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

@quellish has stated repeatedly that USAF was very impressed with the Boeing demonstrator(s). They seem to have won on the merits. They also have been self funding a lot of infrastructure to support these projects. They may screw it up as they have many of their military projects recently, but they seem to have the superior designs and a superior ability to produce them.
 
Josh_TN said:
@quellish has stated repeatedly that USAF was very impressed with the Boeing demonstrator(s). They seem to have won on the merits. They also have been self funding a lot of infrastructure to support these projects. They may screw it up as they have many of their military projects recently, but they seem to have the superior designs and a superior ability to produce them.
Click to expand...
I'd prefer they have as little screw ups as possible, I mean, there could be a few here and there which can be solved through trial and error during the EMD process (And I'm pretty sure they would have done that all those years ago even before getting the EMD contract). It would be also more reassuring since Boeing has competent aircraft builders in both Phantom Works and any long-time employees that they have that were from McDonnell-Douglas. I just hope that they, as the memers would say "lock in" and "cook" this time around. But again as I said, we just have to wait and see how it goes, especially in 2028.
 
Last edited:
Reddington777 said:
The preference for Boeing for the F-47 was reported as early as 2023. Not sure what lobbying or Trump bribing could have done at that point. That preference did not change even throughout the NGAD review. So as much as some of you want to believe its all lies and conspiracies....
Click to expand...
To clarify, that's what I had thought WAY back a few years ago (You can see my chats arguing on behalf of LM in the NGAD thread, assuming it's still there). Now, I believe that Boeing can make it happen, since now I know that they have the background and experience to do so, given their own share of X-Plane projects, as well as carrier aviation projects. Now, if any lobbying or political preferences were present, I don't know (And it seems to not be the case), but either way, it seems to have been a good decision in the long run on so many levels, and as long as the US gets to actually field a Sixth Generation fighter first, and not any of its adversaries, that would be fine with me.
 
Last edited:
lancer21 said:
J-36 and J-50.
Click to expand...
Like Sferrin said, they are not fielded. By "Fielded", I mean production versions, not prototypes or demonstrators, and the J-36 and J-50s we saw since December 2024 are either the former or the latter, not production versions.

In the Demonstrators department, the US has already beaten the Chinese years ago, as early as 2019. It's just that unlike the Chinese who proudly show off their demonstrators the moment they fly, the US prefers to keep things under wraps and just leave enough public announcements to acknowledge its existence without revealing too much.

​

 
Last edited:
FlyGuy369 said:
What defines 6th gen?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure there are many answers to that question, with some hitting the mark, and others missing it, but based on what I know, Sixth-Generation is a term that's mostly used for Marketing, and many other groups would contest that definition too, but usually, what would define Sixth-Generation (At least, according to the requirements of various Sixth-Generation Fighter programs) is:
-Advanced Stealth capabilities
-Open Architecture Systems
-Being the centerpiece of programs that would include Collaborative Combat Aircraft
-Are meant to be quarterbacks with said CCAs doing the more frontline work
-Has advanced avionics and sensors that enables it to be part of a Kill-Web or theater-wide integration of data-linked systems that would enable Data-Informed Decision Making (DIDM)

I could be wrong on that, and I could also be missing out on some other features, I would have included "Advanced Engines that are variable in design", but apparently, the F/A-XX is not gonna have those, so it's probably not something that defines Sixth-Generation Fighter development, at least for the F/A-XX.
 
Last edited:
Enhanced LO across the EMS, prodigious power/cooling for sci-if EMSO & serious onboard compute, can manage a swarm of uncrewed AVs to achieve effects in novel ways, plus unconventional planforms with innovative control effectors would be my answer in the conversational sense of “what’s a 6th gen fighter?”.

My short answer would be anything that comes after this current era as exemplified by F-35/J-35/KF-21/Kaan/Su-57.

But yes lazy marketing especially by defense firms is just gross.
 
Last edited:
Reddington777 said:
The preference for Boeing for the F-47 was reported as early as 2023.
Click to expand...
I remember reading that here. It also made sense from an industrial policy POV. LockMart being eyeballs deep in F-35block4, NG being occupied with designing and testing B-21. But Boeing is wrapping up Super Bug production, let alone the new buildings.



Josh_TN said:
@quellish has stated repeatedly that USAF was very impressed with the Boeing demonstrator(s). They seem to have won on the merits. They also have been self funding a lot of infrastructure to support these projects. They may screw it up as they have many of their military projects recently, but they seem to have the superior designs and a superior ability to produce them.
Click to expand...
What has really surprised me was Boeing winning the FAXX contract. Balancing the industrial base would have suggested NG having a very large advantage for FAXX.

The Boeing design must be absolutely mindblowing to outweigh the politics.
 
Perhaps there was institutional memory at Boeing/McD of ATF and JSF and what happens when you don’t outshine your competition that they applied in their AII-X demo.

And as for F/A-XX I still think DIB capacity concerns was a critical consideration for the USG - risk/benefit and the real timelines for NG to stand-up volume capacity vs the risk/benefit that came with Boeing having both (among other DIB capacity issues that are pretty bad).
 
La-Fuente Technologies said:
Like Sferrin said, they are not fielded. By "Fielded", I mean production versions, not prototypes or demonstrators, and the J-36 and J-50s we saw since December 2024 are either the former or the latter, not production versions

In the Demnstrators department, the US has already beaten the Chinese years ago, as early as 2019. It's just that unlike the Chinese who proudly show off their demonstrators the moment they fly, the US prefers to keep things under wraps and just leave enough public announcements to acknowledge its existence without revealing too much.

​

Click to expand...
I think it is extremely hard to argue against the fact that the PRC is ahead in 6th generation development. They have prototypes; the U.S. has demonstrators. It is interesting that both sides are skipping full engine development to field these designs - China decided to use three engines rather than develop a two engine solution; the U.S. opted for F110 (most likely) for both its aircraft with one of them on a path to a future upgrade when available.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
What defines 6th gen?
Click to expand...
Probably marketing, like @quellish said but fwiw, Airforce and DOD top leadership keep referring to the F47 as the world’s first Sixth Generation fighter (and, presumably the second would be the F/A-XX).

So they either think it will enter service before the J36 and J50 or they don’t consider the Chinese fighters as sixth generation for some reason. If that is the case, what is the defining characteristic(s) for sixth gen that the F47 (and prob the F/A-XX as well) will possess that the Chinese fighters will not?

Was wondering about that the other day when watching FAXX announcement videos and thinking the Chinese can just put the J36 into service any day and, if they do, could say the same thing.
 
nn8734 said:
So they either think it will enter service before the J36 and J50 or they don’t consider the Chinese fighters as sixth generation for some reason. If that is the case, what is the defining characteristic(s) for sixth gen that the F47 (and prob the F/A-XX as well) will possess that the Chinese fighters will not?
Click to expand...

Most of the key new technologies deemed critical for NGAD have not been widely publicly discussed. Those things and the capabilities they deliver will probably define what “sixth generation” means to people.
 
What would the RCS of J-50 and J-36 be? If they are higher than the RCS of the F-22, then the current USAF leadership could consider them to be non 6th gen.
 
nn8734 said:
Probably marketing, like @quellish said but fwiw, Airforce and DOD top leadership keep referring to the F47 as the world’s first Sixth Generation fighter (and, presumably the second would be the F/A-XX).

So they either think it will enter service before the J36 and J50 or they don’t consider the Chinese fighters as sixth generation for some reason. If that is the case, what is the defining characteristic(s) for sixth gen that the F47 (and prob the F/A-XX as well) will possess that the Chinese fighters will not?

Was wondering about that the other day when watching FAXX announcement videos and thinking the Chinese can just put the J36 into service any day and, if they do, could say the same thing.
Click to expand...
If nobody knows what a 6th gen fighter is, then it has whatever characteristics the F-47 has that the J-36 and J-50 lack. Once upon a time, the defining characteristic of a 5th gen fighter was supercruise capability, but now it's stealth (or whatever else your company's plane has that your competitors lack).
 
quellish said:
Most of the key new technologies deemed critical for NGAD have not been widely publicly discussed. Those things and the capabilities they deliver will probably define what “sixth generation” means to people.
Click to expand...
Agree, that’s what I think as well. I imagine they will be able to do things not previously thought possible (hoping for that anyways).

I do recall former SecAF Frank Kendall remarking once that the race to filed sixth gen fighters will be tight and that China may “win” however our planes will have a lot more capability (paraphrasing his words from memory).

ETA: Variable cycle engines may be a candidate though I think China has fitted the J36 with a laser for (presumably) DIRCM purposes-perhaps the F47 and FA-XX will have something similar).
 
