback, much like the tank will use the RCV to its fighting but still must be a tank.

As pointed out by AW&ST this is far from not being questioned-delayed for a reason. In this case the old DC shuffle makes sense. This is especially true when forces r obfiscating on the reasoning. Much like the Army M-7/8 decision deserves questioning.

 

[xray]

Canards are not the interesting parts unless you’re European. The released renderings of both NGAD and F/A-XX intentionally obscure 5 things of interest that I am aware of and none of them are canards.

it's all my speculation in any case
-------------------------------------------
But 1 thing that Quellish inspired me to look at is the WINGTIPS.

U can see from the pic that the guide just happens to be blocking the aircraft’s right wingtip, while the left wingtip is outside the frame, so it’s hard not to wonder if there’s something to it.

Similar things happened to F-47 renders

The wingtips are either blurred by airflow or obscured by a cloud of mist

 

[FighterJock]

More than likely the wingtips are obscured by a cloud of mist, whether this was done intentionally to hide the wingtips or what I do not know.

 

[xray]

In regards to F/A-XX and as an example, the NATF-23 needed canards to meet take-off, approach, landing requirements plus it was to have 2D thrust vectoring like the F-22. We still needed canards even though we added another 100 sq-ft of wing area. Also check out Paul Metz's YF-23 book if you have a copy, great book. Good chance F/A-XX may have canards.

I don't have that book. I've been hoping to find an electronic copy for a while.

 

[Sferrin]

In regards to F/A-XX and as an example, the NATF-23 needed canards to meet take-off, approach, landing requirements plus it was to have 2D thrust vectoring like the F-22. We still needed canards even though we added another 100 sq-ft of wing area. Also check out Paul Metz's YF-23 book if you have a copy, great book. Good chance F/A-XX may have canards.

You can get one for the low-low price of $499.

 

[Josh_TN]

Unmanned will generally require the nearby quarterback, much like the tank will use the RCV to its fighting but still must be a tank.

As pointed out by AW&ST this is far from not being questioned-delayed for a reason. In this case the old DC shuffle makes sense. This is especially true when forces r obfiscating on the reasoning. Much like the Army M-7/8 decision deserves questioning.

I did not read Aviation Week; is your argument that FA-XX should prioritize counter air or that it should not exist at all in favor of a dedicated strike platform?

 

[jsport]

The AWST video is the only source referenced. One thought would be, as mentioned in the video, the old forgotten idea that Boeing return to basically common craft form factor. not just maximum commonality ie not export friendly. A severe compromise, as the real solution would look like a miniature NG B-21 w a large multi- angle AESA array(s) & max bomb bays.

 

[EmoBirb]

The USN has not had any attack platforms since the A-6 and A-7, and A-12, I'm not going there.

Both F/A-18 and F-35 are strike fighters, "attack platforms" as you'd say. Which is reflected in how they're used, their performance parameters and how they were developed. The USN and their super carriers are primarily tasked with land attack missions at stand off range, subsequently their air wing focuses on strike and supporting these strike packages (refueling). The AEW component is mostly there to extend the "eyes" of the entire strike group beyond the horizon, as there are ships that deal with incoming missiles and aircraft. Not to mention that even a strike and attacked focused aircraft can still engage aerial threads if necessary, it's just not a priority.

 

[Reddington777]

Ngl and no offense to anyone in particular (or Im about to offend alot of people), but this forum occasionally shows its age.

Either that or you guys have a life and I simply dont or its just a complete refusal to absorb and process information. All the information posted in the past few days (some of which have taught me a whole lot) are just ignored. Meanwhile new information is being shoved into what is essentially a cold war era understanding of warfare and then rage ensues. All context from the past 15 years of modernization and forum discussions are just tossed out the window.

Do people even read the thread in whole at all? 99% of these "concerns" and "points" people are posting have not only been posted before but the horse has been beaten so dead that its become fossilized pixie dust. In fact 99% of these posts has been discussed in the first PCA thread.

@jsport

Your concern regarding the fleet air arm has been asked before. I know because I asked it. @quellish responded that the fleet defense job is to be the job of unmanned platforms in the future, with F/A-XX as airborne controller / network nodes and better missiles from DDGs. By the time F/A-XX reaches rhe fleets, we will for sure know the CCA requirments that the navy will be using for fleet air defense - given the speed that CCA development is moving at. We may already know given that the navy says it wants small, reusable and multipurpose CCAs for launching missiles and then expending themselves.

Im not sure what the fixation is on F/A-XX by itself as a defining feature of CBGs when as far back as 2013, the actual defense industry had already been talking and working on systems of systems warfare. The manned fighter doesnt need to do everything anymore. The manned fighter alone cannot compensate for the weapons being aimed at carriers either. There is no self licking icecream cone. There is no evidence that its a self licking icecream cone. The fleet air wing still has the same objectives to accomplish offensively and defensively. The same respnsibilities have been move around to other systems both due to modern threats and modern responses to those threats. Some of these responsibilities have even been networked away from the navy itself.

