$972 million is sufficient funds to resurrect a program from an idea, and that is precisely the rub the United States Navy finds itself in with F/A-XX. Rather than inflating the U.S. Navy’s fiscal 2026 budget request from $74 million, Congress has not only brought a sixth-generation, carrier-based fighter program back from the dead but also pushed it into the crossroads where schedule, capacity, and relevance all meet.
The appropriation language has harder edges than a typical plus-up. The proposed bill requires the Pentagon to utilize the funds to carry out an engineering and manufacturing development contract with a single contractor and to achieve an accelerated initial operational capability, in addition to prohibiting appropriations to pause or terminate the program. The explanatory document accompanying the bill criticizes the department for appropriating funds from previous years to support extensions with “minimal demonstrated value” and calls for a plan to return to an executable timeline and what has been preventing the obligation of funds for years.
That pressure campaign is in place because F/A-XX is more than “a new fighter.” It is the Navy’s effort to regain margin in a carrier air wing that is postured around fighters that are suited to a different set of assumptions about range, survivability, and the amount of support a strike can expect. The Navy’s leadership has long characterized the new aircraft as more than a shooter, an ISR platform, and a battle management node that can direct unmanned aircraft, making it a key part of a future air wing that is postured around manned-unmanned teaming concepts, rather than trying to integrate drones as an afterthought. These needs are accompanied by an urgent operational need: range. The principal carrier strike fighter, the F-35C, is commonly mentioned as having a range of about 1,300 miles, while the presence of longer-range threats makes it difficult to get close enough to launch repeated sorties without exhausting the air wing’s life in tanking and support.
Design trends that are beginning to appear in industry artwork point towards what the Navy thinks it needs. A more recent Boeing concept illustration that has been made public indicates a cleaner, possibly tailless design that focuses on low observability, although it still takes into consideration the not-so-beautiful aspects of carrier landing and handling. The same information that has been made public also indicates that the Navy may prefer a derivative engine instead of the Air Force’s new adaptive powerplant design.
The problem is only exacerbated by industrial base math. Boeing is already established as the producer of the Air Force’s F-47, while Northrop Grumman is well along in the production of the B-21. This leaves the F/A-XX competition less about who can draw the slickest, most futuristic design and more about who can support two simultaneous “exquisite” aircraft programs.
Congress’s impatience is also a reflection of the scope of what the Navy is facing off against in the Pacific. According to a Royal United Services Institute analysis, China’s growth curve in advanced fighters has been quite steep, including the J-16 force from 90-100 in 2020 to 450 by 2025, and the J-20 force from 40-50 to 120 over the same period, as well as the testing of sixth-generation fighters and the proliferation of long-range air-to-air missiles. In this same paper, it is also asserted that the operational value of U.S. stealth fighters may be compromised in contested airspace by 2030. In this kind of environment, the Navy’s sixth-generation fighter is not just about outturning an adversary’s fighter; it’s about being able to survive in a more complex web of sensors, long-range missiles, and kill chains that extend far beyond the horizon.
Even the language Navy leaders are using shows that this is now a forcing function. Adm. Daryl Caudle summed up the internal conflict when he said, “Does it need to be done at [sic] a cost-effective way? Does it need [to] be done [in a way] that doesn’t clobber our other efforts? Does it need to be done so it actually delivers in the relevant time frame? Yes.”
F/A-XX’s resurrection, therefore, is neither a clean victory nor a clean defeat. It is a reinstated mandate to demonstrate that a sixth-generation carrier-based fighter can be developed on an expedited schedule, with an already stretched supply chain, and yet provide the range, stealth, and connectivity to necessitate its need. The bill includes $897,260,000 above the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2026. The bill also requires the submission of a report that describes the current acquisition strategy and schedule for awarding the EMD contract. RUSI estimates the growth of China’s J-16 force to 450 fighter jets by 2025 and J-20 force to 120 fighter jets by 2025. Caudle also said, “It is critical that we field that capability as quickly as possible to give our warfighters the capabilities they need to win against a myriad of emerging threats.”