Last edited:
djj said:
What would the RCS of J-50 and J-36 be? If they are higher than the RCS of the F-22, then the current USAF leadership could consider them to be non 6th gen.
Click to expand...
That may be, which would be wild if so given they are tailless designs and the Raptor was designed in the 80s. But there’s a lot more to RCS reduction than just shape and they are relatively new at stealth. Im thinking Pentagon/CIA et al know or have a very good idea about how stealthy (or not) they are and they aren’t as LO as the F22.

But we won’t know their frontal or all aspect RCS (would be next to impossible to guess) unless, for whatever reason, it gets leaked by folks in China and that info makes its way into the public domain…
 
Maybe we can and should all admit that we have a peer adversary who is most definitely ahead at least developing their fighter. Quite frankly it doesnt matter what new alien tech we've discovered if we cant field it on time and in mass.

And its probably time to do away with china being behind in everything. They arent new to stealth anymore. 20 years is not new. Theyve flown multiple stealth aircraft already.

Every passing day we fail to realize this is another day living in complacency. And every day spent in complacency is another one falling behind the adversary.

We can and should shy away from undertaking endless discussion in plane A's RCS is better or worse than plane B's RCS. Thats one of those things that in the large scheme of systems v systems warfare, has started to matter less. That 0.002 m2 difference isnt going to win you the war. You need something VLO. You need a networked node with power and cooling. You need magazine capacity and missiles as well as a distributed kill web. The kill web as a whole matters far more than whether a single plane is slightly better or worse.

I dont mean to shit on everyones parade though. If yall want to keep talking about it, feel free. I think its interesting. But I take every opportunity I can to tell people to stop underestimating the enemy.
 
Last edited:
Reddington777 said:
Maybe we can and should all admit that we have a peer adversary who is most definitely ahead at least developing their fighter. Quite frankly it doesnt matter what new alien tech we've discovered if we cant field it on time and in mass.

And its probably time to do away with china being behind in everything. They arent new to stealth anymore. 20 years is not new. Theyve flown multiple stealth aircraft already.

Every passing day we fail to realize this is another day living in complacency. And every day spent in complacency is another one falling behind the adversary.

We can and should shy away from undertaking endless discussion in plane A's RCS is better or worse than plane B's RCS. Thats one of those things that in the large scheme of systems v systems warfare, has started to matter less. That 0.002 m2 difference isnt going to win you the war. You need something VLO. You need a networked node with power and cooling. You need magazine capacity and missiles as well as a distributed kill web. The kill web as a whole matters far more than whether a single plane is slightly better or worse.

I dont mean to shit on everyones parade though. If yall want to keep talking about it, feel free. I think its interesting. But I take every opportunity I can to tell people to stop underestimating the enemy.
Click to expand...
No one that matters is underestimating China.

We on the forum - it matters not how each of us thinks about China and their capabilities or whether one or more of us underestimate them. Wont make any difference unless one or more of us are in charge of deterring China or China war plans/contingencies.

And yes, compared to the United States, China is relatively new to stealth. 20 years is a drop in the bucket compared to the decades of experience we have in LO/VLO design and manufacturing. The fact they are cranking out new designs like widgets notwithstanding, it’s not reasonable to expect they are literally right there (even with all their IP theft and espionage).

What does concern me, and where I’m in 100% agreement with you, is our manufacturing capacity and ability to deliver these capabilities quick and at meaningful scale. We are taking steps to close this gap but a lot more needs to be done if we don’t want to be left in the dust (quantity has a quality all its own, so to speak).
 
The RCS of the J-20 is about 0.01 - 0.05 m^2. Its outer mold line was frozen in late 2015. The RCS of the F-22 is about 0.001 - 0.00001 m^2. Its outer mold line was frozen around December 1993. Even with and extra 22 years, the best fighter China managed to produce was inferior to the F-22. One should also note that the US tends to understate the specs of its weapons, while Russia and China do the opposite (Russia especially). The J-36 will likely have an RCS comparable or a bit better to the F-35. This is because of its 3 engines and big hump on the back, as well as its very wide cockpit and windshield. Thus it will likely be relegated to a standoff/sniper/quarterback role. Meanwhile the J-50, is smaller than the J-36 and has a significantly smaller canopy. So its RCS is likely better by at least one order of magnitude. However, when one considers the US lead in RCS solvers, advanced RAM coatings, and just operational experience, it is reasonable to conclude that as of right now, the J-36 definitely has a higher RCS than the F-22. And the J-50 also will likely also have a higher RCS than the F-22, especially after its coatings were changed in the mid 2010s. The super F-22 will likely receive newer coatings, thus further reducing its RCS. Of course, if the US is unable to manufacture/operationally support its planes, then none of this really matters.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think it is extremely hard to argue against the fact that the PRC is ahead in 6th generation development. They have prototypes; the U.S. has demonstrators. It is interesting that both sides are skipping full engine development to field these designs - China decided to use three engines rather than develop a two engine solution; the U.S. opted for F110 (most likely) for both its aircraft with one of them on a path to a future upgrade when available.
Click to expand...
That much is knowledge to me already, I just prefer that the US cross the finish line in first place, rather than China, simply because it would give the US great advantage and deterrence if they already have theirs ready to fly should things go south in the Pacific.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
What defines 6th gen?
Click to expand...
1- 360 degree stealth and low band stealth since they don’t have vertical tail
2- Direct energy weapons like laser or HPW
3- Some way to control loyal wing man team
4- Likely some sort of side array
5- adaptive/cognitive EW
 
jsport said:
If USN wants to remain relevant it must invest in all aspect stealth
Click to expand...
Ronny said:
1- 360 degree stealth and low band stealth since they don’t have vertical tail
Click to expand...

What on earth is all-aspect, 360 degree stealth? Can anyone explain the physics behind this, or are we really just dreaming of black holes and science fiction?
 
joshjosh said:
What on earth is all-aspect, 360 degree stealth? Can anyone explain the physics behind this, or are we really just dreaming of black holes and science fiction?
Click to expand...
I remember seeing somewhere that the RCS profile of a typical fifth-generation fighter is somewhat like a butterfly bow, meaning its stealth performance is relatively poor from the side.

Aircraft with better stealth tend to have an RCS profile more like a ball of yarn, with good stealth from pretty much every direction. There are still a few reflection peaks, of course—B-2/B-21 supposedly have four, while something like the A-12, with its triangular shape, probably has around three.

So when people talk about “all-aspect stealth,” I think they’re probably referring to something more like the kind of capability seen on the B-2/B-21.
------------------------------
here:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HZYqSXdj5c
 
La-Fuente Technologies said:
Take this with a grain of salt and criticize this all you want, guys. Alex literally claimed that the F/A-XX would be a "carrier variant of the F-47". Probably the first mistake in that video
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbeFo5Z_NH8
Click to expand...
He also brought up the YF-23 and the NATF, so I don't know how much airframe commonality he actually expects vs F-4 or Rafale level of commonality. He did think that the Navy intending to use a variant of an existing engine meant the F119, not the F110, though with now explanation. I don't think it's actually going to be possible to call the F/A-XX a carrier variant of the F-47 just because the Air Force awarded the contract first. The fact that the Air Force and Navy NGAD programs have advanced more or less in step for the last 15 years tells me that there is probably some level of common ancestry, especially now that Boeing has both contracts, but I don't think one is a variant of the other.
 
Not James Stockdale said:
He also brought up the YF-23 and the NATF, so I don't know how much airframe commonality he actually expects vs F-4 or Rafale level of commonality. He did think that the Navy intending to use a variant of an existing engine meant the F119, not the F110, though with now explanation. I don't think it's actually going to be possible to call the F/A-XX a carrier variant of the F-47 just because the Air Force awarded the contract first. The fact that the Air Force and Navy NGAD programs have advanced more or less in step for the last 15 years tells me that there is probably some level of common ancestry, especially now that Boeing has both contracts, but I don't think one is a variant of the other.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on that, and I did mention this some pages earlier, but I believe that the F-47 and the F/A-XX will be wholly different system due to the USAF and US Navy having different requirements for their respective programs, but given that many of those requirements align with each other, they would share common ancestry in both technology, doctrine and many more, including sensor fusion, CCAs, advanced stealth and increased range, among others.

dark sidius said:
He know nothing about FA/XX All is classified for instance with the both rendering they have nothing similar.
Click to expand...
So do we, all that we would know so far is bits and pieces that both the USAF and US Navy chooses to divulge. Everything else is classified, and hopefully it's not accessible to the Chinese.
 
After what happened to the F-35 program I would think that the Pentagon would have lernt from their mistakes and put all the computers for the F/A-XX in a classified area and not accessible to the internet.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom