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

[Josh_TN]

Sticking the landing (literally) is always a major requirement and concern on USN fighters. I suspect that it is this complication that makes the navy unwilling to use an adaptive engine. But the radar requirement fault seems surprising - what could FAXX require that LM could not provide or subcontract for? I am guessing NG was unwilling to cooperate since they have their own bid, so perhaps APG-85 like capability was off the table…

 

[siegecrossbow]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904134002807554550

View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1904134002807554550

F-47, this week FA/XX contract and something else in the hands of Lockheed it is crazy China start the hostility with the show of J-36 , USA strike back with 3 advanced plane AWESOME.

Don’t forget J-XD from Shenyang.

 

[Ainen]

Do to it's large size, the J-36 seems to be a strike platform and maybe has a standoff interceptor role as well. The J-36 may have been developed primarily to counter and attack our carrier strike groups specifically our carriers in which China has always voiced this opinion.

My opinion, for primary interceptor it's too focused on stealth, and also kind of small.
For primary carrier killer, it's illogically small. You can carry way more on same 2 engines. Instead, it carries a third one.

If you aim it at smaller targets deep in the Pacific (aircraft, smaller ships, strugglers), it kind of starts making sense. Marauding Lockheed Ventura, not Backfire.

 

[Nx4eu]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904134002807554550

View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1904134002807554550

F-47, this week FA/XX contract and something else in the hands of Lockheed it is crazy China start the hostility with the show of J-36 , USA strike back with 3 advanced plane AWESOME.

What do you mean China started the hostility by showing the J-36 that makes no sense. Where's the hostility that you speak of? Also the US first showed off the B-21 Raider calling it a "6th generation" bomber?? (Makes no sense, there are much fewer "Bomber generations" than there are of fighters"..)

What's next the 6th generation cargo lifter, and the 6th generation aerial refueler? Or perhaps the 6th generation AWACS? etc..

 

[mkellytx]

F-69. For Elon. (and maximum troll effect)

Sorry @sferrin that designation only works if a fighter pilot submits it, "so to speak." There better be a good alibi for 6 tens and 9 ones fines to be assessed if the alibi doesn't hold, to be assessed in shots of Jerimiah Weed, or denominations divisible by the squadron number (fractions are ok, 419 = $4.19)

 

[mkellytx]

Sticking the landing (literally) is always a major requirement and concern on USN fighters. I suspect that it is this complication that makes the navy unwilling to use an adaptive engine. But the radar requirement fault seems surprising - what could FAXX require that LM could not provide or subcontract for? I am guessing NG was unwilling to cooperate since they have their own bid, so perhaps APG-85 like capability was off the table…

Really? Never have to flare, never a crosswind and only 3rd of 4 wires, makes me want to quote some Dose Gringos ...

Oops, I just did, lol

 

[Ozair]

But the radar requirement fault seems surprising - what could FAXX require that LM could not provide or subcontract for? I am guessing NG was unwilling to cooperate since they have their own bid, so perhaps APG-85 like capability was off the table…

I wouldn't put any stock in that statement. The Prime doesn't get to chose the radar, the US Govt does. As with the JSF competition NG and Raytheon were in competition for the radar and the NG proposal won.

There is so much poor reporting and loose facts being posted about most parts of NGAD and F/A-XX that most should not be believed unless it is verified by multiple other sources.

Sticking the landing (literally) is always a major requirement and concern on USN fighters. I suspect that it is this complication that makes the navy unwilling to use an adaptive engine.

With the auto landing systems now I don't see that being an issue.

 

[aim9xray]

Really? Never have to flare, never a crosswind and only 3rd of 4 wires, makes me want to quote some Dose Gringos ...

Oops, I just did, lol

Reminds me of this story about a fighter drag across the Atlantic.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I see well Northrop in a pole position , but I think Lockheed is still in the game with a classifed new capacity in the work , we live historic time in Aviation.

LockMart is out of FAXX.

Do to it's large size, the J-36 seems to be a strike platform and maybe has a standoff interceptor role as well. The J-36 may have been developed primarily to counter and attack our carrier strike groups specifically our carriers in which China has always voiced this opinion.

I think it's the other way round. Standoff interceptor first, strike platform second. Enormous radar up front with 3 engines to power it, like a 2x1m oval antenna.

 

[snne]

I think it's the other way round. Standoff interceptor first, strike platform second. Enormous radar up front with 3 engines to power it, like a 2x1m oval antenna.

Whether you call it an interceptor, a cruiser, a deep-penetrating air-supremacy jet, or anything else – it doesn't matter. What matters is that it is indeed a monster of a warplane in every aspect imaginable. As good as American 6th gens can be – and for what I've seen, I already like Boeing's jet – (but for a variety of reasons), I reckon there's nothing like the J-36 yet, and there won't be for a really long time.

 

[Training_Dummy]

Whether you call it an interceptor, a cruiser, a deep-penetrating air-supremacy jet, or anything else – it doesn't matter. What matters is that it is indeed a monster of a warplane in every aspect imaginable.

It’s bizarre. On other forums individuals seems have almost political views on what J-36 is or isn’t. When I consider J-36, I see flexibility and adaptability, with clear headroom for substantial upgrades. But what do I know.

 

[snne]

It’s bizarre. On other forums individuals seems have almost political views on what J-36 is or isn’t. When I consider J-36, I see flexibility and adaptability, with clear headroom for substantial upgrades. But what do I know.

American 6th gens are also likely not being designed to face the J-36 1v1 anyway. I mean, we've already seen some of the F-47 (ugh, still hate that designation!) – it’s thought to be roughly somewhere between the J-20 and F-22 in terms of size – and the F/A-XX is limited in size and weight due to carrier compatibility. So, their Chinese equivalent would be Shenyang's jet anyway.

(Mind you, the J-50 is not an official designation! – Edit: AND we know nothing about its specs yet!)

 

[Scott Kenny]

American 6th gens are also likely not being designed to face the J-36 1v1 anyway. I mean, we've already seen some of the F-47 (ugh, still hate that designation!) – it’s thought to be roughly somewhere between the J-20 and F-22 in terms of size – and the F/A-XX is limited in size and weight due to carrier compatibility. So, their Chinese equivalent would be Shenyang's jet anyway.

Keep in mind that "limited in size and weight due to carrier compatibility" means about 90,000lbs MTOW/~45,000empty, 55,000lbs landing weight. And 70ft long, 40ft wingspan "fits" on the elevators.

You can put a really big warplane on a USN carrier!

 

[donnage99]

Far fetched but I actually think the J-36 and J-50 are both aiming for the same role and in active competition. J-50 being the more technologically riskier design. The size difference of the J-36 is to accommodate a 3rd engine, curved inlet duct and larger fuel tanks to make up for extra engine whereas the J-50 bet on more novel technologies to reach the same energy generation and/or speed and/or range being in a smaller package.

Perhaps the lockheed design is also a technologically more conservative but larger aircraft compared to boeing just from the artwork we've seen. Unlike boeing, lockheed artwork was pretty consistent throughout, that of a f-111 sized aircraft.

Yes I'm aware that a few very reliable chinese sources have claimed that they are built for 2 different programs, but these sources never made known that it was whether from their own observation or inside knowledge.

 

[NMaude]

Keep in mind that "limited in size and weight due to carrier compatibility" means about 90,000lbs MTOW/~45,000empty, 55,000lbs landing weight.

In regards to these catapult and arrestor-gear limits these refer to the Nimitz-class CVNs but what about the EMALS catapult system and electromechanical arresting-gear used by the Ford-class?

 

[Blitzo]

Far fetched but I actually think the J-36 and J-50 are both aiming for the same role and in active competition. J-50 being the more technologically riskier design. The size difference of the J-36 is to accommodate a 3rd engine, curved inlet duct and larger fuel tanks to make up for extra engine whereas the J-50 bet on more novel technologies to reach the same energy generation and/or speed and/or range being in a smaller package.

Perhaps the lockheed design is also a technologically more conservative but larger aircraft compared to boeing just from the artwork we've seen. Unlike boeing, lockheed artwork was pretty consistent throughout, that of a f-111 sized aircraft.

Yes I'm aware that a few very reliable chinese sources have claimed that they are built for 2 different programs, but these sources never made known that it was whether from their own observation or inside knowledge.

If they were intended for the same role, we would know about it by now.

More importantly, there's nothing about the J-50 which would suggest it is a technologically riskier design or intended to match J-36's characteristics in a more compact form factor -- if anything it is J-36 which is the more risky and ambitious design. At the very least there is certainly no expectation that either aircraft in their eventual final state would use subsystems that are technologically less sophisticated than the other.

E.g.: when they have their heavy thrust class VCE/ACE ready, chances are J-36 will simply be equipped with three of them (replacing the current three engines they have, whether it is WS-15 or WS-10) and J-50 will be equipped with two of them (replacing the current two engines they have, whether it is WS-15 or WS-10).

 

[yeetmahboi]

In regards to these catapult and arrestor-gear limits these refer to the Nimitz-class CVNs but what about the EMALS catapult system and electromechanical arresting-gear used by the Ford-class?

Same stuff. Plus the Nimitz are still serving 40 more years so any difference between these two classes' respective cat/trap system has a negligible impact on F/A-XX anyway.

 

[donnage99]

If they were intended for the same role, we would know about it by now.

How so?

More importantly, there's nothing about the J-50 which would suggest it is a technologically riskier design or intended to match J-36's characteristics in a more compact form factor -- if anything it is J-36 which is the more risky and ambitious design.

What suggests that the J-36 is the riskier design?

 

[yeetmahboi]

Going by their previous record, the PLAAF doesn't fly separate TDs. We know what the competitor to the J-20 was (SAC Snowy Owl). We know for sure no records of it flying for official use exists on the net. I've been told same stuff for J-35/31. So applying that logic to the J-36 and J-50, it's clear both services are flying their own 6th gen prototypes. I don't dispute this logic. Even if it's a case of argument from credit, the credit is still there and proves these "insiders" grasp of the topic. Or how far the PLA wants to feed us Intel.

 

[Blitzo]

How so?

Via the Chinese language grapevine that has fed us information ahead of time, for many years.
Something like "J-36 and J-50 are competing for the same contract/role/decision" would not be something that would be missed or omitted by this stage.

What suggests that the J-36 is the riskier design?

Well we have to star with the an underlying baseline acceptance that CAC and SAC would have access to the same requisite technology base, subsystems of choice that the PRC MIC can produce. From there, we are left to look at the airframes themselves.
J-36 is clearly the larger aircraft with more volume for subsystems/cooling/power gen, with a more complex and exotic propulsion and intake configuration, and a more exotic planform and control surface arrangement.

Which isn't to say J-50 is conservative, but compared to J-36, it is somewhat more conventional. A tailless lambda wing with a fairly well demarcated forward fuselage and wings.

 

[bring_it_on]

Should we consider changing the name of the thread?

 

[joshjosh]

Northrop Grumman's stock seems to be indicating a win for the F/A-XX program. We've seen similar movements from Boeing stock prior to the F-47 announcement.

 

[FighterJock]

That would be a major coup for NG if it were to win F/A-XX joshjosh.

 

[Hydroman]

Could we have another WH announcement for the F/A-XX tomorrow?

 

[joshjosh]

I thought there was a dedicated CCA thread, but evidently not. Interesting report from the Mitchell Institute that rehashes a wargame they did a couple of months ago, looking at logistics in particular.

https://www.mitchellaerospacepower.org/app/uploads/2025/03/Logistics-While-Under-Attack-Key-to-a-CCA-Force-Design-WEB.pdf

 

[bring_it_on]

Northrop Grumman's stock seems to be indicating a win for the F/A-XX program. We've seen similar movements from Boeing stock prior to the F-47 announcement.

How much has it been up say since Monday? Have other aerospace and defense sector stocks also registered similar highs in that period? Unless it has significantly outpaced the sector there's really not much you can read into it.

 

[joshjosh]

How much has it been up say since Monday? Have other aerospace and defense sector stocks also registered similar highs in that period? Unless it has significantly outpaced the sector there's really not much you can read into it.

