USAF/USN 6th Gen Fighter - General Discussion and Speculation

[sferrin]

So as an exercise if we say the USN will aim for 78k lbs max take of weight which is essentially close to an F-15EX max take off weight.

• Probably will use almost the same engine as F-15EX
• Have more internal fuel, at least 25% more than F-15EX with internal + CFT so around 28k lbs
• An internal weapons bay which is heavier than external carriage especially is sized as a "truck as you term it
  • Will the F/A-XX also retain external carriage of weapons/fuel?
• Require the strengthening and weight associated with landing on a carrier over and above what an F-15EX has
• Probably a similar sized radar
• An integrated TGT pod, more sensors and EW equipment.
  • Conceivably it may carry an NGJ or variants of internally
• Will CCA control equipment make a weight difference?
• Is the USN going for an all two seat or single seat aircraft or a combo of both?
• Will it retain an internal cannon or opt for space and cooling for a DEW weapon?

Both the Vigilante and A3D were around 80k lbs, with the A3D topping out at 82k.

 

[Ainen]

All good mate, I don't see any point trying to discuss this with you further.

I don't really understand why it hurts so much the f-35 fan club that their dream plane has actual specifications, but if you wish so?

 

[FighterJock]

If the Vigilante is regarded as the heaviest aircraft to have both landed and launched from an aircraft carrier sferrin, I think that the F/A-XX will top the scales at almost the same weight.

 

[yeetmahboi]

To clear out any possible confusion on @Ainen's point, it'd be better to look back at how he had previously conveyed it, and for what it's worth I think it was pretty well argued.

F-16V is considered to be less than ideal interceptor - it's time from standby to take off and to intercept point (key metrics) are worse than that of F-CK-1(per Taiwanese sources). It isn't unexpected really - F-20 was marketed to be noticeably better than F-16 in this regard, too, and even tiger II (!) was viewed higher.
For relatively small Taiwan with its relatively small warning times, this metric is crucial for wartime employment, too.

That certainly shouldn't be understood by vigilant users as "lol he went nuts, f-ck-1 more capable than f-16v/f-35".
This is a just two metrics, which are important for a particular country in particular geopolitical and geographical realities.
It doesn't challenge the fact that F-16V is obviously the most capable and advanced a/c in Taiwanese service, and F-35 is far beyond that in capability. Both are true. Just not in this particular aspect, which most of its users don't even really care for.

 

[Ainen]

If the Vigilante is regarded as the heaviest aircraft to have both landed and launched from an aircraft carrier sferrin, I think that the F/A-XX will top the scales at almost the same weight.

F-111B was somewhat heavier.
S-37 was to be much heavier still, though it never actually landed on the deck.

Question, arguably: provided it's worth it, shall Nimitz class carriers get new traps(and maybe even cats?)?

 

[Ozair]

Both the Vigilante and A3D were around 80k lbs, with the A3D topping out at 82k.

Interesting, can we assume those were max take off weights but the aircraft never operated at those weights from the carrier?

The F/A-XX could be built capable of higher weights and A2A refuel after takeoff to max out on fuel. Would seem a costly future requirement to have to burden the force with but gets around the catapult limitations.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Would seem a costly future requirement to have to burden the force with but gets around the catapult limitations.

EMALS seems to have addressed that. 2k out of 82klbs seems like a minimal margin to get pass and EMALS was throwing out 80klbs surrogates for testing.

 

[Ozair]

EMALS seems to have addressed that. 2k out of 82klbs seems like a minimal margin to get pass and EMALS was throwing out 80klbs surrogates for testing.

Agree 100% EMALS has that capability but there will be enough Nimitz class around through the life of F/A-XX that it will be an issue. Unless we get a Midway situation where perhaps the USN limits Nimitz class to the F-35C and the Ford and later vessels get F/A-XX?

 

[bring_it_on]

So as an exercise if we say the USN will aim for 78k lbs max take of weight which is essentially close to an F-15EX max take off weight.

I think it really depends. We've even seen concepts of a 'subsonic' F/A-XX floating around with a 3,000 nautical mile range though I think those configurations (linked) are unlikely to be still be in the running. Current wisdom seems to be for a supersonic capable twin engine aircraft with probably a similar to SH supersonic envelope and capability. I agree with some of your thinking that this would be capable of carrying heavy and large external weapons. Probably even fuel tanks. Boeing and Northrop have both over the years, shown concepts of a tailless naval fighter which could be adopted to save on weight and add efficiency..not to mention signature improvement..