Please for the love of god - if we are going to complain about shit at least make your complaints based on facts, actaul context and a wholistic picture. F/A-XX isnt the whole fleet air wing. It isnt he only sensor or shooter in the fleet air wing let along the whole fleet or the whole combined arms units in a theater. War and technology has moved beyond the cold war. Some things simply matter less now. And if we are to have some quality of discussion, we ought to move on from that as well.

 

[Josh_TN]

i have thought more about what @quellish was saying about commonality of power plant. I have been assuming FA-XX would be significantly heavier than F-35C and thus ruled out a single F-135. But on the other hand, I also assume it will have better high speed aerodynamics than “Fat Amy”, which had to force a lot of endurance/fuel into a short length requirement (had to fit on gator freighter elevator). I had ruled out a single F-135 as an option, but maybe if you were not too concerned with acceleration and time to altitude, F-135 would be enough? For a strike platform, it would not necessarily be that underpowered, and there would be huge cost and logistical advantages.

That also produces an obvious answer to the lack of 3stream: standardization of F-35B/C/FA-XX to one engine build.

I realize multiple people who are better informed are saying F110 (presumably two). Even if that is the case, just curious what other engine installations would be practical.

 

[jsport]

Ngl and no offense to anyone in particular (or Im about to offend alot of people), but this forum occasionally shows its age.

Either that or you guys have a life and I simply dont or its just a complete refusal to absorb and process information. All the information posted in the past few days (some of which have taught me a whole lot) are just ignored. Meanwhile new information is being shoved into what is essentially a cold war era understanding of warfare and then rage ensues. All context from the past 15 years of modernization and forum discussions are just tossed out the window.

Do people even read the thread in whole at all? 99% of these "concerns" and "points" people are posting have not only been posted before but the horse has been beaten so dead that its become fossilized pixie dust. In fact 99% of these posts has been discussed in the first PCA thread.

@jsport

Your concern regarding the fleet air arm has been asked before. I know because I asked it. @quellish responded that the fleet defense job is to be the job of unmanned platforms in the future, with F/A-XX as airborne controller / network nodes and better missiles from DDGs.

Im not sure what the fixation is on F/A-XX by itself as a defining feature of CBGs when as far back as 2013, the actual defense industry had already been talking about systems of systems warfare. The manned fighter doesnt need to do everything anymore. The manned fighter alone cannot compensate for the weapons being ained at carriers alone either. There is no self licking icecream cone. There is no evidence that its a self licking icecream cone. The fleet air wing still has the same objectives to accomplish offensively and defensively. The same respnsibilities have been move around to other systems both due to modern threats and modern responses to those threats.

Please for the love of god - if we are going to complain about shit at least make your complaints based on facts, actaul context and a wholistic picture. War and technology has moved beyond the cold war. Some things simply matter less now. And if we are to have some quality of discussion, we ought to move on from that as well.

..am very very aware this is rehashed argument on my part. .. have contended for years, still not heard viable pushback.
..the theory of the case has only been reinforced by the increasing demand for capable EW (maximized AESA array space/capability et al..Growler is to be replaced by FA-XX) & PCA as well as the growing size of missiles/munitions which must be internally stored for stealth. Still patiently waiting to hear any viable counter.

 

[DWG]

Hand drilling vs. CNC milling is how it’s so much more accurate.

Which is precisely my point. It's not a process whose advantage is rooted in subcontractors outperforming Boeing, but in comparing different technologies. Apply the same technology in Boeing's production flow as opposed to the supply chains and you will see the same improvement.

The question then becomes why is it advantageous to Boeing to apply that technology in their supply chain, but not on their own shop floor?

 

[jsport]

Please for the love of god - if we are going to complain about shit at least make your complaints based on facts, actaul context and a wholistic picture. F/A-XX isnt the whole fleet air wing. It isnt he only sensor or shooter in the fleet air wing let along the whole fleet or the whole combined arms units in a theater. War and technology has moved beyond the cold war. Some things simply matter less now. And if we are to have some quality of discussion, we ought to move on from that as well.

Please for the love of god - if you are going to complain about shit at least make your complaints based on facts, actaul context and a wholistic picture. War and technology has moved beyond the cold war. Some things simply matter less now. (like what?)
And if we are to have some quality of discussion, you ought to move on from that as well. (to what?)

 

[Reddington777]

Please for the love of god - if you are going to complain about shit at least make your complaints based on facts, actaul context and a wholistic picture. War and technology has moved beyond the cold war. Some things simply matter less now. (like what?)

The manned fighters needing to do fleet defense and offense by themselves. They simply dont need a dedicated fleet defender. There are CCAs F-35s etc.

And if we are to have some quality of discussion, we ought to move on from that as well. (to what?)

Focusing on a single plane taken out of its operational context to fulfill some theory of yours that has neither evidence nor logic - despite numerous people telling you otherwise with factual or at least supported information

You dont have to agree with nayone, but being unwilling to entertain presentedbfacts and continually pushing a theory around is ....

Insidersource-like

 

[J McInn]

Yes I wrote in 2025 that the Navy was not pursuing 3 stream, cost was reason 2. Reason 1 is something I choose not to divulge on a public forum.

suitability of adaptive cycle engines for an aircraft that has to land on a carrier?