The U.S. Navy’s F/A-XX sixth-generation stealth fighter—a program designed to replace aging F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers—is in limbo as internal government debates over priorities and defense budgets intensify. Once projected to be a cornerstone of the Navy’s 2030s force structure, the F/A-XX initiative now teeters on the edge of a delay that could redefine its timeline—or even its survival.
Though no official delay has been confirmed, sources across the Pentagon, Congress, and the defense industry indicate mounting tensions over whether to proceed with a contract that could be worth hundreds of billions of dollars. A senior U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the deliberations, downplayed reports of delay: “Nothing is being delayed. A decision hasn’t been made yet. That decision is still being determined.”
Still, the uncertainty has generated alarm among military planners and lawmakers who see the F/A-XX as critical to ensuring U.S. naval air dominance, especially in the face of rapid Chinese military advancements.
Announced as part of the Navy’s Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) strategy, the F/A-XX is envisioned as a leap forward in aerial combat capability. The 2025 Naval Aviation Playbook described the fighter as boasting increased range, speed, and sensor integration, with the capability to team up with unmanned drones for both offensive and electronic warfare missions.
According to the document, the F/A-XX will “feature superior range, speed, and sensor capabilities, with an emphasis on integrating manned and unmanned systems,” aiming to redefine how carrier air wings operate. It is designed to serve as both a replacement and a force multiplier, ensuring air superiority in contested environments—particularly in the Indo-Pacific, where China’s military expansion remains a central concern.
Vice Adm. Daniel Cheever, Commander of Naval Air Forces, noted the aircraft’s pivotal role in shaping “the air wing of the future.” With features meant to surpass the current capabilities of the Super Hornet and Growler, the F/A-XX would theoretically give carrier groups more reach, better survivability, and unmatched situational awareness.
However, behind the vision lies a mounting challenge—funding. According to a Reuters report published Wednesday, some Pentagon officials are urging a delay in awarding the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) contract for the fighter. That award had previously been anticipated this spring.
While the Navy appears ready to move forward, others in the Defense Department are reportedly raising concerns about the industrial base’s ability to deliver. “Engineering and production capacity” issues are being cited as reasons to possibly push the contract award back by up to three years. If true, the delay would force the expiration of current bid terms and possibly require a restart of the competition, effectively resetting the program.
Three major defense contractors—Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin—were in contention. But in March, Lockheed Martin was reportedly dropped from the running, according to Breaking Defense, due to its proposal failing to meet Navy requirements.
The implications of a delay are significant. “Delaying the award by three years would effectively cancel the program as it is currently defined,” Reuters warned, citing experts and sources familiar with defense acquisition timelines.
A senior official contacted by our newsroom neither confirmed nor denied the reported disputes. “It’s not like there’s a hard deadline,” the official said. “This is all in the context of budget decisions. We are discussing the Fiscal Year 2025 budget and beyond.”
In Congress, debates are underway as lawmakers assess how to balance near-term readiness with long-term investments. The Defense Department’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office, led by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, is reportedly planning to shift $454 million—earmarked by Congress for the F/A-XX—toward other priorities.
This move, if enacted, would be a major setback. The Pentagon is also rumored to be preparing to request that Congress withdraw an additional $500 million allocated for the fighter’s development in an upcoming reconciliation bill.
Adm. James W. Kilby, the acting Chief of Naval Operations, testified before Congress on Wednesday about the Navy’s need for the sixth-generation aircraft, pointing directly to the threat posed by China’s rapidly advancing capabilities.
“The sixth-gen fighter has some capabilities that we need to counter the PRC,” Kilby stated. “Those are signatures, those are range, those are different engines… Not only does a sixth-gen fighter replace a fifth-gen fighter, but it also replaces the Growler.”
Kilby emphasized the fighter’s role in both strike and electronic warfare, saying it is foundational for shaping the Navy’s future air wing. But it remains unclear whether this message is gaining enough traction to overcome internal resistance.
While the U.S. Navy struggles with indecision, America’s adversaries are accelerating. China has already begun flight testing two stealthy, next-generation fighter-like aircraft: the J-36 and the J-XDS (also referred to as the J-50). Though details remain classified, these platforms signal Beijing’s intent to challenge U.S. air dominance, particularly in the Pacific.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Air Force is moving full steam ahead with its own NGAD initiative. In March, Boeing was awarded the contract for the F-47, a sixth-generation fighter boasting a combat radius of over 1,000 nautical miles—well beyond the current generation’s reach.
“The F-47 will fly during this administration,” an Air Force official stated confidently. It’s a bold contrast to the Navy’s stalled trajectory and highlights the urgency felt in other branches about evolving air threats.
The F/A-XX’s ambition is clear. Its integration with autonomous drones, such as the MQ-25 Stingray, could redefine how the Navy conducts air operations. The combination of stealth, range, AI-assisted combat, and electronic warfare could give the U.S. a decisive advantage in contested theaters—if it’s built in time.
But behind the vision lies the sobering reality of defense procurement. Building a sixth-generation aircraft is a herculean task requiring not just funding, but also a robust industrial base, skilled engineers, and long-term political will. The failure of one link in that chain can unravel years of planning.
Adding further complexity is the disappointing news from April that the F/A-XX is expected to offer only a 25% increase in range over current fighters—less than what many experts hoped for. In the Pacific theater, where vast distances define strategy, every mile of range counts.
Rear Adm. Michael Donnelly, director of the Navy’s Air Warfare Division, also admitted that the Navy lags behind the Air Force and Marine Corps in developing the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones expected to operate alongside sixth-gen fighters. The implications are clear: if F/A-XX and its supporting systems are delayed, the entire future force concept could be compromised.
At stake in the F/A-XX debate is more than just a new jet. The fighter represents a bet on the future of naval aviation—a future that assumes contested airspace, electronic warfare, and drone-human teaming will define air superiority. It’s a vision born from lessons in Ukraine, tensions in Taiwan, and years of Air-Sea Battle doctrine evolution.
Cancelling or significantly delaying F/A-XX could force the Navy to double down on the F-35C, extend the life of Super Hornets, or even explore interim solutions like buying more Growlers. Each of those options carries cost, risk, and strategic compromises.
As one former naval officer told us under the condition of anonymity: “You can’t maintain carrier dominance in the Pacific with yesterday’s fighters. And we’re running out of tomorrows.”
The Pentagon, Congress, and the White House now face a decision that could reshape the future of American naval power. The F/A-XX is not just another fighter—it’s a cornerstone of the Navy’s future force, deeply tied to America’s ability to project power in a fast-changing.
Whether it flies in time—or at all—depends on whether political leaders can align strategy with sustained investment. The coming months will determine if the F/A-XX becomes a symbol of American innovation—or a cautionary tale of bureaucratic inertia.
