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.

 

[Flyaway]

The US President said F-47 is being contemplated for export.

Make of that what you will

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.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

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.

 

[Flyaway]

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.

 

[Josh_TN]

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.

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.

 

[gojira007]

Considering what a crap show Starship has proven to be

Starliner, not Starship. VERY different spacecraft

 

[Flyaway]

Starliner, not Starship. VERY different spacecraft

Thanks. Now fixed.

 

[quellish]

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.

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."

 

[gojira007]

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.

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

 

[dark sidius]

Also, 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 that the "evolutionary" LockMart submission, which I more and more believe refers to their digital design methods achieving very high development speeds

I would love to see the Demonstrators

 

[lancer21]

So given that a F/A-XX design was frozen and selected, presumably the engine to power the design was already chosen, any idea what it is? For the F-47 there is the F-100 initially then XA102/103 timeline.

 

[Hydroman]

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.

Lots of eggs in Boeing's basket:

F-47
F/A-XX
MQ-25
T-7
F-15 EX
KC-46

A lot of programs to juggle and manage.

 

[EmoBirb]

It was a 50% call, that's not exactly proof of anything. Even an idiot can be right sometimes.

I know, I said it largely in jest

 

[Ronny]

Well, now that Boeing get it, I just wish that neither F/A-XX and F-47 will look like an abomination ( X-32 still haunt me)

 

[EmoBirb]

Lots of eggs in Boeing's basket:

F-47
F/A-XX
MQ-25
T-7
F-15 EX
KC-46

A lot of programs to juggle and manage.

T-7, MQ-25 and KC-46 have already reached a certain level of maturity, while F-15EX as part of the advanced Eagle family has been running smoothly for many years now for many customers.

All focus should be on the two next generation tactical aircraft, which depending on how much they share (I'm actually mostly thinking internally here) might be challenging but quite doable for Boeing. I think it would be foolish to underestimate one of the largest aviation giants in history with an extensive track record across it's own and it's subsidiaries portfolio.

 

[Hydroman]

T-7, MQ-25 and KC-46 have already reached a certain level of maturity, while F-15EX as part of the advanced Eagle family has been running smoothly for many years now for many customers.

All focus should be on the two next generation tactical aircraft, which depending on how much they share (I'm actually mostly thinking internally here) might be challenging but quite doable for Boeing. I think it would be foolish to underestimate one of the largest aviation giants in history with an extensive track record across it's own and it's subsidiaries portfolio.

It doesn't matter, you still have to manage and keep these programs on-track, competent management and people to do the work. T-7 is having issues, MQ-25 hasn't even made it to the carrier yet and KC-46, still has some major issues, you can still screw up mature programs. Seems you are new to aerospace, you seem to also look at these from an academics viewpoint, wait until you are working in the industry for a number of years and have gained more experience.

 

[barry bozo]

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

To add onto this - A big part of Boeing's design methodology is Full Size Determinant Assembly (FSDA). This process reduces a huge amount of man hours, tools needed, and overall cost by shifting the responsibility of drilling holes and interfaces from the guys on the floor to the supplier. In the end you end up with more precise holes, smaller acceptable tolerances, and increased efficiency.

From a design standpoint, it makes life a lot easier as well and allows you to do some pretty spectacular things.

T-7 is one of the test beds that was used to showcase this process, and while the overall program has struggles, the FSDA process has been super effective.

Boeing tried to use this process to justify a shorter timeline/lower costs on the LRSB (which was won by the NG B-21), but the Airforce didn't bite. While this is only one factor in an entire proposal, the point still stands.

They got onto the FSDA train earlier than LM/NG, so this alone has given them a notable advantage in manufacturing timelines.

For more context:

- FSDA improves assembly touch labor hours by at least 60-80%.
- Hole size/location has 98-99% first time quality.
- Significant reduction in shimming/spacing
- More accurate mass properties from digital to model; better mass properties stability.

The cascading effect into a design itself can be drawn out pretty easily from there.

 

[timmyjohn]

So given that a F/A-XX design was frozen and selected, presumably the engine to power the design was already chosen, any idea what it is? For the F-47 there is the F-100 initially then XA102/103 timeline.

F110 advanced derivative with variable cycle technology, info as of March 2025.

 

[Whopper]

To add onto this - A big part of Boeing's design methodology is Full Size Determinant Assembly (FSDA). This process reduces a huge amount of man hours, tools needed, and overall cost by shifting the responsibility of drilling holes and interfaces from the guys on the floor to the supplier. In the end you end up with more precise holes, smaller acceptable tolerances, and increased efficiency.

So, even more outsourcing? How is this fundamentally different from MRP II (Manufacturing Resource Planning), "Black Diamond," or any of the other consultant nonsense from the last couple of decades? And this is a company that was once renowned for its in-house engineering teams and machine shops. This is the current Boeing leadership trying to pass off the rearrangement of deck chairs as a serious fix while ignoring the huge, gaping hole in the side of the ship.

 

[B2Blain]

F110 advanced derivative with variable cycle technology, info as of March 2025.

Is this a black program? I was not aware GE or Pratt has been working on derivatives of the F110 or F100.

 

[Sferrin]

Lots of eggs in Boeing's basket:

F-47
F/A-XX
MQ-25
T-7
F-15 EX
KC-46

A lot of programs to juggle and manage.

Any of them on schedule, cost or even close to it?

 

[joshjosh]

So, even more outsourcing?

Yeah, outsourcing was disastrous for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner...

 

[Josh_TN]

F110 advanced derivative with variable cycle technology, info as of March 2025.

What is meant by variable cycle technology in this context, if you have any details? I would not think that is a thing you could go halfway on.

 

[Reddington777]

What is meant by variable cycle technology in this context, if you have any details? I would not think that is a thing you could go halfway on.

NGAP has been described as a family of technologies with component tech that can be readily ported to legacy / existing engines. It likely wont be the whole deal though.

 

[Hydroman]

Any of them on schedule, cost or even close to it?

T-7 behind schedule, as we all know KC-46 not in good shape but USAF already pregnant, no alternative but flying active mission sorties. MQ-25 production approved but has not even started initial carrier trials. F-15EX seems to be moving along well.

 

[Sferrin]

 

[bring_it_on]

Those programs may or may not have a relationship to Phantom Works and NGAD. KC46 is completely unrelated. Neither of those programs speak directly to the work boeing has 'demonstrated' on the actual NGAD and related programs for the DOD (AF and Navy). Speaking specifically to the program and everything that fed into it. Those are far more likely to have had an influence on the decision than programs listed above.

 

[Sferrin]

T-7 behind schedule, as we all know KC-46 not in good shape but USAF already pregnant, no alternative but flying active mission sorties. MQ-25 production approved but has not even started initial carrier trials. F-15EX seems to be moving along well.

One would hope. It's a mod of a 50 year old program. Boeing has a lot to prove.

 

[JS23]

Just a reminder that, Citizens United aside, corporations aren't like individuals, with consistent personalities and talents and behavior patterns. They're emergent from a collection of people, specifically the people who happen to be there right now. Yes, you can have organizational cultures and institutional rot and all that sort of thing, but with a C-suite class that's playing musical chairs and a finite number of experienced project managers and senior engineers who are probably just following the work one way or another (either on their own or by getting headhunted or by getting bundled into mergers and acquisitions), trying to infer a given project's future trajectory based on the past performance of what might be almost wholly unrelated business units might be futile.

 

[Reddington777]

So, even more outsourcing? How is this fundamentally different from MRP II (Manufacturing Resource Planning), "Black Diamond," or any of the other consultant nonsense from the last couple of decades? And this is a company that was once renowned for its in-house engineering teams and machine shops. This is the current Boeing leadership trying to pass off the rearrangement of deck chairs as a serious fix while ignoring the huge, gaping hole in the side of the ship.

No thats literally not how that works. Aerospace companies have suppliers regardless. Neither Boeing, nor LM nor NG makes every part and not even all the major pieces.

The F-22, while an LM program, had boeing produce a large piece of the fuselage section.

The difference here is that previously if you had three sections of aircraft to attach, youd get it from your three suppliers anyway, but you have to wait until all three secrions arrive before you put them in place then begin drilling the holes so as to make sure that individual sections' peculiarities can be accounted for when assembling. The difference here is that you are defining to a high degree of precision the specifications of each piece so that the supplier, who already has the specialized tooling, can drill the holes and the assembly can begin without having all the pieces arrive. This actually makes things faster and cheaper. And Boeing is not the only one doing it either, which in peoples absolute blind rage, seem to have missed in the entire response.

You can imagine building pieces as large as a warship's hull section. That large enough hull section isnt going to be made perfectly every time. It needs to be mated to the rest of the ship and theres no standardized way you can do it if it has slight inconsistencies for every section coming off the production line. So shipbuilding would take a lot of work per individual section until factories could be more precise with their manufacturing / specifications. Digital engineering lets you make that happen.

The supplier exists regardless. Not a single aircraft company anywhere on earth does everything by themselves now and to ask of such is basically brain dead. The choice of supplier lets you choose the best products for a given application, which is better than setting up an in house shop only to do basically duplicate work. Yes that moves some risk up to the supplier and requires your digital models to be good, but done well, it could speed up manufacturing by a lot.

Its astounding really. @barry bozo wrote an in depth post but all people can do is reeeee. We gotta do less of reeee and more of reeeaad