Can you point to a CCA proposal in the US that is talking those munition payloads, ie any of them projected to carry 2000lb weapons or to the payload weights you are suggesting?
The CSBA report "Regaining the High Ground" has these large CCAs. It's 19mb, and I'm having trouble uploading it here.

They specifically mention "A large flying wing, a blended wing-body, or a traditional tube-and-wing UCAV could carry similar internal and external payloads as today’s strike fighters." And this is on top of having a 3000nmi unrefueled range. The strike fighters they are using are so big that their proposed 2040 carrier wing has 18x strike/SUW/ASW CCAs (not sure how they're wrapping ASW in there), with another 6 of that same airframe that are EW/"EM Warfare" versions, and finally 2-4 more of that airframe permanently set up as tankers over and above the 8-10 MQ25s.


Any EW CCA are also going to be stand-in and likely to carry systems half the weight of an NGJ. Additionally with the modern suite of munitions coming along I don't think a SiAW is needed for CCA SEAD, a set of Barracuda-250s or equivalent with the right sensor might be enough.
SiAW has the advantage of speed, so minimal time to target. A radar that was off and suddenly turned on, or possibly a flying radar.


The Navy has already chosen, the requirements are for strike aircraft. The manned aircraft itself isn’t going to be doing fleet air defense. They don’t want a Tomcat.
That honestly seems very odd to me, I was kinda assuming a group of CCAs and one manned bird as the BARCAPs. IIRC so was the CSBA report.



But it has to be able to perform in the fleet air defense role simply because they're going to make up a large portion of a carrier's air wing. The F-35C is adequate at best for that mission, and eventually the F/A-XX is supposed to phase out the F/A-18s that serve in that role.
Is there some notion that the fighters of the carrier air wing shouldn't be directly contributing to the defense of the fleet from airborne threats?
I mean, an F-35C with sidekick racks carries as many AMRAAMs internally as an F-22. The problem is range. I'm not sure how long an F-35 can loiter at 250nmi from the carrier.
 
Last edited:
That's especially because of experience that they are not stuck with flying wing design today. ;)
That's fair enough if there were specific findings around the capabilities or characteristics of the X-47B (or flying wings in general if we don't want to make it specific to that airframe) that the Navy had a specific problem with. Were there any in the public record?

If there is anything concrete I'd be very interested. From what I saw it seemed to go extremely well but unfortunately was yet another area the Navy couldn't afford to invest in. Facts to the contrary gratefully received.
 
Last edited:
The CSBA report "Regaining the High Ground" has these large CCAs. It's 19mb, and I'm having trouble uploading it here.

They specifically mention "A large flying wing, a blended wing-body, or a traditional tube-and-wing UCAV could carry similar internal and external payloads as today’s strike fighters." And this is on top of having a 3000nmi unrefueled range. The strike fighters they are using are so big that their proposed 2040 carrier wing has 18x strike/SUW/ASW CCAs (not sure how they're wrapping ASW in there), with another 6 of that same airframe that are EW/"EM Warfare" versions, and finally 2-4 more of that airframe permanently set up as tankers over and above the 8-10 MQ25s.
Yes I've read that CSBA report which for note as has been pointed out to me previously isn't the USN. Again, we haven't seen any requirements from the USN for a CCA that size.
SiAW has the advantage of speed, so minimal time to target. A radar that was off and suddenly turned on, or possibly a flying radar.
It does but it is big and expensive. CCAs need low cost flexible weapons.
I mean, an F-35C with sidekick racks carries as many AMRAAMs internally as an F-22. The problem is range. I'm not sure how long an F-35 can loiter at 250nmi from the carrier.
A looong time. With an A2G mission radius of nearly 700nm that big wing loitering at 250nm should see long mission durations and refuelling that aircraft is an ideal MQ-25 mission.
 
Yes I've read that CSBA report which for note as has been pointed out to me previously isn't the USN. Again, we haven't seen any requirements from the USN for a CCA that size.
Yes, we have. X-47C.