That said, a large twin engined strike fighter with loads of fuel is already being developed by our allies. There's your design inspiration for something that goes far and carries a decent payload.

So as an exercise if we say the USN will aim for 78k lbs max take of weight which is essentially close to an F-15EX max take off weight.

• Probably will use almost the same engine as F-15EX : Not sure of that TBH. I think there may have been some sort of propulsion plan the Navy has had for F/A-XX that its quitely kept funding somewhere that may result in a clean sheet engine..
• Have more internal fuel, at least 25% more than F-15EX with internal + CFT so around 28k lbs: I'm thinking of something in the 21,000 - 25,000 lb range (F-111B) but that could easily be off by 10-15% at the upper end.
• An internal weapons bay which is heavier than external carriage especially is sized as a "truck as you term it
  • Will the F/A-XX also retain external carriage of weapons/fuel? This is all but certain IMHO. HALO, LRASM, AIM-174 will all have to be carried by it
• Require the strengthening and weight associated with landing on a carrier over and above what an F-15EX has
• Probably a similar sized radar. Maybe / maybe not. I would suggest something similar in size to the AN/APG-85 is more likely
• An integrated TGT pod, more sensors and EW equipment.
  • Conceivably it may carry an NGJ or variants of internally ; Probably not in terms of NGJ specifically. EA-18G is going to serve for a while, and the mission and mission payload will evolve with unmanned aviation over the next 10-20 years. There could be a EW/EA variant down the road
• Will CCA control equipment make a weight difference? Depends on what the Navy sees the CCA's to be..right now it has no firm program to field one so probably an area of growth for F/A-XX down the road
• Is the USN going for an all two seat or single seat aircraft or a combo of both? My guess would be a single seater only
• Will it retain an internal cannon or opt for space and cooling for a DEW weapon? Space, weight, power and cooling to support future DEW capability IMO.

Agree 100% EMALS has that capability but there will be enough Nimitz class around through the life of F/A-XX that it will be an issue. Unless we get a Midway situation where perhaps the USN limits Nimitz class to the F-35C and the Ford and later vessels get F/A-XX?

There could be some plans to work around that. F-35C has had what three CVN activations to date? That's what 6-7 years from IOC? If we assume the F/A-XX IOC's in 2033, then its likely that it will be capable of flying off of more than three carriers by 2040 (CVN78-81)..even if it's just the EMALS equipped CVN's, though I suspect that MTOW will allow Nimitz ops as well but push up against the limits..

 

[Josh_TN]

Agree 100% EMALS has that capability but there will be enough Nimitz class around through the life of F/A-XX that it will be an issue. Unless we get a Midway situation where perhaps the USN limits Nimitz class to the F-35C and the Ford and later vessels get F/A-XX?

Certainly the USN could start with any existing Fords and if there is sufficient production for existing Nimitz class, reduce fuel or payload depending on mission.

 

[F119Doctor]

This article from 2011 also hinted at the PW9000 being a potential candidate for F/A-XX. The article also mentions microcircuit cooling and tip blowing as cooling methods for the increased OPR of the design, based on patents submitted by Pratt & Whitney. Perhaps @F119Doctor can elucidate us a bit on the details to the extent that he's permitted?

I don’t really have much to add. Turbine blade cooling continues to advance, maximizing the cooling efficiency with multipass cooling channels introducing the cooling air toward the aft cooler end of the blade and then moving it forward to the hotter parts of the blade to maximize the temperature difference for better heat transfer, internal turbulators to maximize heat transfer, smaller and shaped cooling holes better control film cooling heading towards transpiration flow out of the whole surface of the blade, along with better thermal barrier coatings. Manufacture of these blades becomes more sophisticated and expensive, and sometimes comes with downsides like tiny holes getting plugged with environmental dust. I couldn’t tell what the current state of the art is, I don’t know.

Not sure what is involved with tip blowing. A lot of engines have fan case “groovies” in the abradable blade tip outer air seals that help reduce tip leakage and improve stall margin. I have seen some concepts where higher pressure air from the rear of the fan blade is bled out thru the fan case and reinjected toward the front of the blade tip. Difficult to manufacture, but may be better than the plain grooves. And there may be even more advanced schemes I haven’t seen. Forward swept blade tips with 3D aero shaping is another advance that moves the high pressure air away from the leaky blade tip to case interface for better efficiency and higher pressure rise per stage.

I’ve been out of the business for 6 years now, and don’t have any inside knowledge of the latest advanced engine development beyond what you read in the trades.

 

[Josh_TN]

Always enjoy your input F119. You make complicated engine issues much more accessible to my mind.

 

[Scott Kenny]

We're probably looking at a twin engined fighter with anywhere from 50-75% greater internal fuel capacity relative to the Rhino.

My assumption has been on the order of 40,000lbs internal fuel, about 3000-4000lbs of AAMs and any gun ammo, and a MTOW right at 90klbs.

You're going to hit take off limits though especially if you want the F/A-XX to use Nimitz catapults, that is about 80k lbs take off.

F-111B was 88klbs MTOW, so I assume that the Nimitz cats can handle ~90klbs.

Question, arguably: provided it's worth it, shall Nimitz class carriers get new traps(and maybe even cats?)?

Traps, very likely. The Advanced Arresting Gear is capable of recovering very light airframes like MQ9s or MQ20s, in addition to heavy stuff like F35Cs.

I don't believe new cats are in the works, however, because the Nimitz class doesn't have the electrical generation capacity to handle EMALS.

 

[Ainen]

I don't believe new cats are in the works, however, because the Nimitz class doesn't have the electrical generation capacity to handle EMALS.

It's still a floating nuclear electric powerplant, the energy is there. It isn't designed to store it, but with all real estate from steam catapults i think it most certainly can be done.

 

[Ozair]

F-111B was 88klbs MTOW, so I assume that the Nimitz cats can handle ~90klbs.

Is there evidence that the F-111B actually used the cat at 88k MTOW? Per this thread, https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/general-dynamics-grumman-f-111b.1965/post-109235

In late 1962, at program go-ahead, the F-111B was to have an empty weight of about 39,000 pounds and a gross weight of a little less than 70,000 pounds, including six Phoenix missiles at 1,000 pounds each and 23,000 pounds of fuel for four hours on station at a 150 nm distance from the carrier. The August 1965 SAC projected an empty weight of 46,000 pounds and a takeoff weight of 77,566 pounds with the six Phoenix and fuel for 3.8 hours time on station. In 1968, the Navy was still projecting that the final production configuration would have a weight empty of 46,121 pounds.

So 88k lbs MTOW is an dev issue, not an intent...

 

[Scott Kenny]

It's still a floating nuclear electric powerplant, the energy is there. It isn't designed to store it, but with all real estate from steam catapults i think it most certainly can be done.

The generating capacity isn't there. Steam cats means extra steam generators.

EMALS would have to replace a fairly small steam generator with a very large electrical generator.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Is there evidence that the F-111B actually used the cat at 88k MTOW? Per this thread, https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/general-dynamics-grumman-f-111b.1965/post-109235


So 88k lbs MTOW is an dev issue, not an intent...

If the devs were intending it, the Nimitz class were designed to throw it.

Remember that A-3 Skywarriors have an MTOW of 82klbs.

 

[Ozair]

If the devs were intending it, the Nimitz class were designed to throw it.

Remember that A-3 Skywarriors have an MTOW of 82klbs.

The aircraft was supposed to weigh 7k lbs less... It gained weight during dev and that is why it ended up where it did. Additionally carrier aircraft don't have to be capable of taking off at their MTOW from a carrier. The F-111B and the A-3 could have flown at those weights from land based airstrips out to the carrier or in other roles. The F-111B gross weight as listed previously was meant to be 70k and that contained sufficient fuel and munitions to complete the mission required of it but ended up at 79k lbs... A strangly familiar weight...

Had it ever reached operational service there is no evidence it would have been required to take off at greater than 80k lbs given the gross weight, ie the operational configuration it would have flown, as listed was below that.

 

[dark sidius]

Northrop Reveals Another B-21 Contract, in Talks with USAF About Faster Production

Northrop Grumman received a second B-21 low-rate contract in late 2024 and is in talks with the Air Force about accelerating production.

www.airandspaceforces.com

May be the return of NG in the NGAD game.

 

[Ozair]

Northrop Reveals Another B-21 Contract, in Talks with USAF About Faster Production

Northrop Grumman received a second B-21 low-rate contract in late 2024 and is in talks with the Air Force about accelerating production.

www.airandspaceforces.com

May be the return of NG in the NGAD game.

Some interesting info in there on NGAD. NG are no longer a prime for NGAD but contribute mission systems. Kathy Warden sending mixed signals about whether they will get back in on NGAD although I expect their bid for NGAD will have to be significantly different to that for F/A-XX. A perfect storm of NG winning both programs would be pretty crazy, they could lock away US future manned airpower, but likely industrial concerns may prevent that outcome.

 

[bring_it_on]

My assumption has been on the order of 40,000lbs internal fuel, about 3000-4000lbs of AAMs and any gun ammo, and a MTOW right at 90klbs.

That's very very big for a Naval strike fighter, or any strike fighter for that matter. "Affordability"has been described as important on this program given the budget sensitivities and projections. Not sure how something that big can be made affordable enough to replace hundreds of SH's. If we truly want that sort of range and payload then I would suggest a subsonic, flying wing/cranked kite based unmanned strike aircraft as the affordable path forward.

 

[bobbymike]

7th Generation Fighter Could Be 'Hypersonic' Shooting Lasers in Space

The US Air Force is already thinking beyond 6th-generation stealth fighters. Could 7th-generation fighter fly at hypersonic speeds, engage in space warfare, and deploy laser weapons?

www.19fortyfive.com

8th Generation will allow inter dimensional travel through wormholes

 

[VTOLicious]

That's very very big for a Naval strike fighter, or any strike fighter for that matter. "Affordability"has been described as important on this program given the budget sensitivities and projections. Not sure how something that big can be made affordable enough to replace hundreds of SH's. If we truly want that sort of range and payload then I would suggest a subsonic, flying wing/cranked kite based unmanned strike aircraft as the affordable path forward.

Time to dust off the Northrop AX/AFX proposal
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/6th-generation-fighter-concepts.27301/post-304175
...Subsonic would allow thicker wings, which in turn would free up fuselage-space for internal weapons.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Time to dust off the Northrop AX/AFX proposal
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/6th-generation-fighter-concepts.27301/post-304175
...Subsonic would allow thicker wings, which in turn would free up fuselage-space for internal weapons.

Heh, actually, I think a rebirth of the Lockheed A/F-X with current material science and flow control tech should make for a pretty effective F/A-XX. It could carry a good weapon load, tons of internal fuel and the vg wing enables high efficiency at high speed (DLI/penetrative strike) and low speed (BARCAP). Plus, the Tomcat nostalgia.

 

[VTOLicious]

Heh, actually, I think a rebirth of the Lockheed A/F-X with current material science and flow control tech should make for a pretty effective F/A-XX. It could carry a good weapon load, tons of internal fuel and the vg wing enables high efficiency at high speed (DLI/penetrative strike) and low speed (BARCAP). Plus, the Tomcat nostalgia.

Swing-wing? No way!

 

[yeetmahboi]

Swing-wing? No way!

Well, F/A-XX could turn out to be a super stealth Bombcat so.... I figured the alternative is to route ducts all over the airframe for flow control but I have serious doubt the Navy will accept a maintenance nightmare of that caliber.

 

[FighterJock]

F/A-XX as a swing wing fighter? Somehow I don't think so, sadly. It has been a long time since the last swing wing was designed and built.

 

[bobbymike]

Although it won’t happen and/or we don’t have the budget there should an “advanced weapon prototype” program that basically creates these ultra exotic “looking” weapons/aircraft/missile/etc. for the sole purpose of freaking out our adversaries.

 

[sferrin]

Some interesting info in there on NGAD. NG are no longer a prime for NGAD but contribute mission systems. Kathy Warden sending mixed signals about whether they will get back in on NGAD although I expect their bid for NGAD will have to be significantly different to that for F/A-XX. A perfect storm of NG winning both programs would be pretty crazy, they could lock away US future manned airpower, but likely industrial concerns may prevent that outcome.

Didn't stop Lockheed from winning both the ATF and JSF programs. (And NATF had the USN not cancelled it.)

 

[quellish]

Although it won’t happen and/or we don’t have the budget there should an “advanced weapon prototype” program that basically creates these ultra exotic “looking” weapons/aircraft/missile/etc. for the sole purpose of freaking out our adversaries.

The 1990s called. They want their issues of Popular Mechanics back.

 

[bobbymike]

The 1990s called. They want their issues of Popular Mechanics back.

My favourite issues

 

[Ozair]

Didn't stop Lockheed from winning both the ATF and JSF programs. (And NATF had the USN not cancelled it.)

I expect post the last supper consolidation of the 90s industrial concerns probably weren't as great a factor as they are today. LM had won ATF and JSF but Boeing was also working on SH, F-15s were still coming off the line as well as USAF F-16s, the last B-2 arrived in 2000.

 

[bring_it_on]

Northrop really didn't reveal much that hadn't been known or suspected before. They did not respond to the AF PCA RFP but would kept the door open to support another..Kind of difficult to bid for such a program without having NG onboard in some shape or form (mission systems at least). Their strategy, as always would be to secure 1/4 to 1/3 of each program as a sub if they can't walk away with the Navy or AF effort. Worked out well on SH and F-35 one would say.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That's very very big for a Naval strike fighter, or any strike fighter for that matter. "Affordability"has been described as important on this program given the budget sensitivities and projections. Not sure how something that big can be made affordable enough to replace hundreds of SH's. If we truly want that sort of range and payload then I would suggest a subsonic, flying wing/cranked kite based unmanned strike aircraft as the affordable path forward.

It is.

No good options for a cheap aircraft with the desired performance.

 

[Ozair]

It is.

No good options for a cheap aircraft with the desired performance.

Cost and catapult issues aside I don't know if 40k internal fuel is possible.

For comparison F-35C has an empty weight of approx 35k lbs and then loads 35k lbs of weapons and fuel to reach its MTOW. SH is about the same, 32k lbs empty weight and can load approx another 33k lbs to reach its MTOW. That feels about right for most of the USN carrier aircraft from previous generations as well. The ratio of fuel to weapons would clearly need to bias the other way compared to previous generations. You also can't take two LRASM as combined that weighs 5k lbs unless you trade fuel for weapons payload but in that case your internal bays become large enough that structurally you are adding impactful weight.

 

[Hydroman]

Northrop really didn't reveal much that hadn't been known or suspected before. They did not respond to the AF PCA RFP but would kept the door open to support another..Kind of difficult to bid for such a program without having NG onboard in some shape or form (mission systems at least). Their strategy, as always would be to secure 1/4 to 1/3 of each program as a sub if they can't walk away with the Navy or AF effort. Worked out well on SH and F-35 one would say.

With no NG, the USAF has kind of a dilemma on its hands with only LM and Boeing as potential NGAD primes and Boeing with it's many company and program reputation issues. If USAF awarded LM NGAD then Boeing is out of the running for any future fighter aircraft and LM becomes the USAF fighter supplier. NG will probably get F/A-XX. NG may also have a medium strike platform as well with commonality similar to "RQ-180" and B-21, NG is good at derivative platforms from a common design element and NG seems to be the DOD choice for any flying wing-type advanced platforms. If NG does not get F/A-XX, NG will basically be the advanced strike platform prime which would mean strategic along with medium strike and I assume both subsonic and supersonic/supercruising VLO/LO platforms. Seems NG and LM are leaving Boeing behind but I may be wrong, our DOD can work in weird ways sometimes.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Cost and catapult issues aside I don't know if 40k internal fuel is possible.

For comparison F-35C has an empty weight of approx 35k lbs and then loads 35k lbs of weapons and fuel to reach its MTOW. SH is about the same, 32k lbs empty weight and can load approx another 33k lbs to reach its MTOW. That feels about right for most of the USN carrier aircraft from previous generations as well. The ratio of fuel to weapons would clearly need to bias the other way compared to previous generations.

I think it's possible. Might take a little more development, though.

For example, the X-32's wing was to be a large piece of molded composite, bonded to whatever internal structure was needed. The X-32 itself didn't have that wing for whatever reason, and the traditionally-constructed wing used was significantly heavier (several thousand lbs heavier, IIRC 5000lbs!).

IIRC that particular piece of materials science came from the Mitsubishi F-2.

You also can't take two LRASM as combined that weighs 5k lbs unless you trade fuel for weapons payload but in that case your internal bays become large enough that structurally you are adding impactful weight.

I'd expect any mission packing LRASM would reduce fuel to avoid exceed MTOW, and then top off at a tanker for max range.

LRASMs are ~14ft long, ~25" wide, and ~18" deep. Again, I'm expecting the main weapons bays on the FAXX to be roughly the same size as the ATA bays (each 185" long, 34" wide, and 25" deep) or a bit bigger. I'm thinking 2 bays, each large enough to hold 1x LRASM and 1x AARGM-ER. I'm eyeballing the AARGM-ER "wingspan" across the strakes as about 22", so it'd be likely to make the bays large enough to carry 2x LRASM each, just because the other likely missile loaded is just as wide.

 

[Ozair]

I think it's possible. Might take a little more development, though.

For example, the X-32's wing was to be a large piece of molded composite, bonded to whatever internal structure was needed. The X-32 itself didn't have that wing for whatever reason, and the traditionally-constructed wing used was significantly heavier (several thousand lbs heavier, IIRC 5000lbs!).

IIRC that particular piece of materials science came from the Mitsubishi F-2.

I don't think the X-32 is of value in representing anything close to a production capable aircraft. Even then you have the comparable F-35C which did reach production and has that 50/50 weight to payload ratio. F-35 has approx 35% composite materials while the Eurofighter, probably close to or is the highest composite airframe (can't find a figure on the B-2 % wise), still essentially preserves that 50/50 ratio as well.

I'd expect any mission packing LRASM would reduce fuel to avoid exceed MTOW, and then top off at a tanker for max range.

LRASMs are ~14ft long, ~25" wide, and ~18" deep. Again, I'm expecting the main weapons bays on the FAXX to be roughly the same size as the ATA bays (each 185" long, 34" wide, and 25" deep) or a bit bigger. I'm thinking 2 bays, each large enough to hold 1x LRASM and 1x AARGM-ER. I'm eyeballing the AARGM-ER "wingspan" across the strakes as about 22", so it'd be likely to make the bays large enough to carry 2x LRASM each, just because the other likely missile loaded is just as wide.

The A-12 never flew... I also again don't think it represents anything that can be considered a reference for a production aircraft. Even then if you consider the specs on Wiki with a MTOW of 80k lbs had an empty weight of 40k lbs and 21k lbs of fuel to host the weapons bay you are suggesting. Internal bays and especially big ones are structurally heavy, the bigger you go the less fuel you can carry and the more structural weight you accrue.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don't think the X-32 is of value in representing anything close to a production capable aircraft. Even then you have the comparable F-35C which did reach production and has that 50/50 weight to payload ratio. F-35 has approx 35% composite materials while the Eurofighter, probably close to or is the highest composite airframe (can't find a figure on the B-2 % wise), still essentially preserves that 50/50 ratio as well.

Specifically the bonded-composite wing of the X-32, not the design in general. I believe it's been adopted by the B-21.

The A-12 never flew... I also again don't think it represents anything that can be considered a reference for a production aircraft. Even then if you consider the specs on Wiki with a MTOW of 80k lbs had an empty weight of 40k lbs and 21k lbs of fuel to host the weapons bay you are suggesting. Internal bays and especially big ones are structurally heavy, the bigger you go the less fuel you can carry and the more structural weight you accrue.

It's still the base mission spec for what FAXX needs to do in the strike role.

 

[sferrin]

With no NG, the USAF has kind of a dilemma on its hands with only LM and Boeing as potential NGAD primes and Boeing with it's many company and program reputation issues. If USAF awarded LM NGAD then Boeing is out of the running for any future fighter aircraft and LM becomes the USAF fighter supplier. NG will probably get F/A-XX. NG may also have a medium strike platform as well with commonality similar to "RQ-180" and B-21, NG is good at derivative platforms from a common design element and NG seems to be the DOD choice for any flying wing-type advanced platforms. If NG does not get F/A-XX, NG will basically be the advanced strike platform prime which would mean strategic along with medium strike and I assume both subsonic and supersonic/supercruising VLO/LO platforms. Seems NG and LM are leaving Boeing behind but I may be wrong, our DOD can work in weird ways sometimes.

I'd sure like to see Boeing get it's $hit together. Things can change. Remember the 70s and 80s when it was all General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas?