Analysis: Could Boeing’s new F-47 become the basis for the US Navy’s future F/A-XX fighter jet?
{loadposition bannertop}
{loadposition sidebarpub}
On August 28, 2025, Aviation Week shared Boeing’s new rendering of its F/A-XX proposal, presented at the Tailhook Symposium in August 2025, which has reignited the interest about the future of the U.S. Navy’s sixth-generation fighter program. The image shows a carrier-based jet obscured by cloud cover that hides potentially key features such as canards and wingtips, while no vertical tail is visible. Observers noted that the cockpit appears close in shape to Boeing’s F-47 design for the Air Force, but with a noticeably smaller radome, possibly blending into canard structures.Follow Army Recognition on Google News at this link
Boeing’s proposal seems to hide what could be potential canards and wingtip geometry with cloud cover as the aircraft flies over a carrier, with no vertical tail apparent and a narrower radome than the US Air Force’s F-47 fighter. (Picture source: Boeing)
The release comes as Northrop Grumman has also recently published official artwork of its own concept, and both companies remain in competition for a downselect decision after Lockheed Martin’s elimination earlier in 2025. While the Pentagon’s fiscal 2026 request included only $74–76 million to preserve design options for F/A-XX, congressional committees have moved to restore far larger sums, with the Senate advancing $1.4 billion, the House proposing $972 million, and the Navy placing $1.4 billion on its Unfunded Priorities List.
Boeing has invested roughly $2 billion in new air dominance facilities in St. Louis and has argued that its industrial strategy can support both the Air Force’s F-47 and the Navy’s F/A-XX without overburdening capacity. The F/A-XX program originated from a Navy requirement identified in 2008, with a formal request for information in 2012, and has since been developed as the crewed fighter component of the Navy’s Next Generation Air Dominance family of systems. It is intended to replace the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler in the 2030s while complementing the F-35C.
Unlike the Air Force’s NGAD program, which prioritizes an air superiority platform, the Navy has consistently described F/A-XX as a multirole strike fighter with a secondary air-to-air role. Requirements include supercruise, advanced stealth features, networking adaptability, and a 25 percent range increase over current carrier strike fighters, which analysts say could push combat radius beyond 1,500 miles. Mission sets extend beyond strike and air combat to include aerial refueling, reconnaissance, surveillance and targeting, and electronic warfare, positioning F/A-XX as part of a system-of-systems that integrates manned and unmanned platforms. These requirements are being defined in the context of a strategic environment shaped by long-range Chinese anti-ship missiles such as the DF-21D, which has an estimated reach of 1,000 miles, and advanced surface-to-air systems, which drive the need for greater range and payload.
Technology integration has been described as central to F/A-XX planning. Navy sources point to potential electronically configured smart skins with embedded sensors to reduce drag and improve connectivity, and an open architecture approach to allow rapid changes in payloads and mission systems. Propulsion has been a point of divergence between the Navy and the Air Force. While the Air Force intends to use adaptive-cycle engines for the F-47, the Navy has indicated a preference for derivative turbofans to reduce development risk and better accommodate the stresses of carrier operations. The aircraft will also need to support manned, unmanned, and optionally manned modes, integrating into future manned-unmanned teaming concepts with platforms such as MQ-25 and possible collaborative combat aircraft. Debate continues within Navy circles over whether F/A-XX should remain a multirole platform or evolve into a large dedicated attack aircraft sometimes described as A-XX, with advocates citing the precedent of A-3, A-6, and A-5 aircraft that provided flexible roles including strike, refueling, and reconnaissance. Furthermore, the US Navy is also pursuing options to replace its T-45 trainer, with the US-Italian M-346N among the proposals under consideration
The Air Force’s F-47 program is closely connected to the Navy’s discussions because Boeing’s naval design appears to draw on elements of its Air Force aircraft. The F-47 was officially announced by President Trump in March 2025 as the winner of the NGAD competition and awarded an engineering and manufacturing development contract worth over $20 billion. It is intended to replace the F-22 and become the first U.S. sixth-generation fighter. Air Force officials have stated that it will have a combat radius above 1,000 nautical miles, a top speed above Mach 2, and will be more sustainable, more adaptable, and more supportable than existing fifth-generation aircraft. Procurement plans project at least 185 aircraft with operational service expected between 2025 and 2029. The F-47 has been developed from experimental demonstrators flown since 2019 under DARPA’s Aerospace Innovation Initiative, and it will integrate advanced stealth shaping, new propulsion, and teaming with unmanned collaborative combat aircraft.
Program details released by the Air Force emphasize the F-47’s role within a family-of-systems construct that includes roughly 1,000 collaborative combat aircraft to supplement the manned fleet. Statements from senior leaders such as General David Allvin have stressed that the fighter will operate faster than Mach 2, carry advanced long-range munitions, and be acquired in numbers that allow it to replace the F-22 while complementing the F-35. Program communications also note that its acquisition strategy is intended to yield higher availability rates at lower cost per aircraft than earlier fifth-generation programs. Reports have mentioned that Israel has shown interest in the F-47 as it evaluates its long-term options for future air dominance, underlining the potential for allied procurement, though no formal sales have been agreed.