It does but it is big and expensive. CCAs need low cost flexible weapons.
Why? If you're doing SEAD/DEAD, why do you need cheap weapons?


A looong time. With an A2G mission radius of nearly 700nm that big wing loitering at 250nm should see long mission durations and refuelling that aircraft is an ideal MQ-25 mission.
250nmi out of 700 is 450, that may be 2 hours flight.
 
The manned aircraft itself isn’t going to be doing fleet air defense. They don’t want a Tomcat.
So what exactly will be doing fleet air defense? Those specialized CCA's? Better surface to air missiles? BBG(X)? Or is it still unclear?
 
Last edited:
Yes, we have. X-47C.
X-47C was NGs assessment of what the USN wanted. When UCLASS reqs actually were released it was for something nowhere near as large or as capable. Only in late 2013 did they get changed for a larger airframe that still didn't have the weapons payloads you are suggesting and I don;t believe those designs were even submitted before the program morphed to CBARS.
Why? If you're doing SEAD/DEAD, why do you need cheap weapons?
CCAs are meant to be attritable. Same reason the USAF wants cheaper AAMs for CCAs to operate with.

So what exactly will be doing fleet air defense? Those specialized CCA's? Better surface to air missiles? Or is it still unclear?
Congress certainly thinks they are funding an air superiority aircraft...

“The agreement supports the Navy’s efforts to develop the F/A-XX sixth generation fighter and understands the program’s unique capability in delivering air superiority to the fleet, including greater operational range, speed, stealth, and enhanced survivability.
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fy26_defense_bill_summary_conferenced.pdf
While that might come in the form of quarterbacking unmanned assets or other manned platforms as shooters it clearly is envisioned to operate that mission.
 
https://news.usni.org/2026/02/10/navy-rethinking-how-to-command-robotic-forces-cno-caudle-says

Navy Rethinking How to Command Robotic Forces, CNO Caudle Says​

Sam LaGrone
February 10, 2026 8:44 PM

SAN DIEGO — Buoyed by billions in investments into robotic systems, the Navy is considering how it will manage the swarms of unmanned surface, subsurface and aerial drones throughout the fleet.

Robotic autonomous systems (RAS) are being positioned as a key part of the Navy’s future as a hedge force – a mix of forward-deployed manned and unmanned tailored to specific geographical areas. Integrating the RAS into the fleet is now a major effort for the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Darl Caudle said Tuesday while speaking with reporters at WEST 2026.

“It’s a challenge making an ensemble of these types of capabilities in a meaningful way that combatant commanders and Navy component commanders can ask for in a way that solves one of their key operational problems,” he said. “We don’t want this just to be a gadget.”

Currently, the Navy has organized RAS by the domain they operate – surface, subsurface and air – but the nature of how the systems could work together may require a new task force commander, Caudle said.

“This RAS commander, if you will, knows how to command and control these packages of unmanned capabilities to achieve the mission outcomes that the strike group commander may want,” he said. “Where my head is – and we’re not there yet – a RAS warfighting commander, it’s almost a joint task force commander just for these systems alone.”

The concept for how to use drones isn’t fully formed but leaders have pointed to the “hellscape” defense against a Taiwan invasion by the People’s Liberation Army Navy as a possible template. Hellscape would coordinate swarms of lethal aerial, surface and subsurface drones to stymie amphibious ships and landing craft from reaching across the 90-mile-wide Taiwan Strait. In the air, that could include loitering munitions, and on the surface, that could include explosive unmanned surface vehicles and similarly lethal subsurface RAS.

While Caudle said the early testing has been promising, codifying that coordination will be key to how RAS can be applied to the Navy’s future fleet.

“We have got to figure out how to build out these units of force so that they can be asked for in a logical way, and then command and control them,” Caudle said.

The general structure of how the RAS would be employed was laid out in Caudle’s new fighting instructions, which was released this week.

“The Navy must address the associated doctrinal shortfalls, organizational seams and process gaps, including determining how we will allocate RAS in service decisions like strategic laydown, dispersal and global force management,” reads the instructions. “For us to integrate RAS into our standard force delivery model, RAS capabilities must be describable in standard terms, interfaces and outcomes.”

In that vein, newly confirmed Vice Adm. Dougals Verissimo, commander of Naval Air Force Command, said naval aviators are now working through their own concepts to incorporate larger collaborative combat aircraft (CCAs) into the fleet.

Rather than a mass of swarming drones, the CCAs initial promise is to act as wingmen to the Navy’s manned fighters and act at the direction of humans in the cockpit, underway or ashore.

The Navy has contracted with General Atomics, Boeing, Anduril and Northrop Grumman for concept studies of CCAs while Lockheed Martin is contracted to build a ground control station for the aircraft
, USNI News previously reported.

While the hunt for new aircraft is underway, Verissimo said he is studying incorporating CCAs into the air wing.

“It may be a [surveillance] system. It may be a weapons delivery system. It may be some type of specific sensing system that [gives] those manned platforms with mission orders the ability to understand the battle space and execute based on their authorities… That’s where we’re heading in how we think and ask for capabilities,” Verissimo said.

The Navy seems to struggle with the scope of having to figure out how to operate, coordinate, finance, introduce all the surface, subsurface, and airborn drones. That's probably the cause for the delays and reluctance or decision freeze. So it looks like we'll have to wait quite a while before anything will be announced. But they already realize they do need somewhat larger CCAs
 
If you look back at the article from last year:
https://news.usni.org/2025/09/05/na...es-to-develop-armed-unmanned-carrier-aircraft

Navy Contracts 5 Companies to Develop Armed, Unmanned Carrier Aircraft​

Mallory Shelbourne and Sam LaGrone
September 5, 2025 4:23 PM

Five aviation companies are under contract to develop armed, unmanned aircraft and control systems for use on the Navy’s fleet of 11 aircraft carriers, USNI News has learned.

General Atomics, Boeing, Anduril and Northrop Grumman are on contract for the conceptual design of the so-called collaborative combat aircraft, or CCA, according to a Navy presentation reviewed by USNI News. Lockheed Martin is under contract to build the common control system.

The Navy wants “uncrewed, modular, interoperable, interchangeable and versatile platforms” that it can field from an aircraft carrier, reads the slide from Naval Air Systems Command’s program executive office for unmanned aviation and strike weapons. Breaking Defense first reported the slide’s details.

A NAVAIR spokesperson confirmed the contracts but did not provide additional details. A Boeing spokesperson referred USNI News to the Navy. Representatives for Northrop Grumman did not immediately return requests for comment from USNI News. A spokesperson for General Atomics did not confirm the contract but acknowledged the service’s interest in the program.

“The Navy has been pretty vocal about integrating uncrewed jets of different types and closely following the Air Force’s CCA efforts,” General Atomics spokesman C. Mark Brinkley said in a statement. “It’s a smart move that buys down significant risk and leverages the substantial work and investments already underway.”

A spokesperson for Anduril confirmed that the Navy contracted the company to do conceptual design work.

“We are focused on delivering an aircraft built specifically to the Navy’s distinct needs, at rapid speed and formidable scale,” the Anduril spokesperson said in a statement.

A Lockheed Martin spokesperson confirmed to USNI News that the company is under contract with the Navy.

“Specifically, our Lockheed Martin Skunk Works MDCX autonomy platform is a program of record solution for the U.S. Navy’s MD-5 Unmanned Carrier Aviation Mission Control System,” reads a statement from the company.

Compared to the U.S. Air Force, the Navy has been slower to adopt unmanned aerial systems in part due to limited space on aircraft carriers. Now, pressure is increasing to expand the range and capacity of the carrier air wing amid development delays to the long-range F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter and the aging existing fleet of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

Based on the slide reviewed by USNI News, the CCAs would fly the existing Super Hornets and F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters and could work with future sixth-generation aircraft.

“There’s a yawning gap in the carrier air wing that won’t be filled anytime soon,” naval analyst Bryan Clark told USNI News. “[CCAs] are a short-term solution.”

The combat range of the carrier air wing has shrunk over the last 20 years as the carrier strike group was focused on strike missions in Iraq and Afghanistan in support of the global war on terror.

For the Navy, the range of the air wing is a limiting factor for the carrier strike group in a conflict with China in the Western Pacific. The increasing range of China’s guided-missile arsenal limits where the carrier can operate, increases the stand-off distance of the strike group and requires longer-range aircraft to be effective.

The development of both unmanned and manned longer-range strike aircraft stalled within the service’s own development process in favor of existing systems. For example, following the successful 2013 demonstration of landing and launching the Northrop Grumman X-47B demonstration aircraft aboard a carrier, the Navy scrapped plans to develop a low-observable unmanned strike aircraft. The service instead opted for the MQ-25A Stingray unmanned carrier tanker as the first unmanned aircraft to operate from the carrier. The Boeing-built Stingray program is set to fly in 2026 after several delays.

However, the developmental work the Air Force has done for CCAs has given the Navy more options. Clark said the improved technological development of the current crop of CCAs under development for the Air Force has increased the appeal for the Navy to have the relatively low-cost aircraft take up space on a carrier to perform multiple missions like intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, strike and air-to-air missions.

“If I’m going to take a spot on the carrier, every spot is going to produce,” Clark said. “These CCAs now give me the ability to do multiple missions.”

The Navy CCA contracts come as the White House and Pentagon push for increased drone manufacturing and operations across the military. In June, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for additional drone capacity across the government. The order specifically called on the Pentagon “to procure, integrate and train using low-cost, high-performing drones manufactured in the United States,” according to the text.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth subsequently signed out a memo in July pressing Pentagon and combatant command officials to move out on the effort.

“I am rescinding restrictive policies that hindered production and limited access to these vital technologies, unleashing the combined potential of American manufacturing and warfighter ingenuity,” Hegseth wrote in the July 10 memo. “I am delegating authorities to procure and operate drones from the bureaucracy to our warfighters.”
The long term goal seems to establish a new life cycle process to convert old and outgoing airframes into CCA drones instead of mothballing them.
 
The Navy has already chosen, the requirements are for strike aircraft. The manned aircraft itself isn’t going to be doing fleet air defense. They don’t want a Tomcat.

This has become a speculation / wishful thinking thread rather than discussion of the actual program.
Please properly understand what I have already said. Mission is mission, design is design. When the USAF saidnot a pound for air-to-ground”, the F-15A did have an A/G mode; it was just not employed. When the USAF needed an aircraft primarily designed for AG mission to replace the F-111, they chose the F-15E. And it is a clear and simple conclusion: the same mission can be fulfilled by different airframe designs.

You have been claiming that the USN only needs a strike aircraft. If that were the case, the program should have been named A-X, not F/A-XX.

Furthermore, all official Navy information—whether from the Defense Appropriations Act, 2026, or the joint statement submitted to the SASC Seapower Subcommittee by Jay Stefany, and Admiral Scott Conn—shows that the F/A-XX is a manned strike fighter, not a manned attack aircraft.


Finally, if taking China’s threat into account is regarded as ignoring reality, then I have nothing further to say. I will agree with your point that a pure attack aircraft would be sufficient to deal with realistic threats other than those from China.
 
You have been claiming that the USN only needs a strike aircraft

No, I have not been claiming anything I think about what the Navy needs. I have been pointing out what their actual plans are for this aircraft and the future air wing.
 
Congress certainly thinks they are funding an air superiority aircraft...

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fy26_defense_bill_summary_conferenced.pdf
While that might come in the form of quarterbacking unmanned assets or other manned platforms as shooters it clearly is envisioned to operate that mission

You left out a lot…

The Committee continues to strongly support the Navy's
efforts to develop the F/A-XX, a next-generation, carrier-
capable strike fighter to replace the aging F/A-18E/F Super
Hornet fleet.
The Committee recognizes the unique capability
that Navy's F/A-XX program will provide in terms of air
superiority to the fleet, including greater operational range,
speed, stealth, and enhanced survivability. The Committee
understands the Navy's requirement for a sixth-generation
fighter remains unchanged and emphatically notes that the Air
Force's F-47 program is not interchangeable with Navy's
carrier-capable program. The Committee notes that both programs
are necessary parts of the future joint fight and failure to
pursue Navy's F/A-XX program risks leaving the U.S. dangerously
 
So what exactly will be doing fleet air defense? Those specialized CCA's? Better surface to air missiles? BBG(X)? Or is it still unclear?
It's questionable if the role of fleet air defense in this day and age would require a dedicated aircraft to conduct that mission set. For one, AAW has become arguably the primary role of surface combatants in the United States Navy. Secondly, thanks to how datalink has evolved, how sensors are being distributed across several surface and air based assets and how air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles are increasing range with every major iteration it's just not really necessary to develop a "Tomcat II".

While strike cannot be substituted by surface combatants and network centric warfare in the same manner. It's much more hands-on and platform dependent. And yes, surface combatants can conduct strike missions (before certain people type a response to a point that was never made), but Tomahawks are not comparable to guided and unguided munitions dropped by strike fighters. Especially as you preferably fill your VLS cells with more SAM and ABM weapons.
 
It's questionable if the role of fleet air defense in this day and age would require a dedicated aircraft to conduct that mission set. For one, AAW has become arguably the primary role of surface combatants in the United States Navy. Secondly, thanks to how datalink has evolved, how sensors are being distributed across several surface and air based assets and how air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles are increasing range with every major iteration it's just not really necessary to develop a "Tomcat II".
There's hasn't been peer to peer naval battles since WWII. The modern post cold war development until now isn't a good guideline.
The crucial point missed here is despite missile range improvements the radar horizont remains the same. Unless operating within a force or using ISR drones a single ship is not truely better protected as far as ranged response/reaction time go.
 
I said a dedicated airframe designed around the idea of fleet air defense seemingly wasn't deemed necessary in this day and age.

This doesn't mean that there aren't several aircraft, manned or unmanned in service or active development that have powerful radars and long range missiles.

And the JSF already validated the concept of a purpose build strike fighter that's also able to conduct other mission sets. And before anyone now says "well, the USN also has the F-35, so why would they need another strike fighter?", that's because the F/A-XX is becoming a strike fighter entirely designed around what the Navy wants from a 21st century, advanced, carrier based, strike fighter. No involvement of the USAF or USMC. In that sense the compromised but still formidable F-35C replaces the Legacy Hornets, the F/A-XX will be purpose build to replace the Super Hornet as the top strike fighter that was designed based on what the Navy wanted.

None of this is new, it has been regurgitated in this thread ad nauseam. It just comes up every couple pages again and again. No next gen Tomcat, but a next gen Super Hornet. And that's what the Navy deemed necessary, what they said they want and accordingly the aircraft is being developed with that in mind. Quite frankly, "F/A" should have said it all.
 
You left out a lot…
And what did that change? The roles the aircraft fulfils as a Strike fighter includes Air Superiority, that mission role is within the definition of a Strike Fighter.

I'm not disputing the USN has put forward a set of requirements that is focused on a SH replacement but to deny that includes the airframe conducting the air superiority mission is silly. Repeating again, while that might come in the form of quarterbacking unmanned assets or other manned platforms as shooters it is clearly envisioned to operate that mission.

I thought you were ignoring me...

There's hasn't been peer to peer naval battles since WWII. The modern post cold war development until now isn't a good guideline.
The crucial point missed here is despite missile range improvements the radar horizont remains the same. Unless operating within a force or using ISR drones a single ship is not truely better protected as far as ranged response/reaction time go.
Found an interesting article from the US Naval Institute from 1993, https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1993/february/all-strike-fighters-air-wing which covers the options the USN had with the Cold War ending and budgets tightening. The USN is at a similar inflection point today.
 
Secondly, thanks to how datalink has evolved, how sensors are being distributed across several surface and air based assets and how air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles are increasing range with every major iteration it's just not really necessary to develop a "Tomcat II".
Makes sense. Tomcats were suppose to intercept launch platforms anyway and these days the main launch platforms are more often than not surface targets.
 
Sorry, this just came to mind - is there an advanced/ modern US-made successor of the F414? Something that's in the F18 size class, clean sheet design started in the past 1-2 decade and technologically at least on par with the F135?
Or even more ambitiously, something that's absolutely bleeding edge 6th gen engine, analogous with the XA102/XA103?
 
Sorry, this just came to mind - is there an advanced/ modern US-made successor of the F414? Something that's in the F18 size class, clean sheet design started in the past 1-2 decade and technologically at least on par with the F135?
No clean sheet. GE has continued to invest in the engine over its lifetime.
Or even more ambitiously, something that's absolutely bleeding edge 6th gen engine, analogous with the XA102/XA103?
A bleeding edge engine that is not a US engine? Not sure why the US would develop more latest tech engines than the XA100/101/102/103?

The USN has stated for a while they intend to use a derivative of an in service engine. Most here see that as enhanced versions of either the F110 or F414.
 
No clean sheet. GE has continued to invest in the engine over its lifetime.

A bleeding edge engine that is not a US engine? Not sure why the US would develop more latest tech engines than the XA100/101/102/103?

The USN has stated for a while they intend to use a derivative of an in service engine. Most here see that as enhanced versions of either the F110 or F414.
The F-119 is a mostly clean sheet design compared to the F100, while the F110 is a deeply upgraded variant of the same. The F135 again is an evolution of the F-119 tech, with the X-engines representing another generational change.
Analogously, we have the F404, and its upgraded variant, the F414, but I'm not aware of any generational changes in this size/thrush class.

As for other entries in this area, the EJ200 and WS-19 are on a similar technology level as the F-119, so yes, in this weight class, there are more advanced engines than what the US currently produces.

Seeing how they're aggresively pursuing a drop in replacement for the F18, and the twin-engine requirement is strongly hinted at, it's very likely they dont want an engine in the F110 weight class, but something smaller (which all these X-engines fall into), it would make sense to me that such an engine would exist.
 
I wonder how advanced the EW suite will be on the XX and whether they'll forgo outboard jammers when replacing the Growlers.
Given that its a clean sheet design, I anticipate they'll likely include those capabilities into the aircraft. Modern radars/equipment are all plenty powerful enough to serve its primary role and EW on a large scale.

For missions using F/A-XX and/or F-47, I anticipate the role of the growler will be little to none, but outside of the use of those I think they'll still have their uses in lesser contested environments.
 
In regards to NG, one could assume the USN has been working with NG for a long and even asked that everything YF/F/NATF-23 be "dusted" off and evaluated, this would not surprise me and the reason NG dropped out of USAF NGAD because NG wanted to put their energy into F/A-XX. Since Mc Air was the teammate for YF-23 the Boeing F/A-XX may have YF/F/NATF-23 DNA in it. The F-47 may have some of this DNA as well.
 
In regards to NG, one could assume the USN has been working with NG for a long and even asked that everything YF/F/NATF-23 be "dusted" off and evaluated,
That seems unlikely. Why would the USN have referenced the YF/F/NATF-23 at all? They would have provided NG with a set of requirements and then NG can decide to use the NATF-23 design or not. I also expect the requirement set for F/A-XX is probably different enough that dusting off a 30 year old design around a Tomcat replacement probably isn't the best approach to winning the contract.
 
The F-119 is a mostly clean sheet design compared to the F100, while the F110 is a deeply upgraded variant of the same.
That doesn't make sense. Yes the F119 is essentially a clean sheet design but is not in the thrust class of the F414.
The F135 again is an evolution of the F-119 tech, with the X-engines representing another generational change.
Analogously, we have the F404, and its upgraded variant, the F414, but I'm not aware of any generational changes in this size/thrush class.
Sure. That was the question you asked and was answered. The F414 has been continuously iterated over to its current design. Has the F414 gone through a generational change? No, just improvements over time the same as the F100/110.
As for other entries in this area, the EJ200 and WS-19 are on a similar technology level as the F-119, so yes, in this weight class, there are more advanced engines than what the US currently produces.
What does the EJ200 or the WS-19 have to do with this? They are F414 weight class, not F119.
Seeing how they're aggresively pursuing a drop in replacement for the F18, and the twin-engine requirement is strongly hinted at, it's very likely they dont want an engine in the F110 weight class, but something smaller (which all these X-engines fall into), it would make sense to me that such an engine would exist.
There are a hundred different references to the USN saying they will use a derivative engine for F/A-XX and not a new build clean sheet design nor a new adaptive engine. What engine they decide on will be based on their requirements for range, top speed, supersonic dash, if they want supercruise, naval compatibility etc.
 
A clean-sheet F414 class design should probably wait until after the XA-101/102. Enhanced F414s with greater thrust have already been tested and would help the Super Hornet a lot, but the Navy doesn't want to pay for that.
I'm guessing the engine selected for NGAD is more likely to be in the class of the F110 than the F414. But I strongly believe it should be replaced by an XA-series engine once those designs become more mature and proven. It seems the Navy is content with the Air Force being the one that pushes ahead for new engine development.
 
That seems unlikely. Why would the USN have referenced the YF/F/NATF-23 at all? They would have provided NG with a set of requirements and then NG can decide to use the NATF-23 design or not. I also expect the requirement set for F/A-XX is probably different enough that dusting off a 30 year old design around a Tomcat replacement probably isn't the best approach to winning the contract.
I don't agree. I was on YF-23 and it was a pretty advanced design for the 90's. The YF-23 was more advanced as compared to the YF-22 hands down. Yes, USN provided F/A-XX requirements to NG but that does not mean basic F-23 design features/architectures are not valid today. Example, the B-21 basically looks like (but evolved) the original ATB configuration of 1979, so the ATB from 1979 was actually a 6th gen at that time! As well as our ATA and "RQ-180". The Russians took features from the YF-23 for SU-57, the GCAP did, the new French fighter did. The partial NG F/A-XX concept hints of some F-23 features. Again, I was on the program among others and it would be foolish for the USN not review what we did and what we accomplished, the F-23 design is actually relevant to the missions today, that's what we designed for. Sorry if others don't have the advanced development thinking as we did at Northrop/NG back then.
 
I don't agree. I was on YF-23 and it was a pretty advanced design for the 90's. The YF-23 was more advanced as compared to the YF-22 hands down. Yes, USN provided F/A-XX requirements to NG but that does not mean basic F-23 design features/architectures are not valid today.
What you suggested though is the USN would have approached NG and said, hey you know that design from 1990 that didn't get beyond concept phase lets dust that off and use it today...

I'm not disputing whether the design had merit. What I am disputing is whether the USN had anyone around who remembered NATF and why they would start at that point.

Example, the B-21 basically looks like (but evolved) the original ATB configuration of 1979, so the ATB from 1979 was actually a 6th gen at that time! As well as our ATA and "RQ-180". The Russians took features from the YF-23 for SU-57, the GCAP did, the new French fighter did.
None of this is relevant to whether the USN approached NG and said we want to use the NATF-23.

The partial NG F/A-XX concept hints of some F-23 features. Again, I was on the program among others and it would be foolish for the USN not review what we did and what we accomplished, the F-23 design is actually relevant to the missions today, that's what we designed for. Sorry if others don't have the advanced development thinking as we did at Northrop/NG back then.
It isn't the USN's job to review old designs, it is their job to decide what they want and then issue Industry with the set of requirements. If those line up with the NATF-23 then happy days for NG.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom