The United States has invested heavily in developing its next generation of air superiority capabilities to ensure dominance in future conflicts, particularly in a potential confrontation with China. As tensions simmer over the Pacific, the US Navy and Air Force have embarked on parallel but distinct paths in the development of their respective sixth-generation fighter jets.
The Navy’s F/A-XX program and the Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) project represent the cutting-edge of military aviation, but they face diverging priorities, funding challenges, and technological imperatives. This contrast raises critical questions about interoperability between the services and the broader implications for maintaining air superiority in a rapidly evolving global threat environment.
The US Navy’s sixth-generation fighter program, known as the F/A-XX, is positioned to replace the aging F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft. Recently, US Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Lisa Franchetti announced that the Navy is pushing ahead with plans to award the F/A-XX contract, a move that signals the service’s determination to secure its future air superiority capability. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman—three of the nation’s most formidable defense contractors—are all contenders to build the Navy’s new carrier-based combat jet.
According to Air & Space Forces Magazine, the F/A-XX is intended to enter service in the 2030s, equipped with advanced sensors, extended range, greater lethality, and the ability to integrate seamlessly with unmanned systems. This combination of capabilities is designed to address the unique challenges of naval aviation, particularly over the vast distances of the Pacific, where the US Navy operates. As China continues to expand its naval and air capabilities, the F/A-XX is seen as a critical component of maintaining maritime superiority in any potential future conflict.
What sets the F/A-XX apart from other platforms is its focus on carrier operations. The aircraft must be capable of launching and recovering from the deck of an aircraft carrier, a feat that imposes unique design constraints and operational requirements. In addition, the F/A-XX is expected to serve as a “quarterback” in manned-unmanned teaming operations, directing swarms of drones in complex missions. This concept of manned-unmanned teaming is seen as key to future air combat, where fewer human pilots will operate in conjunction with autonomous systems, maximizing combat effectiveness while reducing risk.
The US Air Force’s highly anticipated NGAD program faces more significant hurdles. Conceived as the replacement for the F-22 Raptor, the NGAD aims to be a sixth-generation fighter that combines advanced stealth, supermaneuverability, and a digital design optimized for long-range, land-based operations. Initially projected to be a fleet of 200 manned stealth jets supported by 1,000 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), the NGAD program now finds itself at a crossroads due to budget constraints.
Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, a staunch advocate of the NGAD, has acknowledged the growing concerns over the cost of each NGAD aircraft, which is expected to reach nearly $250 million per plane. This price tag has sparked internal debate about the program’s affordability. Reports from Air & Space Forces Magazine indicate that Secretary Kendall is searching for a more cost-effective solution, potentially scaling back the NGAD’s scope. One such alternative is the revival of the “light fighter” concept—a simpler, cheaper aircraft designed to complement the high-end capabilities of the NGAD fleet. Such an aircraft would be software-centric, adaptable to different mission profiles, and focused on leveraging advancements in digital and unmanned technologies.
Yet the Air Force’s reluctance to fully commit to the NGAD program mirrors broader concerns about the future of air dominance. As adversaries like China rapidly modernize their air forces, critics argue that the US cannot afford to rely on a single, prohibitively expensive platform to maintain air superiority. Instead, they propose a mixed force of manned and unmanned systems that balance high-end performance with cost-effective versatility. The Asia Times has suggested that the light fighter concept could offer a compromise, ensuring that the Air Force has the numbers needed to confront China’s growing air power without compromising on advanced capabilities.
Despite the divergent paths of the F/A-XX and NGAD, both programs share common ground in terms of technological innovation and strategic objectives. Both platforms emphasize stealth, supermaneuverability, advanced sensors, and digital design, reflecting the shift toward unmanned systems and AI-driven operations. The future of air combat, according to experts, will be defined not by dogfights but by long-range engagements enabled by sophisticated sensors and data fusion, allowing pilots to strike from beyond visual range.
Maya Carlin, writing for The National Interest, underscores the strategic importance of these programs in deterring and, if necessary, defeating adversaries like China. The sheer scale of China’s military modernization, including its own next-generation fighters such as the J-20 and J-31/FC-31, means that the US must maintain a qualitative edge in technology and operational concepts. This competition is most acute in the Pacific theater, where the vastness of the region and the dispersed nature of US forces necessitate aircraft with extended range, high survivability, and the ability to operate autonomously.
However, the Navy’s and Air Force’s differing priorities may hinder future interoperability. While the Navy focuses on carrier-based operations and maintaining maritime superiority, the Air Force is more concerned with long-range, land-based missions that require multi-domain capabilities. This divergence in mission focus could complicate efforts to ensure that the two services can operate seamlessly in a future conflict. As noted by Air & Space Forces Magazine, both the F/A-XX and NGAD programs aim to align their capabilities to avoid duplication, but achieving full interoperability between carrier-based and land-based systems remains a challenge.
The most significant obstacle to the successful development and deployment of both the F/A-XX and NGAD programs is funding. In a recent letter to the House and Senate Armed Services committees, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin warned that budget cuts could derail both programs. Specifically, Austin cautioned that funding a second Virginia-class submarine in the 2025 defense budget would require a $400 million cut from the NGAD program, rendering it “unexecutable” and severely impacting the Navy’s future aircraft capabilities. This trade-off illustrates the difficult choices facing the Pentagon as it tries to balance competing priorities across multiple domains—air, sea, and land.
The US Navy is particularly vulnerable to budget shortfalls, as its F/A-XX program competes with other high-priority acquisitions, including submarines and surface combatants. The growing cost of naval modernization, combined with the need to maintain global naval dominance, means that the Navy may have to sacrifice certain programs to fund others. The F/A-XX, while essential to future air superiority, could be one of those sacrifices.
Amid these challenges, some defense experts have called for a rethinking of the US military’s approach to air superiority. As noted in a September 2024 War on the Rocks article by Peter Porkka and Vilho Rantanen, the concept of air superiority may no longer be achievable—or even necessary—in a near-peer conflict with an adversary like China. The authors argue that modern integrated air defenses and the proliferation of long-range missiles have fundamentally changed the nature of air warfare, making it unlikely that the US will be able to achieve uncontested air dominance in future conflicts.
Instead, Porkka and Rantanen advocate for a more flexible approach to airpower, one that emphasizes long-range fires, unmanned systems, and space-based capabilities over traditional manned aircraft. They point to the ongoing war in Ukraine as an example of the limitations of conventional airpower, where modern air forces have struggled to suppress enemy air defenses at scale. In this new environment, achieving air superiority may be less important than integrating air capabilities into a broader joint operations framework that can operate in contested airspaces.
As the US Navy and Air Force chart their respective courses toward sixth-generation air superiority, the future of US military aviation remains uncertain. The F/A-XX and NGAD programs represent ambitious efforts to maintain dominance in an increasingly competitive global environment, but they face significant obstacles, from budget constraints to evolving strategic threats.
The Pentagon will need to make tough decisions about which programs to prioritize, how to balance cost and capability, and how to ensure that the Navy and Air Force can work together in a future conflict. The challenge will be to find a path that maximizes the effectiveness of US airpower without overextending resources or undermining the broader strategic goals of the military. The stakes could not be higher, as the US seeks to maintain its edge in an era of rapid technological change and intensifying geopolitical competition.
