U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin has posted an infographic on his X account that compares his service’s 4th, 5th, and future 6th generation fighters, as well as the USAF’s forthcoming Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) ‘fighter drones.’ Albeit very generalized in nature, the graphic provides us with our first official metrics for some of these aircraft, including stating Boeing’s F-47 Next Generation Air Dominance fighter will possess a combat radius of “1,000+” nautical miles.
Our @usairforce will continue to be the world’s best example of speed, agility, and lethality. Modernization means fielding a collection of assets that provide unique dilemmas for adversaries—matching capabilities to threats—while keeping us on the right side of the cost curve. pic.twitter.com/vqjxCdBYid
— General David Allvin (@OfficialCSAF) May 13, 2025
What should be the required range and general performance of the Next Generation Air Dominance manned tactical jet (now officially the F-47) is a very important and hot-button topic. Being able to pierce deeply into an enemy’s anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) bubble is an absolutely essential feature of the upcoming 6th generation fighter from Boeing. There are strong arguments for putting an absolute premium on range and overall endurance over other performance goals, while a more balanced approach, more akin to a traditional fighter, is also another position being taken by some. We won’t dive back into all this in this piece, but while a combat radius of 1,000+ nautical miles is a significant improvement over other fighters currently in the inventory, it isn’t as drastic as some may think is necessary for confronting advanced enemy air defenses for many decades to come.
Still, at least we are getting clearer indications as to what to expect from the F-47. The 1,000+ nautical mile figure lines up loosely with the Navy’s own NGAD fighter initiative, or F/A-XX, which was recently stated as having roughly 25% more range than the service’s current fighters. Of the Navy’s current tactical jet fleets, the F-35C offers better range than the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. A 25% increase over F-35C would put F/A-XX’s combat radius at roughly 850 nautical miles or so. The closer to 50% additional range over existing fighters for the F-47 would make some sense if the basic performance goals were broadly similar to the Navy’s, but one had to operate from a carrier and the other had the advantage of flying from fixed airfields.
We also don’t know what exactly the “+” represents in the F-47 range figure. Is this 50 extra nautical miles or 250 extra nautical miles? It’s also important to remember that with all public releases surrounding the F-47, from its core configuration to metrics like these, we have to assume they have been carefully tailored as to not give too much away to adversary intelligence. Regardless, these are the official figures we now have in writing.
The graphic also puts the F-47’s speed at over Mach 2, which aligns with President Donald Trump’s comments during the F-47 contract award announcement and naming presser. Exactly how fast it will be able to cruise without afterburner (supercruise) and at what level of efficiency is far more important than its top speed, regardless.
F-47 official renderings from the USAF
Allvin’s posting also states the F-47 program of record will include 185 aircraft, at least as it’s planned at this time. This fits with years of statements from former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall as to how many NGAD manned jets the USAF would likely acquire. With what he laid out as an extreme price tag of upwards of three times more expensive than current fighters in production, around 200 would likely be built.
It was also originally envisioned that the NGAD manned tactical jet would replace the F-22 directly. How accurate that remains today isn’t clear as the F-22’s out-of-service date has become more murky, as has its relation to being replaced with the F-47. But based on the 185 number, which matches the inventory of the F-22 in the same graphic, a direct replacement strategy seems to remain in play at least as a possibility. Still, based on recent USAF officials’ statements, the F-47’s final force structure design seems to remain a work in progress.
F-22As fly off the wing of a KC-135R (USAF)
The F-47 will feature “Stealth ++” as opposed to the F-22’s “Stealth +” and the F-35’s “Stealth,” according to the graphic. This really isn’t a new revelation, as the NGAD manned tactical jet was always envisioned as being a very low-observable aircraft, likely featuring all-aspect ‘broadband,’ all-aspect stealth against radar, and significantly reduced infrared signature. The inclusion of canards in the design, at least in the concept art we have been shown, seems somewhat antithetical to this goal. You can read more about this puzzling addition here. But, as we have said repeatedly since the first renderings of the F-47 were released, we don’t know what has been included for counter-intelligence purposes, and we should always keep in mind that the actual aircraft may end up looking notably different — maybe even ending up without the canards.
Finally, the USAF graphic states the F-47 would become operational between 2025 and 2029. This is very unlikely and this date range is probably meant to indicate the first flight of the F-47 and some of its developmental testing. We see the same date range for YQF-42A and/or YQF-44A CCAs.
“The F-47 will fly during this Administration,” a USAF official told TWZ when asked for further clarification.
General Atomics YFQ-42 CCA. (General Atomics)
Move on to the aforementioned CCAs, the graphic shows CCA procurement as over 1,000 units. As we understand it, that would not necessarily be QF-42As or QF-44As, but across multiple CCA increments with one or both of those aircraft being procured in numbers between 100 and 150 units for the first CCA increment. Increment 2, which will likely be a very different airframe, is spinning up to be competed next. Still, the USAF could end up buying many more Increment 1 CCAs, beyond the 100-150 number, as the overall program evolves.
The 700-mile combat radius for CCA is very important to note. We have not seen a range figure like this assigned to CCA before. Like the F-47’s stated range, this is on the lower side of what some may think is necessary. This would be especially so as it does not align directly with what we now know about the F-47’s own range. The F-47 will be one of the primary control platforms for CCAs.
Keeping the crewed jets on station longer to control multiple waves of CCAs is always a possibility. And, once again, they are probably referring just to the two CCA designs currently being developed for testing. Follow-on CCA increments could have less or far more range. The range figure also fits with the indications we were seeing emerge in the program as it matured, with higher-performance and other attributes being emphasized over long-range. You can read our report on this here.
As for speed, both the YQF-42A and YQF-44A are widely believed to be generally subsonic by design. Anduril’s YQF-44A was adapted from Blue Force Technologies’ Fury aggressor drone. That design was claimed to be capable of supersonic flight for limited maneuvers, but it is possible that more sustained supersonic operation could be acquired with propulsion changes. It isn’t clear if such an enhancement was pursued in the final CCA design. Once again, follow-on CCAs could have less or more kinematic performance based on evolving requirements.
Finally, the graphic notes stealth as an attribute for both types. Both aircraft have some low-observable (stealthy) features, to varying degrees, especially optimized from the critical forward aspects, but they are not very low-observable platforms. Still, some degree of stealth technology balanced against cost and performance will provide a degree of enhanced survivability. CCA stealth requirements could and probably will change drastically in future iterations.
So there you have it, our first official specifications on these platforms from the U.S. Air Force. Although the metrics are very limited and generalized, and we should not read too much definitively into them, they give us a bit clearer idea of the design objectives of both the F-47 and Increment 1 CCAs.
Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com