From Monday to Tuesday, the S&P 500 closed 0.2% higher, Boeing closed 0.9% higher, and Northrop closed 2.3% higher. As a point of comparison, Boeing stock jumped 6.8% when it was leaked that an NGAD decision would be made on Friday, and jumped 3% on Friday after the White House announcement.

 

[bobbymike]

From Monday to Tuesday, the S&P 500 closed 0.2% higher, Boeing closed 0.9% higher, and Northrop closed 2.3% higher. As a point of comparison, Boeing stock jumped 6.8% when it was leaked that an NGAD decision would be made on Friday, and jumped 3% on Friday after the White House announcement.

Investors speculating “well if Boeing got this plane NG will get the other one”

 

[FighterJock]

The only reason that they chose Boeing over Lockheed was to keep Boeing viable as a defence contrator. If they had chosen Lockheed then Boeing would have been finnished in that way.

 

[bring_it_on]

From Monday to Tuesday, the S&P 500 closed 0.2% higher, Boeing closed 0.9% higher, and Northrop closed 2.3% higher. As a point of comparison, Boeing stock jumped 6.8% when it was leaked that an NGAD decision would be made on Friday, and jumped 3% on Friday after the White House announcement.

Both Boeing and Northrop Grumman have outpaced defense and aero sector in the last five days. I wouldn't read too much into it. The market gets things wrong just as much or more as it gets things right.

 

[Josh_TN]

The only reason that they chose Boeing over Lockheed was to keep Boeing viable as a defence contrator. If they had chosen Lockheed then Boeing would have been finnished in that way.

LM is hardly doing well with F-35. Deliveries actually stopped cold for months. And in particular the vendor lock of F-35 is seen now as a colossal fuck up.

NGAD was a fight between two cripples.

 

[snne]

LM is hardly doing well with F-35. Deliveries actually stopped cold for months. And in particular the vendor lock of F-35 is seen now as a colossal fuck up.

NGAD was a fight between two cripples.

I sure hope NG gets the F/A-XX contract...

 

[Hydroman]

I hope NG remains on schedule and budget with the B-21.

 

[Nart]

Keep in mind that "limited in size and weight due to carrier compatibility" means about 90,000lbs MTOW/~45,000empty, 55,000lbs landing weight. And 70ft long, 40ft wingspan "fits" on the elevators.

You can put a really big warplane on a USN carrier!

Lord,
Please give us a 6th-gen Tomcat reincarnate,
Please give us a 6th-gen Tomcat reincarnate,
Please give us a 6th-gen Tomcat reincarnate,
Please give us a...

Jokes aside, did they ever mention the dimensions of F/A-XX?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Could we have another WH announcement for the F/A-XX tomorrow?

I'm expecting one.

Jokes aside, did they ever mention the dimensions of F/A-XX?

Not that I am aware of. But a stealthy airframe with weapons bays that hold LRASM and AARGM-ER that can fly 1000nmi and back suggests an airframe closer to F111B than to Tomcat in size.

Big damn airplane!

I'm hoping for Hellcat II, or maybe Tigercat II.

 

[Sundog]

I hope NG remains on schedule and budget with the B-21.

I don't think the F/A-XX contract would affect them much. Most of the development on the B-21 is already complete. It's more about ramping up production now.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don't think the F/A-XX contract would affect them much. Most of the development on the B-21 is already complete. It;s more about ramping up production now.

NG would still need an assembly line that isn't doing anything else to build FAXX.

 

[NMaude]

I'm hoping for Hellcat II, or maybe Tigercat II.

What about, say, Bobcat, Hell-Kitty or if you want to be a bit politically incorrect (I could see Trump doing this) Crusader II?

 

[Black Dog]

NG would still need an assembly line that isn't doing anything else to build FAXX.

Could Palmdale handle both FAXX and B21?

 

[quellish]

Not that I am aware of. But a stealthy airframe with weapons bays that hold LRASM and AARGM-ER

There isn’t much of a reason to size a weapons bay to fit standoff weapons if they can be carried externally.