Carrier-based fighters like the F/A-XX face technical demands that differ from land-based designs such as the F-47, shaping both engineering and operational considerations. These include reinforced structures to endure catapult launches and arrested recoveries, corrosion protection for maritime environments, folding wings for deck storage, and robust twin-wheel nose gear to withstand repeated carrier operations. Inlet design, weight distribution, and radar cross-section considerations are influenced by these requirements, which must be reconciled with the need for stealth, long range, and large internal payloads. Canards, which are suggested by some renderings, can increase maneuverability but raise radar cross-section issues unless mitigated by software and shaping. These constraints reduce flexibility compared to land-based fighters and impose strict trade-offs between survivability, payload, and deck compatibility.
Despite these constraints, carrier-based fighters remain central to U.S. naval strategy, as they enable aircraft carriers to act as mobile airfields independent of fixed bases. Navy officials emphasize that without a sixth-generation carrier aircraft, future air wings will be forced to rely on aging Super Hornets and greater numbers of F-35Cs, which have more limited payload and range. Vice Adm. Daniel Cheever has said that fourth, fifth, and sixth-generation aircraft must be combined on carriers to maintain both air superiority and sea control. The addition of MQ-25 Stingray drones will also release strike fighters from tanker duties, which currently consume up to 30 percent of Super Hornet sorties, and extend operational reach. F/A-XX is also expected to coordinate future manned-unmanned teams, acting as a command node for collaborative combat aircraft and integrating with sensors and strike platforms across domains.
The debate about the Navy’s priorities continues as budget and industrial concerns shape the future of F/A-XX. Pentagon officials have argued that the industrial base may struggle to produce both the Air Force’s F-47 and the Navy’s F/A-XX at the same time, but Boeing and others insist capacity exists. Northrop Grumman, which withdrew from the Air Force’s NGAD competition, has focused on its F/A-XX submission and its B-21 bomber, while Boeing continues to pursue both lines. Congress has pushed to restore Navy funding levels to maintain program momentum, while some naval analysts have suggested shifting toward an A-XX strike platform focused on range and payload over maneuverability. The final configuration of F/A-XX remains uncertain, with competing concepts evolving and official artwork deliberately concealing details, but the Navy has signaled that its ability to project air power from the sea in contested environments depends on the timely development of this sixth-generation aircraft.
{loadposition bannertop}
{loadposition sidebarpub}
On August 28, 2025, Aviation Week shared Boeing’s new rendering of its F/A-XX proposal, presented at the Tailhook Symposium in August 2025, which has reignited the interest about the future of the U.S. Navy’s sixth-generation fighter program. The image shows a carrier-based jet obscured by cloud cover that hides potentially key features such as canards and wingtips, while no vertical tail is visible. Observers noted that the cockpit appears close in shape to Boeing’s F-47 design for the Air Force, but with a noticeably smaller radome, possibly blending into canard structures.
Follow Army Recognition on Google News at this link
Boeing’s proposal seems to hide what could be potential canards and wingtip geometry with cloud cover as the aircraft flies over a carrier, with no vertical tail apparent and a narrower radome than the US Air Force’s F-47 fighter. (Picture source: Boeing)
The release comes as Northrop Grumman has also recently published official artwork of its own concept, and both companies remain in competition for a downselect decision after Lockheed Martin’s elimination earlier in 2025. While the Pentagon’s fiscal 2026 request included only $74–76 million to preserve design options for F/A-XX, congressional committees have moved to restore far larger sums, with the Senate advancing $1.4 billion, the House proposing $972 million, and the Navy placing $1.4 billion on its Unfunded Priorities List.
Boeing has invested roughly $2 billion in new air dominance facilities in St. Louis and has argued that its industrial strategy can support both the Air Force’s F-47 and the Navy’s F/A-XX without overburdening capacity. The F/A-XX program originated from a Navy requirement identified in 2008, with a formal request for information in 2012, and has since been developed as the crewed fighter component of the Navy’s Next Generation Air Dominance family of systems. It is intended to replace the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler in the 2030s while complementing the F-35C.
Unlike the Air Force’s NGAD program, which prioritizes an air superiority platform, the Navy has consistently described F/A-XX as a multirole strike fighter with a secondary air-to-air role. Requirements include supercruise, advanced stealth features, networking adaptability, and a 25 percent range increase over current carrier strike fighters, which analysts say could push combat radius beyond 1,500 miles. Mission sets extend beyond strike and air combat to include aerial refueling, reconnaissance, surveillance and targeting, and electronic warfare, positioning F/A-XX as part of a system-of-systems that integrates manned and unmanned platforms. These requirements are being defined in the context of a strategic environment shaped by long-range Chinese anti-ship missiles such as the DF-21D, which has an estimated reach of 1,000 miles, and advanced surface-to-air systems, which drive the need for greater range and payload.
Technology integration has been described as central to F/A-XX planning. Navy sources point to potential electronically configured smart skins with embedded sensors to reduce drag and improve connectivity, and an open architecture approach to allow rapid changes in payloads and mission systems. Propulsion has been a point of divergence between the Navy and the Air Force. While the Air Force intends to use adaptive-cycle engines for the F-47, the Navy has indicated a preference for derivative turbofans to reduce development risk and better accommodate the stresses of carrier operations. The aircraft will also need to support manned, unmanned, and optionally manned modes, integrating into future manned-unmanned teaming concepts with platforms such as MQ-25 and possible collaborative combat aircraft. Debate continues within Navy circles over whether F/A-XX should remain a multirole platform or evolve into a large dedicated attack aircraft sometimes described as A-XX, with advocates citing the precedent of A-3, A-6, and A-5 aircraft that provided flexible roles including strike, refueling, and reconnaissance. Furthermore, the US Navy is also pursuing options to replace its T-45 trainer, with the US-Italian M-346N among the proposals under consideration
The Air Force’s F-47 program is closely connected to the Navy’s discussions because Boeing’s naval design appears to draw on elements of its Air Force aircraft. The F-47 was officially announced by President Trump in March 2025 as the winner of the NGAD competition and awarded an engineering and manufacturing development contract worth over $20 billion. It is intended to replace the F-22 and become the first U.S. sixth-generation fighter. Air Force officials have stated that it will have a combat radius above 1,000 nautical miles, a top speed above Mach 2, and will be more sustainable, more adaptable, and more supportable than existing fifth-generation aircraft. Procurement plans project at least 185 aircraft with operational service expected between 2025 and 2029. The F-47 has been developed from experimental demonstrators flown since 2019 under DARPA’s Aerospace Innovation Initiative, and it will integrate advanced stealth shaping, new propulsion, and teaming with unmanned collaborative combat aircraft.
Program details released by the Air Force emphasize the F-47’s role within a family-of-systems construct that includes roughly 1,000 collaborative combat aircraft to supplement the manned fleet. Statements from senior leaders such as General David Allvin have stressed that the fighter will operate faster than Mach 2, carry advanced long-range munitions, and be acquired in numbers that allow it to replace the F-22 while complementing the F-35. Program communications also note that its acquisition strategy is intended to yield higher availability rates at lower cost per aircraft than earlier fifth-generation programs. Reports have mentioned that Israel has shown interest in the F-47 as it evaluates its long-term options for future air dominance, underlining the potential for allied procurement, though no formal sales have been agreed.
Carrier-based fighters like the F/A-XX face technical demands that differ from land-based designs such as the F-47, shaping both engineering and operational considerations. These include reinforced structures to endure catapult launches and arrested recoveries, corrosion protection for maritime environments, folding wings for deck storage, and robust twin-wheel nose gear to withstand repeated carrier operations. Inlet design, weight distribution, and radar cross-section considerations are influenced by these requirements, which must be reconciled with the need for stealth, long range, and large internal payloads. Canards, which are suggested by some renderings, can increase maneuverability but raise radar cross-section issues unless mitigated by software and shaping. These constraints reduce flexibility compared to land-based fighters and impose strict trade-offs between survivability, payload, and deck compatibility.
Despite these constraints, carrier-based fighters remain central to U.S. naval strategy, as they enable aircraft carriers to act as mobile airfields independent of fixed bases. Navy officials emphasize that without a sixth-generation carrier aircraft, future air wings will be forced to rely on aging Super Hornets and greater numbers of F-35Cs, which have more limited payload and range. Vice Adm. Daniel Cheever has said that fourth, fifth, and sixth-generation aircraft must be combined on carriers to maintain both air superiority and sea control. The addition of MQ-25 Stingray drones will also release strike fighters from tanker duties, which currently consume up to 30 percent of Super Hornet sorties, and extend operational reach. F/A-XX is also expected to coordinate future manned-unmanned teams, acting as a command node for collaborative combat aircraft and integrating with sensors and strike platforms across domains.
The debate about the Navy’s priorities continues as budget and industrial concerns shape the future of F/A-XX. Pentagon officials have argued that the industrial base may struggle to produce both the Air Force’s F-47 and the Navy’s F/A-XX at the same time, but Boeing and others insist capacity exists. Northrop Grumman, which withdrew from the Air Force’s NGAD competition, has focused on its F/A-XX submission and its B-21 bomber, while Boeing continues to pursue both lines. Congress has pushed to restore Navy funding levels to maintain program momentum, while some naval analysts have suggested shifting toward an A-XX strike platform focused on range and payload over maneuverability. The final configuration of F/A-XX remains uncertain, with competing concepts evolving and official artwork deliberately concealing details, but the Navy has signaled that its ability to project air power from the sea in contested environments depends on the timely development of this sixth-generation aircraft.
