Northrop Grumman has just released an animation that shows how 6th Generation fighters might look like

Northrop Grumman 6th Gen. fighter as shown in a commercial released in 2015.

Northrop Grumman has just launched a new ad that teases next generation fighter jets.

One year ago, Northrop Grumman, at that time competing with Lockheed Martin and Boeing for the LRS-B ( Long Range Strike-Bomber) released an interesting ad that teased the shape of the next generation bomber.

Earlier today, the aerospace giant released a new ad that clearly shows, along with a B-2 and some X-47B UCAVs, three 6th Gen. fighters: the new tailless concept, already exposed by some renderings last year, features the “cranked kite” design that’s in vogue with Northrop Grumman, which built the U.S. Air Force iconic B-2 stealth bombers the X-47B naval killer-drone demonstrator and the still much secret RQ-180 unmanned aerial vehicle surveillance aircraft.

The so-called Next Generation Air Dominance concept points towards a small and much agile plane, rumored to be supersonic, long-range, cyber-resilient against threats of the future interconnected world, and able to carry laser-weapons.

About David Cenciotti 4417 Articles
David Cenciotti is a freelance journalist based in Rome, Italy. He is the Founder and Editor of “The Aviationist”, one of the world’s most famous and read military aviation blogs. Since 1996, he has written for major worldwide magazines, including Air Forces Monthly, Combat Aircraft, and many others, covering aviation, defense, war, industry, intelligence, crime and cyberwar. He has reported from the U.S., Europe, Australia and Syria, and flown several combat planes with different air forces. He is a former 2nd Lt. of the Italian Air Force, a private pilot and a graduate in Computer Engineering. He has written four books.

17 Comments

  1. Scrap the JSF-35 “Brewster 2” right now and go full bore on this Northrop Grumman design. Nothing to loose with scrapping the F-35 and everything to gain with this design. Northrop has learned from Lockheed Martin what not to do after this Lockheed debacle.

    Definitely does not look like the fat flying pig that Lockheed designed.

      • The Brewster has actually performed well in Finnish hands against the Russian planes.

    • We have nothing to lose except:

      * a thirty year window in which our Navy is stuck with no aerial first-week strike ability against potential foes that are set to modernize in the next decade

      *tens of Billions of dollars in sunk costs.

      *Replacements for a very aged airfleet.

      And that is true if everything it’s detractors believe is true. most of what it’s detractors say is knowingly false.

  2. “despite the fact that stealth isn’t what it’s
    vaunted to be.”

    Really? Do you have any, you know, actual EVIDENCE, or are you just parroting what certain circles on the intertubes babble about? Because reality doesn’t seem to agree with you.

        • sure it was) the second one that barely made it to the air base was spotted by eyesight too?.. and that ability to get spotted ‘eyesight’ was exactly the reason for decomissioning them quite rapidly)

          • Since it was flying on exactly same route during days…Not difficult to undeerstand..or not?

    • I’m kind of curious to the opposite as well. Is there any evidence that stealth is what it’s made out to be? I mean, sure, B-2’s were used with impunity and so on, but as far as I know that was more due to their altitude than their stealth.

      The only case I keep hearing about is the F-117 downing, for obvious reasons. But are there any stories (of actual combat situations) where stealth really made the difference?

      • Here is another thing to think about.

        Out of fleet of 60 (can’t remember the exact number) aircraft flying operational combat sorties combined over their service life. These aircraft going after HVT that few if any (at the time) other aircraft can go after; only ONE aircraft was ever lost to enemy action.

        That looks like a very good service record to me. Also there are numerous simulations and as close to real exercises with F-22s (which are stealthier than F-117s) showing that either you are stealthy or you are a target.

        http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/2/

        >Hostage labels as “old think” those critics who point to the F-117 shoot-down and the presumed supremacy of high-powered electronic-magnetic warfare. “We have one F-117 shot down in 78 days of flying over that country, thousands of sorties. They shot down one airplane,” Hostage says. “And they shot down one airplane because we flew across the same spot on the ground for weeks at a time. It took them multiple weeks to figure out how to shoot the thing. Then they had to get four or five systems to do it. It took them weeks to take it out. I can accept that kind of attrition rate. I obviously don’t want to lose anyone, but good Lord, one airplane over the course of 78 days, that’s pretty impressive.”

  3. F35 and this concept or B2 have radically different stealth designs and approaches. I wonder if they expect to use a smarter wing surface design and vectorizes trust to make this plane so maneuverable.

    The limits of the F35 are mostly a consequence not of being stealth but for being designed for three very different requirements: Marines VTOL, Navy shipboard operation and Us Air Force.

    • Vectorizes trust is not a good idea vs high energy planes such as eurocanards, as f22vs eurofghter exercices teach: you got ITR but you sacrifice CTR; in supersonic is totally not useful.

  4. Of course those are the only three that end up being produced before the program runs out of money and is canceled.

Comments are closed.