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

Just because there has been no news of the F/A-XX since the reveal of the F-47 does not mean that the program has been cancelled or indeed postponed, let the US Navy decide in it's own time.
 
WatcherZero said:
Hegseth has requested a 3 year pause in F/A-XX to divert spending to other priorities. Also requested Congress remove the extra $500m they have allocated to the program in the $150bn defense bill.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1922654991950520363
View: https://x.com/ColbyBadhwar/status/1922654991950520363?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1922654991950520363%7Ctwgr%5E9f4da96fd4383f5ff8c3fa70b7525628d1ae0c96%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbulgarianmilitary.com%2F2025%2F05%2F14%2Ff-a-xx-fighter-program-faces-3-year-delay-amid-budget-clash%2F
Click to expand...

Sell the 747. With new value added as part of the change in ownership I’m sure it’s more than enough to cover the shortfall.
 
Reddington777 said:
I mean if those priorities involve revitalizing shipbuilding first (as Phelan had promised) then im all for it. Afterall, if you dont have ship yards and substantial capacity to pump out support ships / maintain current ships then having entire airwings of 6th gen fighters is going to do nothing that the airforce cant do.

The navy's top priority ought to be revitalizing and re-equipping dock yards to expand shipbuilding and maintenance. Then comes whatever the hell is happening with the frigates, and then the subs and maybe DDG(X). Addressing the dockyards problems first will ensure the navy recovers in the long run even if we arent completely ready in the near term.
Click to expand...

The thing is, F/A-XX could be delivered relatively on time and on budget, the aviation portions of Boeing and especially Northrop Grumman have proven to be much more competent than any shipyard that currently operates in the US.

The Ford CVNs are here, they get built and the Nimitz gets steadily replaced. But the Fords won't be nearly as effective when they are completely restricted to F-35Cs and F/A-18E/Fs in WESTPAC.

US shipbuilding cannot be revitalized, it's a futile effort. What shipbuilding can be sustained at a large scale when there is next to no commercial shipbuilding happening, where you have a trained workforce that basically has always full books. China, Korea and Japan have large commercial shipbuilding efforts, which lends itself to their naval growth. The only shipbuilding of note that takes place in the US is literally for the Navy. The idea of expanding US shipbuilding in this global economy is a fantasy. This isn't the 80s or 60s when the US still had much more shipbuilding at home and didn't outsource everything related to produce literally anything ever to China, Korea, Japan or Taiwan.

Reversing that is nearly impossible, at least without bankrupting the US, which would then just implode like the USSR did which simply couldn't afford the arms race anymore.

F/A-XX at least provides immediate benefits and relies on the incredibly strong US aviation industry, which unlike US shipbuilding, never went to shit.
 
EmoBirb said:
US shipbuilding cannot be revitalized, it's a futile effort.
Click to expand...
Not with an attitude like that no.

More seriously though - this still seems too doom and gloom. I don't expect ship building to be fixed any time in the next decades really because more than a tech or know how problem, its an industrial/economic base and policy problem. I'm not asking for the government to just sweep in and milk the entire shipbuilding industry back to health. I'm asking policy makers to change policies and create the right conditions to revive the economic base.

Besides, given the proliferation of various sizes of maritime drones nowadays, stuff like the LUSVs could give smaller maritime companies opportunity to grow in size. I think allowing Japanese and Korean shipbuilders into the market may not be a bad idea either.

Last but not least - even if we move on from the shipbuilding industrial base, the navy should really consider unfucking their procurement programs and put in whatever money is needed to finish what they started.
 
Reddington777 said:
I think allowing Japanese and Korean shipbuilders into the market may not be a bad idea either.
Click to expand...
That's how the US got into that pitiful situation in the first place

the navy should really consider unfucking their procurement programs and put in whatever money is needed to finish what they started.
Click to expand...

Yes they should, delaying F/A-XX further would be a huge fuck up that isn't even forced by any external circumstances. It's just Hegseth being [not a nice word]
 
WatcherZero said:
Hegseth has requested a 3 year pause in F/A-XX to divert spending to other priorities. Also requested Congress remove the extra $500m they have allocated to the program in the $150bn defense bill.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1922654991950520363
View: https://x.com/ColbyBadhwar/status/1922654991950520363?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1922654991950520363%7Ctwgr%5E9f4da96fd4383f5ff8c3fa70b7525628d1ae0c96%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbulgarianmilitary.com%2F2025%2F05%2F14%2Ff-a-xx-fighter-program-faces-3-year-delay-amid-budget-clash%2F
Click to expand...
Don't you think that is a strange decision ? What is going on behind the wall of Navy aviation ? For my opinion a new element is behind this decision.
 
Last edited:
EmoBirb said:
That's how the US got into that pitiful situation in the first place
Click to expand...

Yeah I mean outsourcing was certainly the wrong move to make but given the pace and complete dysfunction that is shipbuilding in this country right now, there's not really other immediate options to scale up shipbuilding then to have foreign companies buy out US dockyards and build our ships until something changes.

Hell if these companies can bring some know-how and start developing a larger workforce here, it could be helpful too.

It seems like the fate of every American program in this decade has been to face cancellation or be outright cancelled right when things are coming together ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Last edited:
Reddington777 said:
Not with an attitude like that no.

More seriously though - this still seems too doom and gloom. I don't expect ship building to be fixed any time in the next decades really because more than a tech or know how problem, its an industrial/economic base and policy problem. I'm not asking for the government to just sweep in and milk the entire shipbuilding industry back to health. I'm asking policy makers to change policies and create the right conditions to revive the economic base.

Besides, given the proliferation of various sizes of maritime drones nowadays, stuff like the LUSVs could give smaller maritime companies opportunity to grow in size. I think allowing Japanese and Korean shipbuilders into the market may not be a bad idea either.

Last but not least - even if we move on from the shipbuilding industrial base, the navy should really consider unfucking their procurement programs and put in whatever money is needed to finish what they started.
Click to expand...
It will take a while for the shipyards to increase the number of skilled workers. Could you create a program that allows experienced foreign workers to come to the United States as a pathway to citizenship? Sure. You could also have foreign shipyards build auxiliaries.

But all this will not matter unless the USG sends a demand signal to the shipyards that it is serious about building more ships. There needs to be consistent funding over time like the 1980s. Barring that I don't think any effort is going to be anything more than hand outs to corporations or other groups. The money could have spend on tangible items - munitions, aircraft, maintenance, spare parts, flying hours...Even with an administration that has made defense a priority I don't think we will see healthy increases in defense spending.

Is there a bigger issue at play? Some have reported that there is doubt that carriers could survive in a conflict with China. Some have also oddly mentioned that we have too many carriers for a Taiwan scneario. The Navy didn't do itself any favors with it's retreat from range in the CVW. A marginal 20-25% increase in range of the F/A-XX follows a pattern. The MQ-25 is a bandaid. I fully realize that the Navy had to make trade offs with the F/A-XX to control costs, but long range is an important requirement.

The threat environment for fighters isn't as great as for the AF at sea. The threat is to the ships in the CSG. The F-14 was designed for the outer air battle to counter Soviet bombers. What is the operational concept that F/A-XX will support? As Sam Lagrone from USNI news has mentioned the Navy really hasn't said. We can guess it will maintain cap stations like the F-14s and go after the PLAN's SAGs around Taiwan, but we really don't know. Why can't they do that with a combination of F-35s and CCAs? Are they really going to find a robust A2A threat East of Taiwan.

The Navy might not have made a compelling case for the F/A-XX. Did they differentiate it enough from the F-35. They indicate that it will have a greater payload. But will it really? May be the Air Force is just better a marketing and PR? Take a look at Allin's Infographic. Even if the F-47 is not operational by 2029, it helps to assure funding and Congressional support in the short term.
 
I dearly hope the US uses CSGs to misdirect and misplace meaningful fractions of the oppositions capabilities as distractions from other actions rather than a stand-in source of air and sea control.
 
dark sidius said:
Don't you think that is a strange decision ? What is going on behind the wall of Navy aviation ? For my opinion a new element is behind this decision.
Click to expand...

1. Current aircraft are wearing out quickly
2. The Navy faces a long and uncertain transition to mostly unmanned carrier aviation
 
B2Blain said:
Soviet bombers. What is the operational concept that F/A-XX will support? As Sam Lagrone from USNI news has mentioned the Navy really hasn't said. We can guess it will maintain cap stations like the F-14s and go after the PLAN's SAGs around Taiwan,
Click to expand...

It’s a strike fighter. It replaces the Super Hornet. The Navy has been clear about that.

It is not an F-14.
 
Will USAF get F-47 while the USN gets another Block III SH buy?

I hope my past satire about Boeing “going 2 for 2” getting both USAF and USN fighter buys stays just that, but it’s hard not to see the writing on the wall.

The manner in which the US has lost three SHs (blue on blue shootdown, one falling into the sea and the other a recovery mishap - all own goals), strikes me as the sorts of things that embarrass certain people in this administration. They appear to exhibit a hypersensitivity to very specific things like this, despite being nonplussed by things that would seemingly embarrass other people, and when embarrassed, can become very petty. It may be controversial and its certainly speculative, but it wouldn’t be a surprise to me that some part of this new delay might be in part related to some sort of punishment of US naval aviation.
 
Last edited:
B2Blain said:
Why can't they do that with a combination of F-35s and CCAs? Are they really going to find a robust A2A threat East of Taiwan.
Click to expand...
This is practically a given. Unless the political circumstances don't allow for it or something, there's going to be no shortage of A2A east of Taiwan. It might not be IADS necessarily unless its a CSG, but it will be enemy fighters both naval and land based at the minimum. I'm not going to go and shit on the F-35 like some people like to but it would be nice to have a stealthier, longer ranged and more maneuverable (as in kinematics) aircraft than the F-35s for fleet defense and for strike missions.
They indicate that it will have a greater payload. But will it really?
Click to expand...
There's no question about this either. Why would it not? If there's already been complaints and plans to expand F-35's payload, why would that not be considered for a plane that's supposed to be a multirole strike fighter? The F-14 was around the length of an F-22 and the F-22 could already fit more weapons than an F-35 can. You'd at least have a weapons bay size of an F-22 and a little deeper.

Finally, given how hard block 4 upgrades for the F-35 have been, having a new platform that can actually leverage the benefits of open architecture that allow for easier integration is absolutely vital.
 
Training_Dummy said:
Will USAF get F-47 while the USN gets another Block III SH buy?
Click to expand...
Original close date for the line was 2025, that is now 2027 but I would be highly surprised if an order for new build aircraft arrived. Older SHs are going through Blk III upgrade so that is the pathway forward for improved capability, not new build aircraft.
 
Reddington777 said:
Not with an attitude like that no.

More seriously though - this still seems too doom and gloom. I don't expect ship building to be fixed any time in the next decades really because more than a tech or know how problem, its an industrial/economic base and policy problem. I'm not asking for the government to just sweep in and milk the entire shipbuilding industry back to health. I'm asking policy makers to change policies and create the right conditions to revive the economic base.

Besides, given the proliferation of various sizes of maritime drones nowadays, stuff like the LUSVs could give smaller maritime companies opportunity to grow in size. I think allowing Japanese and Korean shipbuilders into the market may not be a bad idea either.

Last but not least - even if we move on from the shipbuilding industrial base, the navy should really consider unfucking their procurement programs and put in whatever money is needed to finish what they started.
Click to expand...
Definitely agree with most of your points.

I looked at the welder salaries for Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), and entry-level makes like 25 an hour--not the worst, but you can easily make double that at an equivalent desk job in software, for example. Thus, for the majority of people, there would be no reason to choose more hazardous work for less pay. I think in the near future (next decade), we should work as closely as possible with JP / SK and try to not only obtain knowledge / technology transfer, but create the right economic incentives to ensure that (large) shipbuilding-related expertise is passed down across generations. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but this seems like a step in the right direction.

USVs seem like an easier market to penetrate, and indeed companies like Anduril and Saronic are attempting to address that niche / capability gap.
 
Reddington777 said:
I mean if those priorities involve revitalizing shipbuilding first (as Phelan had promised) then im all for it. Afterall, if you dont have ship yards and substantial capacity to pump out support ships / maintain current ships then having entire airwings of 6th gen fighters is going to do nothing that the airforce cant do.

I dont know how much systems commonality are shared between NGAD and F/A-XX but by the time they pick things up again a lot of NGADs subsystems would have matured/gotten ironed out and possibly be useful for F/A-XX.

The navy's top priority ought to be revitalizing and re-equipping dock yards to expand shipbuilding and maintenance. Then comes whatever the hell is happening with the frigates, and then the subs and maybe DDG(X). Addressing the dockyards problems first will ensure the navy recovers in the long run even if we arent completely ready in the near term.

Competition with China doesnt end with Taiwan and 2027 isnt some event horizon either. The best plan of action here is to invest in what is vital for the next 50 60 years.
Click to expand...
The shipbuilding industry and F/A-XX are not in conflict. Restoring the shipbuilding industry does not depend on how much money you invest but on the utilization of funds. Please think about why the United States needs to spend more than $10 billion to build CVN-78 while China only needs a few billion US dollars. Behind the shipbuilding industry is the number of orders and skilled workers in related industries. It is obvious that the United States lacks commercial ship orders and a large number of skilled workers. In addition, the fundamental reason for the dilemma of the Constellation-class frigate is that the US Navy has lost its warship design capability. Looking back at history, all warships in World War II were designed by the US Navy itself instead of being fully commissioned to shipbuilding companies. In addition, since the McNamara reform, the US Navy has lost its ability to build warships. In contrast, in China, all warships are designed by the Navy itself and commissioned to be built by state-owned enterprises.
 
Reddington777 said:
Not with an attitude like that no.

More seriously though - this still seems too doom and gloom. I don't expect ship building to be fixed any time in the next decades really because more than a tech or know how problem, its an industrial/economic base and policy problem. I'm not asking for the government to just sweep in and milk the entire shipbuilding industry back to health. I'm asking policy makers to change policies and create the right conditions to revive the economic base.

Besides, given the proliferation of various sizes of maritime drones nowadays, stuff like the LUSVs could give smaller maritime companies opportunity to grow in size. I think allowing Japanese and Korean shipbuilders into the market may not be a bad idea either.

Last but not least - even if we move on from the shipbuilding industrial base, the navy should really consider unfucking their procurement programs and put in whatever money is needed to finish what they started.
Click to expand...

I question whether surface ships will even be relevant over any timeframe of “revitalizing US ship building”. I think the vulnerability of surface ships is such that anything above unfurling the FFGX program and maybe opening another yard for it is premature.

By the end of the decade, both sides will operate almost a thousand remote sensing satellites, have seeded the ocean with hydrophones, and be able to throw dozens to hundreds of hypersonic weapons at a task force. And subsonic weapons might number in the mid hundreds per strike.

Are surface ships even viable in a peer on peer conflict? Public wargames basically have both sides losing almost all of them inside 3 weeks.
 
Jacky said:
The shipbuilding industry and F/A-XX are not in conflict.
Click to expand...
Dont think I ever said they were in conflict. What I said was that on the list of most dire fuck ups right now, F/A-XX hardly seems like the most pressing thing. Lack of dock yards, lack of workers, lack of maintenance ships - these things are the absolute most important to maintaining current readiness and even that we cant do yet. We still need to outfit destroyers and subs with CPS, which I think is an absolute priority, and the frigate mess should probably get figured out sooner than later.
Jacky said:
Restoring the shipbuilding industry does not depend on how much money you invest but on the utilization of funds.
Click to expand...
This I strongly disagree with. Numerous reports in the past few years have come out regarding the lack of equipment available to service U.S warships. You need some amount of investment in to at least reach some minimally operational capacity. You dont get to invest nothing and reap benefits. Investment is the stimulus while policy reform is the landscape that fosters growth. Thats how the Chinese did it too. They are a shipbuilding behemoth today in no small part due to how much money the government imvested in terms of subsidies. A lot of Chinese tech areas are this way.

Jacky said:
It is obvious that the United States lacks commercial ship orders and a large number of skilled workers.
Click to expand...
.... which is why merely "utilizing funds" better isnt exactly enough. Policy reform needs to come first, then stimulus and investment to get the industrial base to be competitive agai. And even then a U.S made Type 55 is always going to cost more in raw USD when american workers are on average paid a lot more and that you cant really change. Tell me the last time a chinese company's workers went on strike. Never.

Im not here talking about stopgap measures. If we want to compete then reforms need to happen, the industial base needs to be grown and only then can we reliably compete again.

Jacky said:
The US Navy has lost its warship design capability, all warships in World War II were designed by the US Navy itself instead of being fully commissioned to shipbuilding companies.
Click to expand...
Well you can rest assured that at least in regards to that part, the navy is actually doing something about. hopefully lessons are learned in the constellation class debacle because last I read like 3 or 4 yeaes ago, DDG(X) is being designed by the navy.
Josh_TN said:
Are surface ships even viable in a peer on peer conflict? Public wargames basically have both sides losing almost all of them inside 3 weeks.
Click to expand...
I do personally lean towards the idea of pursuing more unmanned combatants. I like the idea of loading a bunch of VLS cells to a LUSV and fielding a ton of those with surface combatants. The problen with all this is essentially what the air force brought up - how much capability is useful? When does a platform go from being attritable to unattritable? Where is the sweet spot and is that sweet spot actually useful enough?

So despite all the promise of unmanned systems, there is going to be things you cant lose that need maintenance - subs, sensing USVs, existing surface combatants, VLS reloads etc. To keep them afloat, you need merchant mariners, supply ships, tenders, maintenance ships etc. Those need dockyards and industrial base for building and manning and you need them in large numbers to provide the support for your frontline combatants.

Pipe dream or not - thats why I listed docks first. Before warships manned or unmanned, we need logistics and facilities. Short term stopgap is to have Japanese and koreans build hulls and hand them over for outfitting or something. Long term - 20+ years is to make the policy reforms and investments to restart commercial shipbuilding.

I'd love to poke at this topic more in another thread but we are way way off topic already.
 
Jacky said:
The shipbuilding industry and F/A-XX are not in conflict. Restoring the shipbuilding industry does not depend on how much money you invest but on the utilization of funds. Please think about why the United States needs to spend more than $10 billion to build CVN-78 while China only needs a few billion US dollars. Behind the shipbuilding industry is the number of orders and skilled workers in related industries. It is obvious that the United States lacks commercial ship orders and a large number of skilled workers.
Click to expand...
Because building a ship in the US is far too expensive. Getting quality workers in the US costs a hell of a lot. Why does it cost 10bil to make a Ford-class CVN when China can make one for ~2bil? Wages. Okay, the nuclear reactors would probably double the cost of the Chinese carrier (IIRC that's about the difference between the old Kitty Hawk and Nimitz class ships), but that's still only 3-4bil instead of 10. All the rest of that is worker wages.

Basically all the shipyards left in the US are military. The exception is the yards on the Great Lakes, but even they really only do repair work on the old Lakers every winter once the lakes freeze over and shipping stops.



Jacky said:
In addition, the fundamental reason for the dilemma of the Constellation-class frigate is that the US Navy has lost its warship design capability. Looking back at history, all warships in World War II were designed by the US Navy itself instead of being fully commissioned to shipbuilding companies. In addition, since the McNamara reform, the US Navy has lost its ability to build warships. In contrast, in China, all warships are designed by the Navy itself and commissioned to be built by state-owned enterprises.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that the USN still having a design staff in house would have helped the Connies.

Those Great Lakes shipyards? Some time after WW2, they universally refused to do business with the USN, because the USN was terrible about making changes to a ship's design that required ripping out just-completed structure.
 
Reddington777 said:
This I strongly disagree with. Numerous reports in the past few years have come out regarding the lack of equipment available to service U.S warships. You need some amount of investment in to at least reach some minimally operational capacity. You dont get to invest nothing and reap benefits. Investment is the stimulus while policy reform is the landscape that fosters growth. Thats how the Chinese did it too. They are a shipbuilding behemoth today in no small part due to how much money the government imvested in terms of subsidies. A lot of Chinese tech areas are this way.


.... which is why merely "utilizing funds" better isnt exactly enough. Policy reform needs to come first, then stimulus and investment to get the industrial base to be competitive agai. And even then a U.S made Type 55 is always going to cost more in raw USD when american workers are on average paid a lot more and that you cant really change. Tell me the last time a chinese company's workers went on strike. Never.

Im not here talking about stopgap measures. If we want to compete then reforms need to happen, the industial base needs to be grown and only then can we reliably compete again.


Well you can rest assured that at least in regards to that part, the navy is actually doing something about. hopefully lessons are learned in the constellation class debacle because last I read like 3 or 4 yeaes ago, DDG(X) is being designed by the navy.
Click to expand...
F/A-XX is also very critical. Because Chinese Navy will have J-35 soon.

You misunderstood my meaning. Investment does not mean waste. Looking back at the problems encountered with CVN-78, and looking at the fact that CVN-79 is once again facing delivery delays. The utilization rate of funds is too low. The Type 003 aircraft carrier also uses a lot of new technologies for the Chinese Navy, but the time from the beginning of construction to the sea trial of the Type 003 aircraft carrier is obviously less than that of CVN-78. Looking back at history, the current annual budget of the Navy is about the same as that of the early 1970s (taking inflation into account), but it is obvious that the Navy did more in the 1970s than it does now. This is what I call the utilization rate of funds.

If reform is to be carried out, I think the first step is to re-establish an independent BuShip department to be responsible for ship design, while restoring the construction capabilities of the naval shipyard.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Because building a ship in the US is far too expensive. Getting quality workers in the US costs a hell of a lot. Why does it cost 10bil to make a Ford-class CVN when China can make one for ~2bil? Wages. Okay, the nuclear reactors would probably double the cost of the Chinese carrier (IIRC that's about the difference between the old Kitty Hawk and Nimitz class ships), but that's still only 3-4bil instead of 10. All the rest of that is worker wages.

Basically all the shipyards left in the US are military. The exception is the yards on the Great Lakes, but even they really only do repair work on the old Lakers every winter once the lakes freeze over and shipping stops.




I'm not sure that the USN still having a design staff in house would have helped the Connies.

Those Great Lakes shipyards? Some time after WW2, they universally refused to do business with the USN, because the USN was terrible about making changes to a ship's design that required ripping out just-completed structure.
Click to expand...
I think the root cause is not the workers' wages, but the delay in construction. China's Type 003 aircraft carrier also uses a lot of new technologies (for the Chinese Navy), but the time from the start of construction to sea trials of the Type 003 aircraft carrier is obviously much shorter than that of CVN-78.

It can only be said that the shipyards left in the US serve the military.

I think the current model in China is very similar to the model in the US Navy during World War II: the navy is responsible for design, and state-owned shipyards are responsible for construction. But obviously, the US Navy is no longer following this model. ECP of Chinese warships, I believe they are handled by the Chinese Navy shipyard.
 
Josh_TN said:
Are surface ships even viable in a peer on peer conflict? Public wargames basically have both sides losing almost all of them inside 3 weeks.
Click to expand...
Wargames and analysis has been saying that for 50 years now and yet nations still keep building warships.
 
Josh_TN said:
By the end of the decade, both sides will operate almost a thousand remote sensing satellites, have seeded the ocean with hydrophones, and be able to throw dozens to hundreds of hypersonic weapons at a task force. And subsonic weapons might number in the mid hundreds per strike.

Are surface ships even viable in a peer on peer conflict? Public wargames basically have both sides losing almost all of them inside 3 weeks.
Click to expand...
The above also doesn't take into account the UUSVs, UUVs and USVs that will proliferate the battlespace. The Russian Navy Black Sea experience is telling even if we are discussing what is a third rate naval power now.
 
Ozair said:
Russian Navy Black Sea experience is telling even if we are discussing what is a third rate naval power now.
Click to expand...
Russian BSF experience is of force completely unprepared for an actual war. It's telling that most of bsf fighting strength was either non-combat capable, or wasn't even meant to be there.

That's probably applicable to many navies around the world, but still - they were defeated in 2022 by a very basic traditional threat - and almost let Ukraine do amphibious landings(but infantry did better). No need to go deeper.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom