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

What are the possibilities that, counterintuitively, Boeing gets the award as well? I'm going with this as a longshot bet because I like the Odds. Also, I want all the praise incase this does happen. There must be open idolatry. Also, "F/A-45." Calling it now. :)
 
Last edited:
If long-term industrial and financial policy is key: anyone but Boeing.

If someone’s trying to look like they’re saving megabucks: Boeing
 
Really interested to see who gets awarded this contract. I almost feel like it should go to Northrop so you have Lockheed building the F-35 Lightning II, Boeing the F-47 Trump Card and Northrop the F-41 Tomcat II.
 
Alex Hollings from Sandboxx has just put out a short video about this impending announcement:


According to reports, the U.S. is getting ready to announce the contract award for its second 6th generation stealth fighter, and this time, it’ll be a carrier-capable jet meant for service aboard the U.S. Navy’s aircraft carriers.
Click to expand...
 
I am betting on Boing! but NG is perfectly likely. Probably safest to separate the two programs completely, though if NG really didn’t have any FA-XX or NGAD demonstrators, I think they might be seen as higher risk despite their great work on B-21.
 
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that Northrop will win this contract. If Boeing was going to win, it would have been announced last week, because in all likely hood you would have had a unified Air Force and Navy design. The fact that the announcements are separated, indicates to me that the Navy and Air Force went in different directions with who they were going to select to build their next-gen aircraft.

EDIT: About the only thing I can think that would dissuade me from this path is that the F-47 has canards, which from what I gather would be very useful on a Navy based fighter.
 
Last edited:
If the rumors are that the F/A-XX is a strike fighter, with a mission set something like: carry 2x JASSM 1000nm to an IP, then I can see it being:
1. Less stealthy than the F-47 overall (just enough to get to an IP at the edge of the defended zone)
2. More orientated toward carrying things on pylons than internally


And from 1+2, this is very close to a F-15E (and EF-111....) replacement and I can see the USAF buying an Air-Force variant in a few years.
 
I think NG, only because of their exit from the AF program. There is a slight chance here was a down select, but my guess is that they concluded that Boeing had the inside track and decided to focus on something they had a better chance to win.

The Navy seems to be a little bit behind in the area of CCAs. Since this is supposed to be a strike fighter, you would assume that the weapons bay will be as large as the F-35A/Cs. Could it be larger? Maybe. But there are size constraints for carrier aircraft and there is a concerted effort to build less expensive munitions in a smaller form factor. I'm curious as to how much he outer air battle will factor with the Chinese development of the J-36 and the likely development of the H-20. CCAs can help if they have a long loiter time and can maintain cap station out to 1,000 nm. There has always been a push and pull between fleet defense aircraft and strike aircraft since World War II. Norman Friedman has a good discussion of this in Fighters over the Fleet.

I just really hope they adopt the F-47's engines. Don't make the same mistake with the F-14 and the TF-30s, though circumstances were slightly different. I also hope they are able to avoid having vertical tails and can develop an aircraft with broadband stealth.
 
It would make zero sense to me to not use NGAP for this, given how quickly NGAP is being developed and given that it will have to be ready for F-47, which supposedly will be ready in no more than 4 years. The additional range from NGAP is more important for the Navy than it is for the USAF. Not having sufficient range to target launch platforms left-of-launch is an existential issue for a CSG.
 
Desertfox said:
My money is on NG, especially after they dropped out of NGAD. Son of F-23N... But yes... I do believe F/A-45 will be the name.
Click to expand...
Black Dog said:
If Northrop wins, a tailless NATF?
Click to expand...
I don't get this obsession with reviving Northrop F-23N, NAVAIR considered it inferior to the Lockheed F-22N and it's design that had to have commonality with ATF which F/A-XX doesn't so why constrain yourself this way even if Northrop Grumman wins? Not to mention it's design from 1990.

Even as someone fond of YF-23 design, wanting to revive it for next gen fighter programs doesn't make sense. USAF consider F-22 or F-23 to be competitive with neither being definitely better, while NAVAIR thought the Northrop NATF was worse.
 
joshjosh said:
It would make zero sense to me to not use NGAP for this, given how quickly NGAP is being developed and given that it will have to be ready for F-47, which supposedly will be ready in no more than 4 years. The additional range from NGAP is more important for the Navy than it is for the USAF. Not having sufficient range to target launch platforms left-of-launch is an existential issue for a CSG.
Click to expand...
The issue remains the USN at present cannot afford it. NGAP engines are not cheap and the USN expects to field a minimum of 300 aircraft. The benefits are clearly there but I expect the business case is not.
 
DrRansom said:
If the rumors are that the F/A-XX is a strike fighter, with a mission set something like: carry 2x JASSM 1000nm to an IP, then I can see it being:
1. Less stealthy than the F-47 overall (just enough to get to an IP at the edge of the defended zone)
2. More orientated toward carrying things on pylons than internally


And from 1+2, this is very close to a F-15E (and EF-111....) replacement and I can see the USAF buying an Air-Force variant in a few years.
Click to expand...

I suspect a single large bomb bay for 2-4 15’ long weapons of potentially AGM-158 height and width, assuming HALO is no thicker than JAASM. External carriage arrangements for 2-4 more. Alternatively a larger number of smaller weapons of all kinds.

Hard no on USAF ever adopting; they would just buy more B-21 if they needed more strike capability. They already are building the perfect tool for that role.
 
Last edited:
B2Blain said:
I just really hope they adopt the F-47's engines. Don't make the same mistake with the F-14 and the TF-30s, though circumstances were slightly different. I also hope they are able to avoid having vertical tails and can develop an aircraft with broadband stealth.
Click to expand...

Adaptive engines are by all rumors and reports a hard a pass. A poster on this site indicated cost was not the number one reason - my guess is something about the embarked aircraft environment rules three stream out. F-18 could not use conformal tanks because of issues with launch acceleration, issues with recovery deceleration, and lack of clearance to pull them off to access the plane on the hanger deck. I suspect the USN decision is also unique to carrier operations. At I guess, adaptive engines might not like to go from idle to full power sufficiently fast enough for a bolter.
 
joshjosh said:
It would make zero sense to me to not use NGAP for this, given how quickly NGAP is being developed and given that it will have to be ready for F-47, which supposedly will be ready in no more than 4 years. The additional range from NGAP is more important for the Navy than it is for the USAF. Not having sufficient range to target launch platforms left-of-launch is an existential issue for a CSG.
Click to expand...

USAF cannot move its airbases; USN can. But in any case there seems to be some other operational reason USN does not like three stream.
 
joshjosh said:
It would make zero sense to me to not use NGAP for this, given how quickly NGAP is being developed and given that it will have to be ready for F-47, which supposedly will be ready in no more than 4 years. The additional range from NGAP is more important for the Navy than it is for the USAF. Not having sufficient range to target launch platforms left-of-launch is an existential issue for a CSG.
Click to expand...

The engine has been the pacing item for NGAD. This is why we did not get an NGAD contract years ago, and this continues to be a..... problem. Navy is interested in engines that are a derivative of an existing type to shorten development time and expense.

Navy would really like a plane that doesn't fall apart or degrade in the presence of sea water and humidity. Fingers crossed this time!
 
B2Blain said:
I just really hope they adopt the F-47's engines. Don't make the same mistake with the F-14 and the TF-30s, though circumstances were slightly different. I also hope they are able to avoid having vertical tails and can develop an aircraft with broadband stealth.
Click to expand...
The F110 variable cycle derivative, F110-GE-XXX or F110-GE-129EFE++, is also a good choice.
 
Josh_TN said:
Adaptive engines are by all rumors and reports a hard a pass. A poster on this site indicated cost was not the number one reason - my guess is something about the embarked aircraft environment rules three stream out. F-18 could not use conformal tanks because of issues with launch acceleration, issues with recovery deceleration, and lack of clearance to pull them off to access the plane on the hanger deck. I suspect the USN decision is also unique to carrier operations. At I guess, adaptive engines might not like to go from idle to full power sufficiently fast enough for a bolter.
Click to expand...
I think it may be that the F-47 and F/A-XX have different airframe sizes or different thrust requirements, which makes it impossible for the Navy to directly use NGAP. In the case of needing to redevelop an engine(like F401-PW-400 vs F110-GE-400), choosing to derive from an existing mature engine is the best choice.
 
Josh_TN said:
I suspect a single large bomb bay for 2-4 15’ long weapons of potentially AGM-158 height and width, assuming HALO is no thicker than JAASM. External carriage arrangements for 2-4 more. Alternatively a larger number of smaller weapons of all kinds.

Hard no on USAF ever adopting; they would just buy more B-21 if they needed more strike capability. They already are building the perfect tool for that role.
Click to expand...

A F/A-XX will likely cost 1/3rd the cost of a B-21 and have more flexible basing options (aka smaller fields less than a day's flight away from the Taiwan Strait and China) - I can see that being a very worthwhile trade-off.
 
DrRansom said:
A F/A-XX will likely cost 1/3rd the cost of a B-21 and have more flexible basing options (aka smaller fields less than a day's flight away from the Taiwan Strait and China) - I can see that being a very worthwhile trade-off.
Click to expand...

The USAF has no strike fighter requirement and is actively trying to reduce the number of platforms it employs. Furthermore if anything they are leaning into longer ranged platforms rather than shorter ranged - based near Taiwan are in easy ballistic missile range. Finally, the only times USAF has used a common platform with the USN that I can think of is when they were required by law (F-4, F-35). So again, hard no.
 
Josh_TN said:
Adaptive engines are by all rumors and reports a hard a pass. A poster on this site indicated cost was not the number one reason - my guess is something about the embarked aircraft environment rules three stream out. F-18 could not use conformal tanks because of issues with launch acceleration, issues with recovery deceleration, and lack of clearance to pull them off to access the plane on the hanger deck. I suspect the USN decision is also unique to carrier operations. At I guess, adaptive engines might not like to go from idle to full power sufficiently fast enough for a bolter.
Click to expand...
Yes I said cost was #2 reason. #1 reason was something else. I know #1 but choose not to say -- not trying to be an a-hole.
 
SlothmanAllen said:
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that Northrop will win this contract. If Boeing was going to win, it would have been announced last week, because in all likely hood you would have had a unified Air Force and Navy design. The fact that the announcements are separated, indicates to me that the Navy and Air Force went in different directions with who they were going to select to build their next-gen aircraft.
Click to expand...

Here's why, I wrote this a few days ago.

joewee said:
Another tidbit. I was told that Hegseth told the VCNO that the AF announcement will come first. So it should come out this coming week.

Unless of course someone in the White House objects to one winner takes both .... so I will read any delay beyond the end of March as a last minute change: NG in, B out.

Strange things like this have happened before. The team of Grumman and Beech were verbally notified that they had won the VTXTS program. A few days later, McDonnell Douglas teamed with BAe were announced as the winner. Few knew that Reagan and Thatcher had just cut a deal. The UK buys Trident C3 (D4?) missiles and the US buys a navalized Hawk trainer.
Click to expand...
Hegseth wanted the announcements to be separated, and wanted the AF to go first I was told.

Edit: I removed other commentary.
 
Last edited:
I would imagine that the DOD would be uneasy about Boeing sweeping up both NGAD PCA and F/A-XX, giving it a monopoly on the next generation tactical aviation (that we know of thus far). Granted, this occurred with the 5th generation with Lockheed Martin, but this is still probably something the DOD would prefer to avoid, as it may have set conditions for some poor contractor performance.

That said, at least with NGAD PCA, the DOD having greater control of the IP compared to, say, the F-35 program might mitigate that to some extent. We shall see.
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
I would imagine that the DOD would be uneasy about Boeing sweeping up both NGAD PCA and F/A-XX, giving it a monopoly on the next generation tactical aviation (that we know of thus far). Granted, this occurred with the 5th generation with Lockheed Martin, but this is still probably something the DOD would prefer to avoid, as it may have set conditions for some poor contractor performance.

That said, at least with NGAD PCA, the DOD having greater control of the IP compared to, say, the F-35 program might mitigate that to some extent. We shall see.
Click to expand...
From my experience, OSD offices like CAPE or USD-A&S would have evaluated the costs and risks of one winner takes all. As I wrote on March 13th 20th, Hegseth gave the thumbs up to CSAF and VCNO. Don't know if OSD offices raised any issues with SecDef.

Edit: correction, senior moment.
 
Last edited:
It would be a mistake to award the F/A-XX to Boeing because of the NGAD you cannot have all eggs in the same basket so to speak because it would just be like the ATF and JSF programs all over again.
 
joewee said:
From my experience, OSD offices like CAPE or USD-A&S would have evaluated the costs and risks of one winner takes all. As I wrote on March 13th, Hegseth gave the thumbs up to CSAF and VCNO. Don't know if OSD offices raised any issues with SecDef.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but i believe you only said that Thursday, March 20, the day before the F-47 selection. You seem to have a lot of solid info, but to me it seems like you have no solid reason to believe Boeing was selected for both. Going from the apparent fact that Hegseth gave the thumbs up to CSAF and VCNO to proceed, to you believing the same contractor has been selected for both seems like a leap.
 
If I was the USN, which is extremely cost conscious right now, I would go with NG, as long as their design meets the specs, and see if I could get the same team from the RCO that managed B-21 to manage the F/A-XX. Just purely based off of NG's performance on the B-21 program. Also, that gives three fighter manufacturers, concurrently. I get that NG subs a lot of the F-35, but I like the idea of having three successful design teams going in the industry.
 
joewee said:
Yes I said cost was #2 reason. #1 reason was something else. I know #1 but choose not to say -- not trying to be an a-hole.
Click to expand...

I understand and am not pressing issue; I appreciate what information you can provide.
 
VishnuOsiris said:
What about the Joint Strike Fighter?
Click to expand...

I interpreted “strike” in the posters context as being medium ranged interdiction similar to F-15E or F-111 before it. To the extent USAF has any plan for an aircraft in this class, it is F-15 EX. It is not introducing another tactical platform outside NGAD and it sure as hell is not buying a USN aircraft. If Boeing sweeps, I still suspect the aircraft will be only superficially similar with perhaps a lot of common avionics, if both sets of requirements allow for it. We know power plants will be different and we know embarked aircraft have a raft of structural requirements land based can ignore.
 
Last edited:
joshjosh said:
It would make zero sense to me to not use NGAP for this, given how quickly NGAP is being developed and given that it will have to be ready for F-47, which supposedly will be ready in no more than 4 years. The additional range from NGAP is more important for the Navy than it is for the USAF. Not having sufficient range to target launch platforms left-of-launch is an existential issue for a CSG.
Click to expand...
The Navy has already confirmed they are using a derivative of an off-the-shelf engine for F/A-XX. Not new. The Air Force also isn't planning to use NGAP for the first increment of F-47.
 
Deezy said:
I could be wrong, but i believe you only said that Thursday, March 20, the day before the F-47 selection. You seem to have a lot of solid info, but to me it seems like you have no solid reason to believe Boeing was selected for both. Going from the apparent fact that Hegseth gave the thumbs up to CSAF and VCNO to proceed, to you believing the same contractor has been selected for both seems like a leap.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected, it was March 20th.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...-asfs-news-analysis.3536/page-245#post-768878

I have only passed on what I've been told. No leaps. No matter, it's hearsay even if the AF or Navy program managers provided the information. I'm new at the forum posting business -- and I've learned a lesson.

As I wrote elsewhere, without inside info I would have predicted NG for Navy and B for Air Force. But as an airplane nut, I've always thought the battlecruiser idea, imagined by some of us as LM's offering, to be the obvious choice for the Indo-Pacific. I hope I'm not sounding schizophrenic.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom