Boeing 6th Gen Fighter - F/A-XX

F/A-XX may also come in single and two-seat versions just like F-18 E/F.
 
lancer21 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.)
 
books said:
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.
Click to expand...

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”
 
quellish said:
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”
Click to expand...
Still the case.
USN F/A-XX = Supercruise
USAF F-47 = Subsonic cruise, supersonic capable
Big difference in service requirements
 
timmyjohn said:
Still the case.
USN F/A-XX = Supercruise
USAF F-47 = Subsonic cruise, supersonic capable
Big difference in service requirements
Click to expand...

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.
 
quellish said:
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”
Click to expand...
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Let me clarify and add to, or dedicated unmanned strike platforms as well.
 
quellish said:
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
Click to expand...
Providing what I know as of March 2025.
 
Hydroman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Hydroman said:
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.
Click to expand...
I thought the reason they didn't want it was because it was basically a completely different aircraft than the YF-23.
 
Training_Dummy said:
The US President said F-47 is being contemplated for export.

Make of that what you will
Click to expand...
He’s said that before and combined that with saying the export version would be downgraded.

Not to go too political Europe has specifically started a central defence fund to encourage European industry to get away from buying American.
 
I'm quite surprised Boeing won the contract. I figured industry related reasoning would have been enough to tip the scales in favor of Northrop Grumman's offering.

As with the F-47 I remain somewhat skeptical about the accuracy of all of the renderings and concept art we've seen, so I'm eagerly awaiting the day the prototype is revealed.

I do hope there is some planning going on to later switch to an XA-type engine later in the aircraft's service life. I think the Navy is being a bit too conservative there as they often seem to be about engine-related matters.
 
I cannot believe Boeing won this I hope NG launch a challenge. Considering what a crap show Starliner has proven to be, with NASA having to shell out yet more money to try and get a workable and safe product I wouldn’t trust Boeing to build a Lego set.
 
Training_Dummy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 but I personally found them credible, and I personally wonder if an adaptive engine would have issues with carrier landings that require immediate full power after touchdown. High bypass -> low bypass may introduce a hesitation between moderate and full power.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I'm quite surprised Boeing won the contract. I figured industry related reasoning would have been enough to tip the scales in favor of Northrop Grumman's offering.
Click to expand...

It would be reasonable to assume that a part of the program's difficulties arose from the perception that Northrop would have to stand up a new fighter production line, where that production line would be, and if they could do it fast enough to meet the accelerated IOC that is sought.

In 2025 the Navy was required by law to provide Congress with a report outlining:
"Navy's efforts to develop the F/A-XX sixth generation fighter, including the current acquisition strategy and updated schedule for awarding the engineering and manufacturing development contract; a revised development and fielding timeline for the F/A-XX program to meet Initial Operational Capability; any programmatic, budgetary, or policy barriers that have delayed execution of prior-year funds; and a spend plan for the active year additional funds that have been appropriated to the Department of War for this program."

The Navy did not deliver that report, in 2026 Congress required it again. Less than 24 hours before the contract award announcement I received a response to my requests to the Navy for copies of that report. As of September 2026 it was still not complete. This is what was most recently communicated to Congress about this, in April 2026:

"On 19 March 2026, at the direction of the Deputy Secretary of War, the Under Secretary
of War for Acquisition and Sustainment (USW (A&S)) was designated as the Milestone
Decision Authority. Accordingly, the Navy is assisting USW (A&S) in preparing this report for submission to the Congressional Defense Committees."
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom