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

[CiTrus90]

I'm very new on using X, just few posts,

I can see your first published post was on January 28 of this year, your first response on Twitter was on June 23 2023 and you have been on Twitter since December 2021.
I struggle to see how that's being very new on Twitter, but regardless I fail to see where and how that would prevent anyone from citing/linking to a source.

If you had the time to post those pictures on here, maybe you could have made the extra effort to spend 30 more seconds to link from the start where those stills came from. Even more so when a user asked you directly where you'd found them and you took the time to answer them vaguely later on.

Enthusiasts will share, discuss, opine as they like as per their choice, interest, knowledge, comprehension, timetable, situation, etc. That's how social media works.

You seem to have an issue differentiating between what generic "social media" are and what the scope of this forum is.

For you this might be "all leisure activity, casual chat & entertainment". For a good part of the people that are on here the information on this site is either part of their jobs or comes from a lot of hard work and sacrifice as they spent their personal time and money looking through archives, writing books and articles or compiling FOIAs.

Those people make meaningful contributions and make this place special.

The rest of the people on here (like me) mostly just want to learn instead, but when users that post on this site just for "entertainment" come up with their own fictional analysis, because they think it's "entertaining" to do so, they will then have to navigate through and steer clear of all of the noise and chaff that has been posted.
Unfortunately, not everyone will be able to make the distinction between what's real and what's the product of someone's fantasy.

So, making statements like:

It loos like a delta wing, with 2 rudders, only top flat intakes with middle separator.
Dark & difficult to see under wing & belly. There seems to be SWB & IWB.

Will leave the impression, on people that have not spent their time looking for the original source of the images that you posted and who are not aware that those pictures are just AI slop, that what you are stating can be taken for granted.
Instead, all of those details (minus the dorsal intakes) are visible only in the Grok generated footage and hence can be completely ignored as fictional, because they are not part of the original picture published by Northrop Grumman.

I always appreciate art-work, either by CAD tools by artists like i appreciated CADs by you & other artists & also by using AI.

If you can't see how those things are mutually exclusive (appreciating artists' works and CADs vs. appreciating AI generated imagery), I don't think there is any helping it...

So there's nothing dishonest over leisure activity, entertainment, casual chat.

It's dishonest when somebody tries to make "casual chat" pass for a fact, by not stating from the start that they are aware (or strongly suspect) that the footage they are presenting is not genuine and are instead vague about it.

Artists like you & others create the best fan-art.
You can email team of X/Grok to improve their programming.

No, I'd rather steer clear of people working in IT and social media.

 

[TomcatViP]

Please friends, we are here to dissect the information relative to aerospace. Artwork, text, citation, you name it, but not somebody butt cheek shape.

 

[Brett Davidson]

(sorry, forum doesn't allow *.webp files)

There are a number of sites that offer free conversions. Here's one:

Convertr.org — Free Online File Converter | 300+ Formats, No Signup

Convertr.org is the official free online file converter — convert MP4, MP3, PNG, WEBP, HEIC, PDF & 300+ formats. Up to 1 GB, no signup, no install. Trusted by millions.

convertr.org

 

[Brett Davidson]

Unless the navy wants to go with a three (or four, lol) engine design it makes no sense to have seperators in the two intakes...

Assuming the render is accurate, the 'separators' might be baffles.

 

[Brett Davidson]

Thoughts on dorsal intakes, if Northrop Grumman's F/A-XX has them.

Ventral inlet ducts disrupt the contours of the plane's belly, making modelling for low observables more complicated. To maximise stealth from front and below, they have to be longer, sinuous and/or have baffles. Such a configuration is therefore relatively bulky and heavy. Moreover, they compete for volume and belly area with landing gear, access hatches and most of all, internal weapons bays. Loading, maintenance, deck handling, and stealth are all much better with the intakes on top or at least the designers have much more flexibility.

Dorsal inlets would not be at all visible from below, and placed a bit further back, with an s-shaped duct and baffles, the turbine faces would still be pretty well shielded from above, if not perfectly - but invisibility to surface targets (land and sea) and defenders (below and ahead) is prioritised and therefore optimised.

They do suffer at high AoA, so the F/A-XX might not be the most agile of beasts, but it's not intended for air-to-air combat. For a naval group, destroyers, not fighters serve the role of air control. F/A-XX is therefore meant to sink ships and strike inland targets without being seen, like a smaller, faster B-21. It's not so good at fighting other planes, but it probably makes really awful coffee too. It doesn't have to, in other words. It will probably excel with ECM and may have even have a laser turret, making high maneuverability unnecessary in most cases.

Northrop has made great strides in getting dorsal inlets to work on very clean subsonic designs - look at the advancement from B-2 to B-21.

So, F/A-XX is not an air dominance fighter like the F-47, but a stealthy, versatile, large payload strike aircraft, probably able to carry massive anti-ship and cruise missiles internally that F-35s and F-47s can't.

 

[Hood]

I don't why anyone places any credence on any CGI-generated image from any source. The forum is clogged with hundreds of posts speculating over some render, repeating the process every time someone decides to issue a new image ad infinitum.

If it's not a real object then its not worth speculating about. You wouldn't take a back-of-a-fag packet doodle as gospel so why would you assume a marketing CGI is the real deal?

 

[joshjosh]

I don't why anyone places any credence on any CGI-generated image from any source. The forum is clogged with hundreds of posts speculating over some render, repeating the process every time someone decides to issue a new image ad infinitum.

If it's not a real object then its not worth speculating about. You wouldn't take a back-of-a-fag packet doodle as gospel so why would you assume a marketing CGI is the real deal?

Cake art is also a subject of fascination

 

[Arjen]

There are a number of sites that offer free conversions.
<snip>

Or download GIMP - Gnu Image Manipulation Programme - which will convert most image formats into your image format of choice. Unless all you use is a mobile device other than a laptop.

 

[Seragina]

There are a number of sites that offer free conversions. Here's one:

Convertr.org — Free Online File Converter | 300+ Formats, No Signup

Convertr.org is the official free online file converter — convert MP4, MP3, PNG, WEBP, HEIC, PDF & 300+ formats. Up to 1 GB, no signup, no install. Trusted by millions.

convertr.org

Nah, I don't want to do conversion of secondhand source and make the image worse. Nor do I want to upload an oversized converted file (~20x). I provided a link anyway,

Unless the navy wants to go with a three (or four, lol) engine design it makes no sense to have seperators in the two intakes...

Yeah, makes no sense from any real world point of view for a fighter.
So far I've only seen 4 mini-engines on the F-19 modelkits and some NGAD / F/A-XX fanart.

 

[dark sidius]

I don't why anyone places any credence on any CGI-generated image from any source. The forum is clogged with hundreds of posts speculating over some render, repeating the process every time someone decides to issue a new image ad infinitum.

If it's not a real object then its not worth speculating about. You wouldn't take a back-of-a-fag packet doodle as gospel so why would you assume a marketing CGI is the real deal?

It is not for nothing when the source is the company himself, the design of Northrop is here since a lot of years, when we see the first image of the B-21 , it is now for real like the first rendering.

 

[dark sidius]

2015 design look the same than now

 

[Seragina]

Top mounted intakes have another minor practical downside often not talked about. For inspection people would have to climb up or using a ladder before they can crawl inside. And it makes it more troublesome to get them out if they get stuck.
For the same reason it's safer for carrier operation as it lessons the risk of people getting sucked in.

 

[FighterJock]

I do not know what the fascination with top down air intakes on sixth gen fighters are? I doubt very much that they would help at all in dog fighting manoeuvres involving 9G turns better of without I think and sticking with the tried and tested of the Typhoon style air intakes and S-shapped engine ducts.

 

[dark sidius]

I do not know what the fascination with top down air intakes on sixth gen fighters are? I doubt very much that they would help at all in dog fighting manoeuvres involving 9G turns better of without I think and sticking with the tried and tested of the Typhoon style air intakes and S-shapped engine ducts.

I think the dog fight is over, today need stealth , speed , long range with the new A/A missile this is BVR needed not dog fighting, and for dog fight there is the CCA who will be better.

 

[EmoBirb]

I do not know what the fascination with top down air intakes on sixth gen fighters are? I doubt very much that they would help at all in dog fighting manoeuvres involving 9G turns better of without I think and sticking with the tried and tested of the Typhoon style air intakes and S-shapped engine ducts.

Dogfighting is more or less irrelevant, especially When WVR combat is launching incredibly maneuverable, high off-bore sight IR seeking missiles anyway.

The benefit of an intake on the top side of the fuselage is that the intakes are completely hidden from underneath, which is generally speaking where most radars are that will look for you. It also allows to design the underside as you wish (within the parameters set by stuff like landing gear, access panels etc). The B-2 and B-21, as well as the various UCAVs of this world are flying examples of that design choice.

 

[EmoBirb]

2015 design look the same than now
View attachment 781093

All that may say is that they use the same or roughly the same renders for advertisements. Also with regards to the B-21, while early renders showed its rough layout/outline, in the end the actual aircraft looked quite different.

It was "Generic-Futuristic-Flying-Wing(dot)jpg" at first


And then the real deal looked similar but still vastly different imo


I also wouldn't take renderings too seriously that are published before a contract has been awarded, especially when it's just promotional material meant to look cool and futuristic. The F-47 thing showed with Trump on the other hand could give you a very rough estimate, just how early B-21 renders were rough estimates of how the thing will look. But Northrop Grumman hasn't been awarded the contract yet, so I wouldn't pay much attention to "Generic-Futuristic-Fighter(dot)jpg". And more so, as others and I have whined about for a couple days now, we shouldn't pay so much attention to some shitty ads and their renders and fill pages with it. When something more concrete is shown or perhaps even rolled out one day, then discussion becomes valuable and fruitful (PLA next gens as an example, or B-21 after it's public debut). Until then we shouldn't saturate ourselves with marketing fluff.

 

[timmyjohn]

Back to the prognosis for F/A-XX:

Colonial-Marine said:
I'm envisioning something with a similar degree of stealth as the F-35 or F-22 that can go Mach 2+ if needed and can supercruise with a payload of long-range air-to-air missiles. A modern successor to the F-14 in many respects. Naturally it can be given some air-to-surface capability, but this should be secondary to its role of countering offensive efforts of the enemy's land or carrier-based aircraft.

This quote from 25March2025 is the exact impression I'm under at this point ... F/A-XX as described in the RFP is envisioned as a 21st century air superiority fighter and long-range interceptor with some attack capabilities.

Using past 'clean-sheet' Navy program attempts as a guide to categorize F/A-XX:

NATF - pretty close match​

AFX - less so​

AX - not close​

ATA - forgetaboutit​

So is F/A-XX dead or alive? My guess is that OSD (with significant Air Force influence) is holding up the program because it sees too much overlap with F-47's roles and missions. OSD's view may be that the Navy ought to provide the medium-attack (i.e., regional bomber) offensive capability that carrier air wings have been missing since the A-6E was retired. It's probably not a coincidence that an unmanned solution (a larger X-47B) is an ideal fit to this mission area.

In other words, the thinking may be along these lines: if the US can only afford to develop and produce one high-end carrier-based combat aircraft, the emphasis should be on offensive power projection, the CVN's raison d'etre.

 

[flateric]

when we see the first image of the B-21 , it is now for real like the first rendering.

Because it was cleared for publication and dustributed as official Air Force image, not Northrop Grumman's (while apparently was made by later). I don't see much of difference to actual aircraft except exhaust details hidden. Even V-shaped aligned inlets lips were seen on 2015 rendering.

 

[Low IQ Techie]

Bro, i always appreciated your work & planning to share work of artists like you. Let's clarify & move on.

I can see your first published post was on January 28 of this year, your first response on Twitter was on June 23 2023 and you have been on Twitter since December 2021.
I struggle to see how that's being very new on Twitter

You answered your own doubt - 2021 > 2023 > 2025, very irregular & shallow use as some sites force to login to see or scroll posts, so quick login via Google/FB account can be done. Making few posts doesn't mean using or knowing all features of X, especially paid membership features.

, but regardless I fail to see where and how that would prevent anyone from citing/linking to a source.
If you had the time to post those pictures on here, maybe you could have made the extra effort to spend 30 more seconds to link from the start where those stills came from. Even more so when a user asked you directly where you'd found them and you took the time to answer them vaguely later on.

What did i clarify -

I went out with family, hence i replied just short line which is usually not my style.
It is now i'm with my laptop & i was going to give the link & screenshot, but i see you gave it.

For everyone their work, family, guests, occassions, etc are 1st, especially on weekend. On traffic signal also, difficult to check phone longer. Cops're just waiting to catch phone in hand of drivers.
This render is not some emergency, at least not for every member. Anybody can do simple google search homework which you did apparently.

You seem to have an issue differentiating between what generic "social media" are and what the scope of this forum is.

For you this might be "all leisure activity, casual chat & entertainment". For a good part of the people that are on here the information on this site is either part of their jobs or comes from a lot of hard work and sacrifice as they spent their personal time and money looking through archives, writing books and articles or compiling FOIAs.

Those people make meaningful contributions and make this place special.

The rest of the people on here (like me) mostly just want to learn instead,

It is leisure & entertainment for me bcoz i don't take tension in learning some new tech & i go deep only to level i can digest, no pressure. If you wanna learn, then focus on the technology directly. Don't take tension on small things like real Vs AI render. Eventually things will be revealed. But competitive R&D happens secretly. Apart from forums, serious learners can also go for degree/diploma programs via online distance learning.

but when users that post on this site just for "entertainment" come up with their own fictional analysis, because they think it's "entertaining" to do so, they will then have to navigate through and steer clear of all of the noise and chaff that has been posted.
Unfortunately, not everyone will be able to make the distinction between what's real and what's the product of someone's fantasy.

So, making statements like:
Will leave the impression, on people that have not spent their time looking for the original source of the images that you posted and who are not aware that those pictures are just AI slop, that what you are stating can be taken for granted.
Instead, all of those details (minus the dorsal intakes) are visible only in the Grok generated footage and hence can be completely ignored as fictional, because they are not part of the original picture published by Northrop Grumman.

> The maker firms like LM, NG, Boeing, BAe, Dassault, etc also might be using artists &/or AI tools & many of their advertisements may just be notional or iteration.
> Including you at least 16 artists made CADs on NGAD & F/A-XX, also shared on social media & 3D sites, so which one is real or close to real, or unrealistic? What should the audience think that these CADs are for R&D, university degree, or entertainment, for sci-fi movie or videogame?
> Different members with different profiles, purposes, are independent for their navigation & comprehension.

If you can't see how those things are mutually exclusive (appreciating artists' works and CADs vs. appreciating AI generated imagery), I don't think there is any helping it...

> In 1990s we made graphics by typing individual commands for shapes, lines, color, etc. In 2000s we used mouse, drag-drop feature in tools like AUTOCAD, etc. Today is era of AI. How many people want to go back to full typing mode & don't wan't to save time?
> News channels show AI eating jobs. So perhaps you can check tutorial videos on combining AI with your 3D tool.

It's dishonest when somebody tries to make "casual chat" pass for a fact, by not stating from the start that they are aware (or strongly suspect) that the footage they are presenting is not genuine and are instead vague about it.

BREAKING NEWS > A 40s Computer Engineer wants to hide a Grok video of fighter jet on X which -
- can't be hidden,
- easily found by Google search,
- doubted/debated by many to be fundamentally unrealistic.
LOL!
> I mentioned before itself that these renders could be X/Y jet or graphics & makers are not liable to expose X/Y jet.

Concept rendering can be anything.
We're in era of affordable realistic graphics.

Could be X/Y jet like Bird-of-Prey, or just another excellent graphics.

> Many drawings & renders never got materialised.
> Everyone has their timetable, priorities, situation. We all should do our simple homework as per our needs.
Now let's move on.

 

[dark sidius]

Bro, i always appreciated your work & planning to share work of artists like you. Let's clarify & move on.

We have all good time making speculation on this forum, sometimes we are right ; sometimes we are wrong, we all try to be the nearest possible with the pieces the company are showing to us. Only Northrop or Lockheed or Boeing know what heir productions will look like it is a game for a lot of us to discover what they hide untill the contract and the roll out. So we must enjoy that Northrop show us a little piece of the FA/XX I m confident this is not a hazard , there is a budget battle on the FA/XX so the reason could be this one , I m pretty sure we will see more on it very soon.

 

[dark sidius]

All that may say is that they use the same or roughly the same renders for advertisements. Also with regards to the B-21, while early renders showed its rough layout/outline, in the end the actual aircraft looked quite different.

Sure , the general shape was the good in 2015 , and it was just a drawing , In my opinion the Northrop picture of the FA/XX show a general shape but may be the good one , they work on the FA/XX since a lot of years.

 

[Low IQ Techie]

2015 design look the same than now
View attachment 781093

> With such high sweep angle i guess the landing speed would be high. How would it land on carrier.
> I think the intakes are too small.
> The 2 afterburner trails look so narrow, as if F-5 engines have been put in there.
> Its belly shows -
- 2 big bumps for big bombs in IWB but these bumps would increase RCS.
- blade antennas.
- DAS bump too big.
- Flaps not blended. The surface discontinuity is too prominent.

 

[Training_Dummy]

The issue is that there will be more times than not where there is simply nothing more to discuss, and anything further is just unmoored speculation (which has/had its own thread).

 

[EmoBirb]

The issue is that there will be more times than not where there is simply nothing more to discuss, and anything further is just unmoored speculation (which has/had its own thread).

Quite honestly, I think pure speculation based on previous developments, patents, trends, threat environments, numbers etc. is more worthwhile than getting hung up on some ads.

Meaning, I definitely belong to the people here that doesn't mind speculating page after page (many others don't enjoy that). But I think this is just low hanging fruit and generally speaking little more valuable than analyzing the spaceships from the latest Warhammer cinematic.

I'm not even necessarily trying to discourage this kind of discourse, I don't have any illusions of having the authority to tell people what to do. But when I see people getting invested and arguing on the basis of commercials, I just wanted to clarify that in the end it's most likely just fluff for flashy ads.

 

[insidersource]

So is F/A-XX dead or alive? My guess is that OSD (with significant Air Force influence) is holding up the program because it sees too much overlap with F-47's roles and missions.

The most likely timeline.
1) US Navy had internally selected the Boeing design in 2024 but was leaving the decision until the next presidency.
2) USAF NGAD program pause 12 month ago saw them seriously look at the US Navy design. Again a purchase decision was delayed until the next presidency.
3) Trump enters office and to everyones surprise the USAF quickly selected the US Navy design and named it F-47.
4) Now the US Navy needs to restructure contracts as a joint program. That's why we have quotes saying the Navy could not award the contract "as written".
5) Boeing did not plan to win both programs, develop two derivatives and produce at twice the production rate. This is the industry capacity issue.
6) It's a joke to think the US Industry capacity can only produce one 6th gen fighter design. But for Boeing to develop two derivatives and built at a rate of 50+ aircraft per year would definitely push them.
7) The US Navy just allocated funding for F/A-XX but Boeing can only catch so many billions being thrown at them.

 

[CiTrus90]

Bro, i always appreciated your work & planning to share work of artists like you. Let's clarify & move on.

I'm not your "bro".
This is not 4chan, if you expect to be taken seriously and respectfully, act accordingly.

Making few posts doesn't mean using or knowing all features of X, especially paid membership features.

Copy/pasting a link is not a specific feature of Twitter, so (again) I don't see how that would matter here.

For everyone their work, family, guests, occassions, etc are 1st, especially on weekend. On traffic signal also, difficult to check phone longer. Cops're just waiting to catch phone in hand of drivers.

You posted several times in this thread and in the 6th gen Chinese thread in a span of over 4 hours.

Yet you had the time to make the initial post with the screenshots, which is probably the most time consuming thing to do, but had no time to copy and paste a link, because the cops could pull you over.

Ok.

Since we are talking priorities here, and out of concern for your well being and for that of the people around you, maybe you should not be on the phone while you are driving.

Anybody can do simple google search homework which you did apparently.

I'm sure I was not the only person that spent over an hour looking, first on Northrop Grumman's website, then through press releases and then had to scour through hundreds of posts and comments on Twitter to search for a video that had no hashtags or anything else that would have made searching for it easier.

Imagine my surprise when I found your comment underneath it, where you asked if it was made with Grok on an Android device.

Including you at least 16 artists made CADs on NGAD & F/A-XX, also shared on social media & 3D sites, so which one is real or close to real, or unrealistic?

There is quite a difference between making a 3d model explicitly stating it's speculative and based on incomplete data (inside of a speculative thread) and posting screenshots of something that is not a primary source, refraining to say so (and where that came from) and making comments on it as if it were material that came straight from Northrop Grumman.

News channels show AI eating jobs. So perhaps you can check tutorial videos on combining AI with your 3D tool.

I'm pretty sure AI will take IT jobs well before artists' ones disappear.
Also, my job is not in 3d making. This is just a hobby for me, so rest assured that you don't need to concern yourself with what I should or should not do.

You know, it would have been easier to just say "my bad, I forgot to post a link to the source", rather than all of this.

Indeed, let's move on.

 

[quellish]

The most likely timeline.
1) US Navy had internally selected the Boeing design in 2024 but was leaving the decision until the next presidency.
2) USAF NGAD program pause 12 month ago saw them seriously look at the US Navy design. Again a purchase decision was delayed until the next presidency.
3) Trump enters office and to everyones surprise the USAF quickly selected the US Navy design and named it F-47.
4) Now the US Navy needs to restructure contracts as a joint program. That's why we have quotes saying the Navy could not award the contract "as written".
5) Boeing did not plan to win both programs, develop two derivatives and produce at twice the production rate. This is the industry capacity issue.
6) It's a joke to think the US Industry capacity can only produce one 6th gen fighter design. But for Boeing to develop two derivatives and built at a rate of 50+ aircraft per year would definitely push them.
7) The US Navy just allocated funding for F/A-XX but Boeing can only catch so many billions being thrown at them.

No.

 

[allendoc]

We could be seeing the second coming of F-23 everyone. At Northrop, we had a I would say a good fundamental problem, we had developed aircraft during certain periods in time which were very advanced as compared to our competitors but would lose out I think because of that approach but Northrop was not shy about investing company funds to foster advanced designs. However, with B-2 as an example, NG got the "RQ-180" which parlayed into the B-21 in which the B-21 shares lineage also to the original ATB and ATA platform designs, see where this is going, ATB and ATA were very advanced as compared to the GD/McAir A-12, oh yes, Tacit Blue to YF/F-23, lots of history here. The McAir/Northrop JSF contender was superior to the X-32 but unfortunately used the separate lift engine. Take the vertical tails off the NATF-23, blend it a little and you may have an F-47, potentially? I may be able to pop the verticals off my NATF-23 model then take some images of it, what goes around comes around.

Always makes me happy to see a White Bat reference...I have always been a big fan of the VF-23.

 

[allendoc]

New F/A-XX Fighter "Will Be Something We Have Not Seen Before"

Northrop Grumman has revealed its concept for the Navy's new F/A-XX stealth fighter, and it looks like a reborn YF-23 Black Widow II.

nationalsecurityjournal.org

This left Northrop Grumman as the only possibility, assuming “there is no way that the Navy would give the F/A-XX to Boeing when they are already building the next-generation Air Force fighter,” as a retired Air Force officer said. “So, by a process of elimination, Northrop are the only company left in the running that could be selected for the Navy’s next carrier aircraft.”

 

[Low IQ Techie]

I'm not your "bro".
This is not 4chan, if you expect to be taken seriously and respectfully, act accordingly.

Ok Buddy, i'm not your Bro(ther). But respect is mutual in public arena. At least we both like CADs. Which 3D tool you use - Blender, Fusion 360, 3DS Max, Cinema 4D, etc?
What's "4chan"?

Copy/pasting a link is not a specific feature of Twitter, so (again) I don't see how that would matter here.

I'm sure I was not the only person that spent over an hour looking, first on Northrop Grumman's website, then through press releases and then had to scour through hundreds of posts and comments on Twitter to search for a video that had no hashtags or anything else that would have made searching for it easier.

Imagine my surprise when I found your comment underneath it, where you asked if it was made with Grok on an Android device.

Nobody has obligation or liability to operate their personal devices & social media/life as per others to do simple unpaid homework over advertisements unless in some paid contract like journalist, secretary, marketing guys, blogger, etc .
Different piece of info relevant to different people who should do their own homework as per their needs, OR request info & have patience for response.

You posted several times in this thread and in the 6th gen Chinese thread in a span of over 4 hours.

Yet you had the time to make the initial post with the screenshots, which is probably the most time consuming thing to do, but had no time to copy and paste a link, because the cops could pull you over.

Ok.

4 hours, 400,000 hours (upto 40 years), but family 1st.
A family guy as a son, father, brother, husband would know that in 4 hours on a weekend a family guy would be engaged in many things -
- house chores - cooking, cleaning, etc.
- finance tasks
- fetch grocery & ration
- looking after old parents
- looking after kids & spouse
- catering to occassions if any
- looking after guests if any

Nobody would annoy family, guests by checking devices spoonfeeding unkown people over advertisements like a random render.
So a family guy + enthusisast would draft the lines, then do some work, then attach pics, then do some work, then review & post.
I keep my drafts for hours, days, sometimes even over a week if a long post bcoz i've to watch videos, make searches, etc. Since 25 years i'm collecting pics on aviation, military.

Since we are talking priorities here, and out of concern for your well being and for that of the people around you, maybe you should not be on the phone while you are driving.

And that's why i could not copy-paste the link (except a quick short reply at red signal), bcoz safety & family 1st.
Appreciate your concern for well being of me & people around me.

There is quite a difference between making a 3d model explicitly stating it's speculative and based on incomplete data (inside of a speculative thread) and posting screenshots of something that is not a primary source, refraining to say so (and where that came from) and making comments on it as if it were material that came straight from Northrop Grumman.

Really? There is HUGE difference b/w prioritizing family over hobby Vs facing hatred & character assasination to hide unrealistic advertisement which cannot be hidden on social media, easy to find, LOL! & mentioned that the commentor looks like regular citizen.

IS it Northrop Grumman the source ?

No, the commentor looks like usual citizen.

I being old enthusiast + engineer understand CADs. But many others worldwide, sometime with catchy usernames, also share your & others' CADs in pics & videos on X, FB, YouTube, Reddit, Medium, etc, w/o any disclaimer, producing excitement that it could be the ultimate jet. It is much later people may or may not come to know that it is just personal creativity.
And like you only said earlier that everybody can't differentiate b/w real & fantasy & above you said that imagine people searching 100s of posts, comments, this applies to audience worldwide checking your CAD also.

I'm pretty sure AI will take IT jobs well before artists' ones disappear.
Also, my job is not in 3d making. This is just a hobby for me, so rest assured that you don't need to concern yourself with what I should or should not do.

Good to know that you won't be impacted by AI. But people's personal devices, social media/life/timetable is none of others' concern either.

You know, it would have been easier to just say "my bad, I forgot to post a link to the source", rather than all of this.

Well, i did clarify, if only i could check my laptop before you checked your device, or if you waited little longer -

I went out with family, hence i replied just short line which is usually not my style.
It is now i'm with my laptop & i was going to give the link & screenshot, but i see you gave it.

It would have been easier to understand family situation, not keep unrealistic expectation to do unpaid homework for unrealistic advertisements, or request info & have patience for response,... rather than accusing unknown people across the globe, especially if they're our well-wishers & appreciators.

Good Day!

 

[Low IQ Techie]

I would laugh my ass off if it turns out to have the same planform as the UCAV concept AIRBUS recently showed

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/usaf-usn-6th-gen-fighters-f-a-xx-f-x-ngad-pca-asfs-news-analysis.3536/post-272888

Comparing 2 drawings found on this site itself, i wonder if canards would be more appropriate for F/A-XX than NGAD.

 

[Arjen]

Nobody has obligation or liability to operate their personal devices & social media/life as per others to do simple unpaid homework over advertisements unless in some paid contract like journalist, secretary, marketing guys, blogger, etc .

You asked for help about an image/clip but didn't provide the site where you found it - not until quite a bit later. That attitude is not conducive to people reaching out.

 

[Low IQ Techie]

You asked for help about an image/clip but didn't provide the site where you found it - not until quite a bit later. That attitude is not conducive to people reaching out.

WRONG. While busy with family, guests also i replied i found it on comment on X.

I spotted on a comment on X.

I didn't ask for any 'help' as such, i share what i find to discuss, that's it. People reaching out should request & have patience to understand family situation & wait & they'll get the info.
Rest, the line whch you quoted says it all. Family 1st, no personal obligation.
Good Day!

 

[timmyjohn]

Re: NorGrum renderings. To my eyes the 2025 and the 2015 artwork both resemble the Jan-2022 mystery aircraft TMZ spotted. Especially if the outer wing panel incorporates some sort of variable geometry. And a canard-equipped version may make it carrier suitable ... Did NG originally work towards a highly common 80K-lb class fighter for USAF and USN, build/fly said demonstrator, but drop out of USAF NGAD when they realized that a 100K-lb+ design was required to be compliant with the final USAF RFP?

 

[Seragina]

I've my doubts about a swing-wing solution because structural integrity requirement makes them heavier. And because these also reduce internal fuel somewhat or rather require even more fuel & thrust to makeup for the increased weight.
Anyhow, fyi Boeing does have an interesting VG wing tip patent. It was probably an alternative solution option considered for the 777X which now uses a folding wing tip.

 

[bring_it_on]

The most likely timeline.
1) US Navy had internally selected the Boeing design in 2024 but was leaving the decision until the next presidency.
2) USAF NGAD program pause 12 month ago saw them seriously look at the US Navy design. Again a purchase decision was delayed until the next presidency.
3) Trump enters office and to everyones surprise the USAF quickly selected the US Navy design and named it F-47.
4) Now the US Navy needs to restructure contracts as a joint program. That's why we have quotes saying the Navy could not award the contract "as written".
5) Boeing did not plan to win both programs, develop two derivatives and produce at twice the production rate. This is the industry capacity issue.
6) It's a joke to think the US Industry capacity can only produce one 6th gen fighter design. But for Boeing to develop two derivatives and built at a rate of 50+ aircraft per year would definitely push them.
7) The US Navy just allocated funding for F/A-XX but Boeing can only catch so many billions being thrown at them.

During the pause, the Air Force actually reached out to the Marines to see what sort of aircraft they were thinking about in their future. Though reluctant at first given program control and the fact that they would have to pull a few months of all-nighters to completely re-write requirements, they ultimately relented because they want a new jet..any new jet...Then, as the new administration came in, the Air Force quickly formalized it and selected that Marine solution to the delight of the Navy. They are basically 80% in common..Internally, it is being referred to as the Joint Stealth Fighter.

 

[Reddington777]

During the pause, the Air Force actually reached out to the Marines to see what sort of aircraft they were thinking about in their future. To their delight, they liked what they heard. Then, as the new administration came in, the Air Force quickly jumped in and selected that Marine solution to the delight of the Navy. They are basically 80% in common..A true Joint...

2) USAF NGAD program pause 12 month ago saw them seriously look at the US Navy design. Again a purchase decision was delayed until the next presidency.

Where are you guys getting this info from? Actual inside sources or just speculation? If it's the former then I'm the idiot. If it's the latter, well it doesn't fit with the information we know right now.

These options seems so convoluted. Assuming Boeing did win, Boeing built the navy's aerospace innovation initiative (AII) demonstrator so maybe you can argue that both designs came in part from whatever technology was verified on that demonstrator, but that's about it. If we are specifically talking about the post-demonstrator design, why would the air force be looking at someone else's design when realistically, none of those options actually brought any solutions to the questions the air force was investigating during the pause?

Back when the air force first announced it was pausing and doing some evaluations on whether and how to proceed with NGAD, it was asking:

1. Was there a need for NGAD or should we go autonomous systems all the way?
2. Was the design they came up with "future proof" as in it was going to be right for the job in the future?
3. Was the design too exquisite and could it be more affordable?

The air force's envisioned "lighter" option was an F-35 sized light fighter, which is not F/A-XX.

What would a Navy, let alone a Marine design (and what marine design? there's never been a mention of a marine NGAD) provide that simply reducing requirements for the Air force's own designed fighter couldn't offer? Whether it's their intended role or their engines, these two fighters were planned differently from the outset. Even if the air force version was too expensive - it's a lot less of a pain in the ass to just lower some requirements and make compromise as needed for an existing design owned by the air force instead of taking a naval design and try to shoehorn it into air force PCA requirements.

The more straightforward possibility is probably more often than not what really happened - which is that the two fighters were separate in design, but shared some level of commonality that became a bottle neck. Whether that's the vendor, the expertise, or the materials, we just don't know.

3) Trump enters office and to everyones surprise the USAF quickly selected the US Navy design and named it F-47.

Again... where is the evidence for this? Why in the world would the USAF select a fighter design meant to replace an carrier based attack aircraft when the F-47 was the "penetrating counter air" component? From interviews just after the reward (and as transcribed on the first few pages of the F-47 thread), it seems like the air force was not surprised at all with Boeing being the winner. NG withdrew their bid, and LM's design was quoted as being more "evolutionary" while Boeing's was described as "revolutionary". The only surprise was that Boeing's leadership was really really bad at the time.

4) Now the US Navy needs to restructure contracts as a joint program. That's why we have quotes saying the Navy could not award the contract "as written".

“Awarding the F/A-XX contract as written is likely to delay the higher-priority F-47 program, with low likelihood of improving the timeline to field a Navy sixth generation fighter.” was the original quote. The ability to issue the contract as written was never called into question. They can still award as written. Just that moving forward this way will delay the F-47 program.

To me, this means either the two share a lot of the same expertise, manufacturing capacity or that the two were awarded to the same contractor internally from the very beginning - but not a joint program that required contracts to be rewritten.

5) Boeing did not plan to win both programs

Boeing's demonstrator showcasing technology that the air force wanted to see would imply that Boeing would love to have both contracts.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Where are you guys getting this info from? Actual inside sources or just speculation? If it's the former then I'm the idiot. If it's the latter, well it doesn't fit with the information we know right now.

@insidersource posting style reminds me of a former user around here. So confident yet conjectural.

 

[bring_it_on]

Where are you guys getting this info from?

Can't speak for 'insidersource' but mine came from "I made it up". (it was a joke).

On an actual serious note, Boeing would have obviously made very different bids for the Air Force and Navy programs. As would have Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman while each were in play on these respective program. The reason is quite simple - Air Force was looking for a penetrating counter air platform, while the Navy a naval strike fighter. To suggest that the Air force, having had their NGAD put on pause...basically said...yeah whatever..give us that naval aircraft (or something based on it) is most definitly not how it happened. What the Trump administration has funded and awarded is designed to requirements the service put forward in its RFP and what Boeing bid to those requirements. There is absolutely nothing that suggests that anything different has happened.

 

[Reddington777]

Can't speak for 'insidersource' but mine came from "I made it up". (it was a joke).

I'm sorry, must be my autism/ADHD acting up again