U.S. Stavatti Proposes Mach 4 SM-39 Razor Fighter to Replace U.S. Navy F/A-XX Concept.

Stavatti Aerospace has unveiled the SM-39 Razor, an independent proposal for the U.S. Navy’s Next Carrier Air Dominance aircraft, claiming extreme speed, long range, and a $51 billion program outline. The concept emerges as the Navy accelerates its F/A-XX effort, highlighting the tension between ambitious performance goals and the realities of executable carrier aviation.

Stavatti Aerospace has unveiled a detailed proposal positioning its SM-39 Razor as a candidate for the U.S. Navy’s Next Carrier Air Dominance (NCAD) requirement, presenting one of the most ambitious independent entries to date in the emerging debate over sixth-generation fighters. Released in January 2026, the proposal outlines a notional procurement of 600 aircraft at a stated flyaway cost of $85 million per jet, for a headline program value of $51 billion. It envisions deliveries between 2031 and 2037 and includes a supporting training architecture with 50 full-mission simulators. The announcement stands out not only for its scale and performance claims, but also for its timing, as it surfaces while the Navy’s own F/A-XX program is being re-energized after a period of budgetary uncertainty and congressional pressure to accelerate decisions.
Follow Army Recognition on Google News at this link

The SM-39 Razor proposes an internal 20 mm cannon and large internal bays for stealth carriage of multiple BVR missiles or 2,000-pound precision bombs, with optional external hardpoints for heavier strike and anti-ship loads (Picture source: Stavatti).

That timing is critical: lawmakers have recently pushed to accelerate progress on F/A-XX by restoring substantial research and development funding and pressing the Navy toward a decisive engineering and manufacturing development phase rather than extended technology maturation. Public reporting indicates the Navy’s competition has narrowed to Boeing and Northrop Grumman after Lockheed Martin was removed from contention, highlighting how tightly the service is controlling risk, schedule, and industrial capacity as it seeks to replace the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in the 2030s.

Stavatti’s SM-39 concept, as described in company material, is unapologetically ambitious. The design features a low-observable triple-fuselage planform intended to reduce supersonic wave drag, paired with performance claims that include sustained speeds in excess of Mach 4 and supercruise above Mach 2.5. Propulsion is framed around next-generation adaptive-cycle afterburning turbofans, either a proprietary “NeoThrust” concept or an engine class comparable to current U.S. adaptive-cycle demonstrators. The rationale mirrors broader industry trends, emphasizing improved fuel efficiency, thermal management, and electrical power generation to support advanced sensors and future effects. Whether such performance can be delivered in a carrier-capable airframe while remaining affordable and supportable at sea remains an open question.

The most concrete technical detail in the proposal concerns weapons integration. The SM-39 is described as carrying an internal 20 mm M61A2 Vulcan cannon with a 1,000-round magazine. Two internal weapons bays form the backbone of its strike capability. A forward bay measuring approximately 162 inches in length and rated for 5,000 pounds at 7.5 g is intended for air-to-air missiles or precision-guided munitions, while a larger mid-fuselage bay rated for 12,000 pounds supports a rotary launcher and heavier strike loads. In illustrative configurations, Stavatti suggests the aircraft could carry up to six beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles internally or multiple 2,000-pound class guided bombs, preserving low observability during the opening phases of a conflict.

External carriage is also addressed, with four jettisonable wing hardpoints each rated at 4,500 pounds. These stations are presented as compatible with a wide range of U.S. Navy weapons, including anti-ship, anti-radiation, and standoff strike munitions, as well as large external fuel tanks. The company cites a total design workload of 25,000 pounds, integrated via standard digital weapons interfaces. Stavatti further alludes to future-directed energy weapon integration, pointing to internal power and cooling margins that could support high-energy laser systems once they mature for tactical aviation.

From an operational standpoint, the U.S. Navy’s requirement is clear: greater reach, deeper magazine depth, and survivability against increasingly dense integrated air defense systems. Navy leadership has repeatedly emphasized range as a core attribute for NCAD, driven by the expanding anti-access threat envelope in the Indo-Pacific. Stavatti claims a tactical radius exceeding 1,200 nautical miles for the SM-39, a figure that, if realized from a carrier deck with a meaningful payload, would significantly alter strike planning by allowing carrier air wings to operate farther from hostile shores. Such performance, however, would come with trade-offs in airframe complexity, materials, maintenance burden, and deck-cycle efficiency in the harsh maritime environment.

Compared with proposals expected from Boeing and Northrop Grumman, Stavatti’s approach stands apart less for institutional pedigree than for its narrative. The established primes are likely to emphasize systems integration experience, carrier qualification expertise, and mature manufacturing ecosystems. Stavatti, by contrast, is pitching extreme performance, generous internal volume, and a price point closer to advanced fourth-generation fighters than to historical sixth-generation projections. Industrially, the company proposes to stand up a new U.S. production facility, ramping to as many as 200 aircraft per year and supporting approximately 1,600 skilled jobs over two decades, while stressing its regulatory compliance and long-standing registration as a U.S. defense contractor.

The SM-39 Razor proposal should be viewed less as a direct substitute for the Navy’s F/A-XX path and more as a provocative data point in the broader NCAD debate. It underscores the fundamental drivers shaping next-generation naval aviation: internal volume for fuel and weapons, signature management, electrical power for sensors and effects, and the unforgiving realities of carrier operations. The U.S. Navy unquestionably needs a new aircraft to keep the carrier air wing viable beyond the 2030s, but history suggests that executable risk reduction and lifecycle sustainability will ultimately outweigh headline speed and range claims. Whether Stavatti can translate its bold vision into demonstrable, carrier-ready capability remains the central question.