Key Points and Summary on F/A-XX – The Pentagon’s decision to pause the Navy’s F/A-XX 6th-generation fighter program is a grave mistake that will harm the U.S. aerospace industrial base and create a dangerous capability gap.
-While the Air Force’s F-47 program receives a $3.5 billion boost, the F/A-XX is being starved of funds based on the “flimsy” rationale that the defense industry can’t handle two major stealth fighter programs at once.
F/A-XX U.S. Navy Fighter. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
-This delay risks ceding naval air superiority to China, which is aggressively developing its own next-generation carrier aircraft, and undermines the readiness of the U.S. Navy’s future carrier air wings.
Why A Delay on Navy F/A-XX Hurts America’s Aerospace Industrial Base
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has made bold decisions during his first six months in office, from greenlighting the Air Force’s F-47 6th Gen fighter to executing strikes on Iran with the B-2 bomber.
Unfortunately, the Pentagon is now on the verge of making a costly mistake: slowing down the development of the new Navy fighter. The much-amended Fiscal Year 2026 budget took out money for the program, forcing the Navy to put the $1.4 billion contract award funding for 6th Gen “F/A-XX” atop its unfunded priorities list and hope for action from Congress.
Senior Pentagon officials offered the flimsiest of rationales for the proposed delay. According to budget documents, “The Navy’s F/A-XX program will maintain minimal development funding to preserve the ability to leverage F-47 work while preventing over-subscription of qualified defense industrial base engineers,” the Pentagon said.
The Great F/A-XX Mistake
Having saved the day for the Air Force with the F-47 decision on March 21, it’s a surprise to see Trump’s Pentagon team dropping the ball for the Navy.
Shoving F/A-XX into the slow lane will hurt, not help, America’s aerospace industrial base. As SASC Chairman Roger Wicker recently noted, delaying the F/A-XX program risks “further challenges to the industrial base.”
Why the Navy Needs the F/A-XX Fighter
First, the Navy requirement for 6th Gen F/A-XX is clear. Added stealth, range, and the ability to carry advanced missiles enhances the punch of the carrier air wing.
With F/A-XX, the carriers can perform deep strikes, quarterback combat drones, and nail any Chinese missiles, planes, and drones seeking a long-range kill on U.S. ships and assets. The plane “will be vital to maintaining air superiority and open sea lines of communication for decades to come,” wrote Vice Admiral Dan Cheever, the Navy’s “Air Boss.”
“It is the centerpiece of sixth-generation naval aviation — a stealthy, long-range, data-integrated platform designed to dominate in contested environments. It is built for the fight we know is coming,” said Rep. Jen Kiggans.
Yes, We Can Build the F/A-XX
Asserting that the U.S. aerospace industry doesn’t have the capacity for F/A-XX is puzzling, to say the least. The Department of Defense has been working on both an Air Force and a separate Navy 6th Gen fighter program for over a decade.
As of March, two industry competitors, Boeing and Northrop Grumman, had submitted their initial bids for the Navy plane.
America’s aerospace industrial base is already pushing ahead with simultaneous production of the B-21, F-35, F-15EX, F-47, the MQ-25, and more. Capacity is a function of experienced prime contractors and a robust, large supplier base able to feed multiple programs.
B-21 Raider. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
Aerospace “primes” typically perform far less than half of the work of manufacturing and assembling parts for a new stealth aircraft. They also team and subcontract on numerous programs. For example, the F-35 program has 1,650 different suppliers. While Lockheed Martin is the prime, Northrop Grumman builds the center section and radars. BAE Systems produces a further 15% of the F-35.
The government purchases jet engines for all military aircraft from engine manufacturers, such as Pratt & Whitney, GE Aerospace, or Rolls-Royce. Then it delivers them to the final assembly plant. Program managers are adept at the art of locking down designs, closing out risks, scheduling, ensuring supplier deliveries, and integrating final assembly and test.
Complexity Can Be Managed
Boeing and Northrop Grumman are no strangers to complex program management.
Both bidders had already been required to submit detailed schedules and pricing in their final program bids. At Northrop Grumman, CEO Kathy Warden said in a 2023 discussion of 6th Gen fighters that she was pursuing programs “where we feel we’re well positioned with mature offerings, and where the business deal reflects an appropriate balance of risk and reward for both the customer and the industrial base.”
With the B-21 accelerating, Northrop Grumman will have a large number of engineers available to work on the F/A-XX as the B-21 transitions to full production.
The B-21 Raider program is on track and continues flight testing at Northrop Grumman’s manufacturing facility on Edwards Air Force Base, California. The B-21 will have an open architecture to integrate new technologies and respond to future threats across the spectrum of operations. The B-21 Long Range Strike Family of Systems will greatly enhance mission effectiveness and Joint interoperability in advanced threat environments, strengthening U.S. deterrence and strategic advantage. (U.S. Air Force photo)
The B-21 is also on cost and budget, according to the Air Force. That’s a first for a stealth aircraft and an indicator of a healthy aerospace industry.
As for Boeing, “our strategy was to be able to do both, win both, and execute both,” Boeing Defense and Space CEO Steve Parker said at the Paris Air Show.
The Pain Is Real
Slow-rolling F/A-XX will hurt recruiting, too. Engineers sit idle, supplier contracts languish, and costs continue to rise. Concerns such as turnover, an aging workforce, and meeting demands for digital skills won’t be helped by delaying contract awards and purchase orders.
Granted, the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts 4100 job openings per year for aerospace engineers through 2033. Aerospace engineers choose the defense industry because of a passion for aviation.
Many other companies are eager to hire them. Bogging down an exciting, essential program like the Navy’s 6th Gen fighter doesn’t exactly send Gen Z flocking to the aerospace industry.
F/A-XX U.S. Navy Fighter. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
Most of all, the Navy needs to move fast toward revamping its air wing with the longer-range F/A-XX and greater capacity for drones. China is continuing its work on two 6th Gen planes, a carrier-based fighter and a long-range fighter-bomber.
Build the F/A-XX Now
A new Navy fighter is overdue. It’s been nearly 30 years since the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet first flew in November 1995, and fifteen years since the first flight of the carrier-based F-35C stealth fighter in 2010.
It would be a mistake for Trump’s team to put naval aviation in the slow lane.
MORE – The Navy’s Attack Submarine Crisis Is Real
About the Author: Dr. Rebecca Grant
Dr. Rebecca Grant, a Vice President at the Lexington Institute, is a national security analyst based in Washington, DC specializing in defense and aerospace research and national security consulting. She has over 20 years experience working with the United States Air Force, United States Navy, and top aerospace clients. In addition, Dr. Grant has often appeared on television as an expert on national security for Fox News, Fox Business, CNN, and MSNBC and as a series regular on The Smithsonian’s Air Warriors. Dr. Grant also writes on China, Russia and other technology and national security topics for Fox News Opinion. Her military books include 75 Great Airmen (with Lt. Gen. Chris Miller), The B-2 Goes to War, and Battle-Tested: Aircraft Carriers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Dr. Grant graduated from Wellesley College and earned a PhD in International Relations from the London School of Economics, University of London. You can follow her on X: @Rebeccagrantdc.
Fighter Jet Fails
Russia’s Su-57 Felon Stealth Fighter Is a Waste of Rubles
D-O-Y-L-E
July 9, 2025 at 5:07 pm
US will eventually start ww3 in Asia, or the great pacific war 2.0.
In as little as three years from now. 2028-2029.
So, the US Navy will need everything to prosecute the amazing ww3 in the western pacific, but unfortunately, the F/A-XX won’t be part of the Navy’s inventory.
Too little time, and too many headwinds. F/A-XX likely to be a stillborn project.
Going forward, what the US Navy needs immediately is a massive bunch of readily available nuclear blunderbusters. Capable of being carried by carrier naval aircraft.
Like the HACM.
That’s because once the chief commander of the US military gives the green light to attack, the USAF will be the first to go into action.
After that, the Navy and others will do the mopping up.
Thus the F/A-XX is or will not be in the mix.
securocrat
July 9, 2025 at 5:51 pm
In the coming great pacific campaign, or just ww3 in asia, the DoD will employ stealth bombers to unleash heavy ordnance like GBU-57s on dams, hospitals, nuclear power plants, clinics, shelters, waterworks, railhubs and bridges.
If the foe survives all that hellish hellscape and is still breathing, and starts hitting back, the DoD will send fighter jets to strike all his vital areas with B61-13 bombs that have the explosive power of twenty-four hiroshima A-bombs each.
There’s no hope of the foe surviving that second strike. Thus futuristic 6th-gen Navy fighter jets are not required.
Only GBUs and B61s required.
Icepilot
July 10, 2025 at 10:46 am
“Complexity can be managed …”.
Really? Then please explain: the Seawolf class submarines (vice 29), the A-12 Avenger II, B-1 (100 vice 240), B-2 (20 vice 132), F-22 (183 vice 750), Constellation class (FFG-62) Frigates, Littoral Combat ships, the Zumwalt class Destroyers, the Ford class Aircraft Carriers.
Most of these programs demonstrate a maximum investment for minimum return.
Which shows that DoD can manage complexity, just not very well.
LEE COHEN
July 10, 2025 at 1:04 pm
The Navy can’t have 10/12 carriers without aircraft. The F-18 Super Hornet is going to be phased out and the F-35 is a light bomber. The Navy needs the capabilities of a new fighter.
Jacob
July 10, 2025 at 8:05 pm
The Navy can make do with existing inventory and see how the F-47 program develops. If it has the range and payload capacity the Navy requires then the F-47 can be quickly navalized. It will reduce overall costs for both the Navy and Air Force and increase compatability of accompanying drones.
JDDrouin
July 10, 2025 at 9:41 pm
Perhaps if the Navy could find the testicles to make all the buffoons and clowns posing as 1-, 2-, 3-, &4-Star Admirals ‘walk the plank’, thereby saving it TEN OF BILLIONS OF PRECIOUS AND VERY SCARCE TAXPAYER DOLLARS, Congress might be sweet-talked into funding the F/A-XX.
McFuzzle
July 11, 2025 at 9:25 am
Man, this is the Lexington Institute, not even worth reading. Not only are they funded by a zoo of defense contractors, they would take pride on influencing people to get junk sold. It’s always buy, buy, buy. They got shamed into placing a disclaimer once but they don’t even have the dignity to do anymore.
I spent years reading Loren Thompson and some other guy’s stuff thinking I was getting smart b4 I wised up.
SSQ-II 1000 Ship Navy 2018
July 11, 2025 at 10:32 am
The strongest argument against the near term development of F/A-XX is to reinforce competition between LM, NG, and BG to successfully develop strong production lines for the F-35A/B/C and any F-35D/F-51D successor to them, the B-21 and any fat airframe tanker to provide first line aerial re-fueling, and the F-47 long range fighter. The prospect of repeating the tech to a different set of specifications would tend to suggest that F/A-XX could be awarded to the most successful of the three manned combat aircraft primes in a truncated time frame.
As recently as a few years ago the Navy specified the need for a 1000nm fighter, and yet F/A-XX barely reaches farther than the F-35C. F/A-XX is a warmed over F-18E with a tailless semi-BWB airframe that gains range with the same F-414’s by drag reduction. A F-35D XL with a tri-stream jet engine would achieve the 1000nm requirement. It appears F/A-XX primarily fills a need to create post service careers.
The 6th generation aircraft carrier is not obsolete yet, by extending its reach it gains survivability by making attacks on it more difficult and complex, and yet F/A-XX does not extend the reach of these ships. Further, existing aircraft carriers can not operate tactical transports that not only would extend reach to include armored MARSOC forces to lead the infantry, but also allow ship and air group operating personnel to be flown in and out on demand in order to lower the afloat cost of forward deployed complements, personnel costs being the number one cost of operating any warship. Moreover, the existing CVN’s will not be efficient CCA operators because they are not sized or arranged for small jets in the 5-9t MTOW range.
Development money would be better spent developing a 7th generation stealthier aircraft carrier with optimal arrangements for CCA’s and airmobile vehicles up to medium armor weight, a 27-knot broad beam diesel-electric design of 144,000t that shaves a 1000+ afloat crew and tens of billions off the lifecycle cost of the capital aviation fleet.