Im sorry yeah I see what you mean. I think tthe CVN program is what the GWOT era of military procurement felt like. Id say at least some of the tech that went into the ford wasnt totally mature at the time.
I think it's time to change the thread name:
But it is an F-14, specifically the Bombcat!
This is happening a lot today, but I've read this twice and don't know what you are saying. Are you suggesting F-47 only exists thanks to the current administration, and that his announcement of a non-LO twin-engine F-35 variant named F-55 makes sense because....Skunkworks?
Hey, he said he loves the F-22.F/A-XX threatened, F-35 no good because single engined and stealth... which we're not a huge fan of apparently?
I can think of another naval strike fighter that's twin engined and has less stealth... let's call it the F/A-18E/F Block IV. That's a mouthful, F-55 is better.
www.defensenews.com
aviationweek.com
I would love to see Boeing turn things around.
when was the last time single contractor took both service planes ? (F-4 NAVY to AF), (FJ-Fury, AF to NAVY?)...(A7 NAVY to AF)..I don't recall more.
F/A-XX is not anywhere near OT&E... If F/A-XX was funded it would continue within DT&E. Formal OT&E would likely not occur until the late 2020s or early 2030s given an entry into service in the middle 2030s was the now plan. With concurrency in all these programs though the lines between stages of the development and test cycle blur heavily.
That's my thought exactly, which makes me think DOT&E saying "its in OT&E!!" doesn't actually mean that much in terms of how far along the program is.
The argument I would make is that for there to be OT&E there would have to be a defined set of requirements that the US Govt is holding the vendor contractually obliged to demonstrate. Given we have no F/A-XX contract then almost certainly we have no obligation.
I still don't get what the confusion is. Lists get updated and supervision gets assigned as program advances. DOTE states it has supervision and until they say otherwise that's the source of truth. I don't know what *in* OT&E references other than perhaps indicating participation or they are working out master plan or something like that.
They've definitely been teasing some advanced thing that had a carrier nose gear on it.
They may have, NG apparently had putting a lot of emphasis in F/A-XX it even could be an evolved design based upon the NATF-23. I can't see USAF/USN giving Boeing both F-47 and F/A-XX now you are into another F-22/F-35 arrangement same as LM. Even though NG has B-21, I'm pretty sure they have the resources for executing both the B-21 and F/A-XX. There could even be a role reversal if NG wins, NG as prime and Boeing as subcontractor (i.e. reversal of F/A-18).
That would not surprise me at all, the Super Bug assembly line is expected to close in 2027. Retool it for FAXX or parts of FAXX and it keeps skilled workers employed.
That seems unlikely to me. Traditionally OEMs do not partner up when both are bidding until one has been eliminated. For example NG would have been a viable partner for LM or Boeing for the NGAD while LM, now removed, is a possibility for NG and Boeing for the F/A-XX.
Remember the ATF Program? Two teams were battling (something encouraged by the System Program Office), one being Northrop and McDonnell Douglas (the other Lockheed/Boeing/General Dynamics). Northrop got selected as a finalist, MDC becoming de facto its subsidiary. Had MDC won the ATF down selection, roles would have been reversed. Both competitors AND partners at the same time.
Which is not what I am talking about nor what was suggested. The suggestion was Boeing could provide parts for NG and vice versa. Both are competing directly, not in a team where the best design from their team wins and they help each other out after selection as happened with Boeing/LM, or with what happened with the F-35 where NG was elimated and went on to partner with LM.
