US Navy 6th Gen Fighter - F/A-XX

quellish said:
... how they already have a plan beyond AIM-174 (i.e. it is an interim capability, something more lethal and longer range is coming).
Click to expand...
Couldn't RADM Donnelly be referring to the AIM-260 aka JATM?
I'm guessing JATM has twice 150% the range of the Navy's proposed AIM-152 AAAM outer air battle missile from 40 years ago.
 
Last edited:
joewee said:
Couldn't RADM Donnelly be referring to the AIM-260 aka JATM?
I'm guessing JATM has twice the range of the Navy's proposed AIM-152 AAAM outer air battle missile from 40 years ago.
Click to expand...

Probably that and another new weapon that has not been discussed very openly and is in early development. The AIM-174 will probably go away once the Navy has the 260 in quantity.
 
Probably the counterpart to China's recent 800-1000km hypersonic A2A missile. The LREW or whatever it would be called.
 
I remain convinced not having enough air-to-air capability and the performance characteristics which are good for that role would be a mistake on the Navy's part. I wouldn't expect F-22 class supermaneuvrability or a similarly high T/W ratio at loaded weight, but I think it needs to be able to get up high and fast pretty quickly for interception. I don't see why the air-to-air requirements the Navy should desire IMHO and the strike requirements have to be mutually exclusive in this case.

Having a new generation of air-to-air missiles at their disposal is critical and I hope the USN is on track for that between the AIM-174, AIM-260, and whatever else in the works. But the ability to launch those missiles in a better position (higher, faster, closer to a fleeting target) has never been a bad thing.
 
insidersource said:
Compared to the A-5A your F/A-XX numbers are still way off. You want ~80% more internal weapon bay volume, 86% more internal fuel capacity yet only a 22% empty weight increase.

The A-5 frame isn't rated for BFM levels G forces and it doesn't have a 8,000+ hour service life. This extra strength increases empty weight.

The A-5 has engines that are nearly half the thrust. This means the intake ducts are narrower taking up less volume/weight. Even if the F/A-XX engines weighed the same as the J79 the intakes need double the flow.

Extrapolating from an aircraft that flew over 50 years ago makes no sense. The F-22 and F-35C are the perfect examples as they use modern materials. Your F/A-XX estimates are saying that the F-35C and F-22 are overweight by 20+%. But it is your estimates that are wrong by 20+%.

The X-32 comparison is also bad because it was a prototype and they are always lighter than the operational variant.



Your 40klb empty weight and 28klb internal fuel estimates would give a combat radius far beyond the quoted 25% increase. Compared to the F-35C your numbers gives 41.8% more internal fuel capacity with only a 15.7% empty weight increase. This easily provides ~30% more range over the F-35C.

My more realistic F/A-XX estimates of 45klb empty weight and 25klb internal fuel match the US Navy range requirement and extrapolate nicely from the F-22/F-35C weights.



I will estimate a USAF version using my F/A-XX weight estimates of 45klb empty and 25klb internal fuel. Remove 2,000lb of empty weight due to fitting a lighter landing gear, hook and a few key bulkheads that take landing loads can be lightened. This brings the empty weight to the exact same as the F-22.

The internal weapon capacity of my F/A-XX estimate gives 2x JASSM and 2x AMRAAM. I will then place an internal weapon bay fuel tank where the two JASSM missiles are located that has mounting points for 4x AMRAAM. The internal fuel tank takes up the extra depth and length of the bay and now provides 6 AMRAAM class missiles internally. This fuel tank holds ~3,000lb of extra fuel.

The USAF air-to-air version of F/A-XX then has an empty weight of 43,000lb and internal fuel of 28,000lb. Compared to the F-22 my estimates have 55% more internal fuel with identical empty weight and engine thrust. The new adaptive engines are much more efficient than the very low bypass F119 engines. The F-22 currently has a 750nm (1,389 km) combat radius with two 600 gallon tanks. My numbers easily exceed the 1,800km minimum combat radius that the USAF was talking about. It could nearly do that without the drop tanks.

The same design with 90+% commonality could easily satisfy the USAF long range air-to-air requirement while still fitting on the aircraft carrier with a pair of internal JASSM missiles.
Click to expand...
I think you have to look at F/A-XX in light of the disclosure regarding the existence of a long range Navy strike aircraft in recent budget docs. It likely informs F/A-XX requirements and also might explain while the Navy is letting the Air Force take the lead on CCAs.

CSBA's recommendations regarding the future carrier wing give some type of clue to how CVWs will be integrated into the Navy's CONOPS.

https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CVW_Report_Web_1.pdf

Bryan Clark later published a report for the Hudson Institute covering a similar topic.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/032922_Regaining_the_High_Ground_Report_Final_Web.pdf

If the CVW will have a UAS capable of a combat radius of 1,000 nm, then a range of less than that might not be an issue for F/A-XX. If there is a modern day replacement for the A-6 then payload would be less of a concern. The F/A-XX might perform more of a supporting role for the UAS?
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I remain convinced not having enough air-to-air capability and the performance characteristics which are good for that role would be a mistake on the Navy's part. I wouldn't expect F-22 class supermaneuvrability or a similarly high T/W ratio at loaded weight, but I think it needs to be able to get up high and fast pretty quickly for interception. I don't see why the air-to-air requirements the Navy should desire IMHO and the strike requirements have to be mutually exclusive in this case.

Having a new generation of air-to-air missiles at their disposal is critical and I hope the USN is on track for that between the AIM-174, AIM-260, and whatever else in the works. But the ability to launch those missiles in a better position (higher, faster, closer to a fleeting target) has never been a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Counter air may come from elsewhere.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I remain convinced not having enough air-to-air capability and the performance characteristics which are good for that role would be a mistake on the Navy's part. I wouldn't expect F-22 class supermaneuvrability or a similarly high T/W ratio at loaded weight, but I think it needs to be able to get up high and fast pretty quickly for interception.
Click to expand...
Recent carrier aircraft have had exceptional low speed maneuverability. Also supercruise requires an extremely high T/W ratio as it's not just about aerodynamic drag. The F-22 at dry thrust has an identical T/W ratio to an F-4 phantom in full afterburner.


B2Blain said:
I think you have to look at F/A-XX in light of the disclosure regarding the existence of a long range Navy strike aircraft in recent budget docs.
Click to expand...
Yes. At this stage it is most likely a competition, demonstrator program. We don't know what the winner will look like. I have heard Boeing is offering a MQ-25 variant for this program/competition.They have already shown a USAF version with more fuel and four external JASSM.

I expect Boeing to win so when I discuss any future force mix I assume there will be a squadron of dedicated strike MQ-25 on each carrier. But nothing has been publically disclosed yet.

We have a long list of unknown programs without photos. The single engine "SR-72" demonstrator, the All-X demonstrators for NGAD. The large secret Skunk works development. The long range strike program in both the USAF and Navy budgets. The unusually secret AMRAAM replacement. After the F-35 public media fiasco the USAF is clearly keeping everything secret.


Reddington777 said:
Gee who woulda thunk there were more efficient and lethal options than to use an massive air defense missile as the primary air to air missile of the next 50 years!
Click to expand...
Yes. That's why I found it a bit silly when there was discussion of extra long weapon bays to fit the AIM-174B missiles in F/A-XX. Folding those fins in with plastic straps...

Generally the range of a missile/rocket is linked to the propellant weight versus the total missile weight. There is no magically propellant it is a simple well known rocket equation. The AIM-7 gained range when the warhead moved from behind the middle fins to in front of the fins allowing a longer rocket motor. This could only be done by the seeker getting smaller. The AMRAAM gained range by making the seeker even smaller but also halving the warhead weight compared to sparrow.

The AIM-174B has a warhead more than 3 times the weight of the AMRAAM so the missile isn't going to have the crazy range figures being posted here. The 130+nm range on Wikipedia is most likely correct. It is five times the weight of AMRAAM and it won't even have double the range. People quote the range of the ship launched version and say the air launched version will naturally fly much further. They complete forget the ship launched version has a booster. That booster itself is 4 times the weight of the AMRAAM and that booster is nearly 100% propellant. The booster has the missile flying faster than the top speed of a Super Hornet so the missile won't have any extra range when air launched.

The future long range missiles will probably look like the smaller RIM-162 and fit within the same AMRAAM footprint. They even have a version with the AMRAAM seeker called AMRAAM-ER https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-162_ESSM

The body strakes of this larger diameter missile has similar finspan of the AMRAAM. So all they need to do is make the rear fins fold and they could make a missile with the range of the huge AIM-174B while fitting in the AMRAAM box size.
 
Last edited:
insidersource said:
They complete forget the ship launched version has a booster. That booster itself is 4 times the weight of the AMRAAM and that booster is nearly 100% propellant. The booster has the missile flying faster than the top speed of a Super Hornet so the missile won't have any extra range when air launched.
Click to expand...

That booster is just to get it up off the ship from effectively zero speed and zero height to low supersonic speed when it burns out and separates, an AIM-174B is launched at ~40,000ft and likely at low supersonic speed so of course it's going to fly considerably further than a RIM-174A.
 
insidersource said:
People quote the range of the ship launched version and say the air launched version will naturally fly much further. They complete forget the ship launched version has a booster. That booster itself is 4 times the weight of the AMRAAM and that booster is nearly 100% propellant. The booster has the missile flying faster than the top speed of a Super Hornet so the missile won't have any extra range when air launched.
Click to expand...
No, the booster only gets the SM6 up to 10,000ft and just over Mach 1.
 
Are you suggesting the Super Hornet can also launch the AIM-174B at low supersonic speeds?

I'm curious what speed and altitudes you think the Super Hornet could launch a pair of AIM-174Bs at.
 
Flying at 40-45,000ft the SH should be able to go supersonic on full reheat carrying a pair of SM-6s especially if it goes into a dive before pulling out to launch them.
 
insidersource said:
Are you suggesting the Super Hornet can also launch the AIM-174B at low supersonic speeds?

I'm curious what speed and altitudes you think the Super Hornet could launch a pair of AIM-174Bs at.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't expect a launch above M1.3, just above the trans-sonic drag drop. And probably 35,000ft for "normal" altitude. Hell, I'd expect the normal air launch situation to be ~M0.8-0.9 and ~10km.

But tell me, how much energy is lost in the surface-launched climb to 35,000ft that would be turned into range when air-launched from that altitude?
 
It will be a waiting game as the drones take "too long" to complete their assignment and return to their formation position.
 
FighterJock said:
It will be interesting to see what happens when we eventually get pilotless wingmen and start to use them in actual combat missions and what the pilots that fly with them think.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately but understandably, all it will take is one tragic blue-on-blue incident and the fighter community will have the ammo it needs to push back on unmanned integration.
 
insidersource said:
Are you suggesting the Super Hornet can also launch the AIM-174B at low supersonic speeds?

I'm curious what speed and altitudes you think the Super Hornet could launch a pair of AIM-174Bs at.
Click to expand...

Why speculate? Ask the Navy/DoD for the answer to these burning questions.
 
quellish said:
Why speculate? Ask the Navy/DoD for the answer to these burning questions.
Click to expand...
I was just asking to see how far off they are.

The Super Hornet acceleration and top speed figures at various drag index are well known. It's not going supersonic at 45,000ft with these missiles that are the same size as a drop tank.

Likewise the specific impulse and propellant weights of both the MK72 booster and MK104 rocket used in the SM series are public. Punching everything into one of the many rocket equation calculators that also take into account drag shows the booster is getting the missile close to twice the speed of the Super Hornet. The faster speed completely offsets the Super Hornets higher launch altitude.

During combat the Super Hornet won't have time to fly a perfect climb/launch profile. The AIM-174B will probably see 90+% of the launches between 20,000 and 30,000 feet and between Mach 0.75 to Mach 0.85. Air launched will then be similar to sea launched with the MK72 booster.

The range figures being posted of AIM-174B are highly exaggerated. The US will soon have a missile that matches the range in a quarter of the weight. Like you said on the last page the AIM-174B is an interim capability. AMRAAMs travel much further when launched from an F-22 flying 50% faster/higher than the Super Hornet. The Super Hornet having to get closer before firing combined with it's higher radar cross section makes it more vulnerable.
 
insidersource said:
The range figures being posted of AIM-174B are highly exaggerated.
Click to expand...
From a surface launch, the RIM-174B is openly credited with surface strikes on maneuvering targets at 500km. It's usually healthy to give at least 10% to whatever is in the open literature. That's at least 550km, possibly 600km if you want to be pessimistic as the opposing defense analyst and add 20%.

And since we do seem to agree that AIM-174B should have at least the same range as RIM-174B, that gives us low-estimate air-launched ranges of 550-600km against low altitude and low-maneuvering targets (cruise missiles, surface ships, helicopters, MPA, etc). Sure, let's chop 50km or so off the edge for high altitude low-maneuvering targets (bombers, AEW, transiting MPA) since we're assuming a ~45deg terminal dive from 100,000ft. Still 500-550km range.

Against high altitude high maneuvering targets like fighters is where the range really shrinks. I'd want to engage those with the missile still under thrust or having just burned out. I think that is putting us down into ~200km, but I'd need to sit down with the spreadsheets and burn times.
 
Scott Kenny said:
From a surface launch, the RIM-174B is openly credited with surface strikes on maneuvering targets at 500km.
Click to expand...
Keep the comparisons apple to apple. Half of that distance will be an unpowered ballistic glide.

The AMRAAM range figures quoted are against fighters flying at similar altitude. If you allow an AMRAAM to glide unpowered all the way back down to the surface it too can fly much further.

In terms of hitting an enemy fighter at 40,000 feet the AIM-174B launched from the Super Hornet will have similar range to SM-6 launched from the ship thanks to the booster.

The MK72 booster has nearly 40,000lb of thrust giving close to 10:1 thrust to weight ratio at launch. It is going supersonic within seconds of leaving the ship. The 130nm range quoted by SM-6 against high altitude fighter targets will then be similar to the AIM-174B against similar targets. This is only ~50% greater than the latest AMRAAM in a missile five times the weight. A massive price to pay for that extra range.

Back on topic in regards to F/A-XX. It is safe to say the AIM-174B has no chance of being carried.
 
Interesting that discussion about the potential designation of the forthcoming 6th-gen F/A-XX is forbidden by the group monitors. "Your post in the thread US Navy 6th Gen Fighter – F/A-XX was deleted. Reason: This is not what if topic, neither designation guessing topic.” I wasn't aware that designation speculation was forbidden in discussions about airplanes that are still in the earliest formative stages. Are there group rules about this, defining different kinds of topics and what is or isn't allowed in each one?
 
We have 1300+ posts in this thread with barely 1% (well, may be little more) have something _specific_ on topic. You can create new topic in Designations section to guess future F/A-XX designation or name like it was with F-47, not spamming the thread with guesses, feelings and bets. NGAD receiving F-47 designation, and last designations given to US aircrafts in common, should give you idea that guesses would be very far from the realty.
With all my respect!
 
Last edited:
insidersource said:
Keep the comparisons apple to apple. Half of that distance will be an unpowered ballistic glide.

The AMRAAM range figures quoted are against fighters flying at similar altitude. If you allow an AMRAAM to glide unpowered all the way back down to the surface it too can fly much further.

In terms of hitting an enemy fighter at 40,000 feet the AIM-174B launched from the Super Hornet will have similar range to SM-6 launched from the ship thanks to the booster.

The MK72 booster has nearly 40,000lb of thrust giving close to 10:1 thrust to weight ratio at launch. It is going supersonic within seconds of leaving the ship. The 130nm range quoted by SM-6 against high altitude fighter targets will then be similar to the AIM-174B against similar targets. This is only ~50% greater than the latest AMRAAM in a missile five times the weight. A massive price to pay for that extra range.

Back on topic in regards to F/A-XX. It is safe to say the AIM-174B has no chance of being carried.
Click to expand...
So you're not reading my responses past the first line or so.

Noted.

I've acknowledged that the SM6 booster gets it to about 10,000ft and just past Mach 1 at burnout. The RIM174 needs to keep climbing another 20-30,000ft just to match the launch altitude from the AIM174.

If you'd read the second paragraph, you'd see I chopped the range against bombers a little. ~500km ish.
And if you'd read the third paragraph, you'd see that I chopped the range against fighters down to about 200km.
 
zebra159357 said:
Behind a paywall

U.S. Navy’s Aviation Forces Eagerly Await F/A-XX Downselect | Aviation Week Network

The U.S. Navy's sixth-generation fighter program, F/A-XX, appears to regain momentum as service officials say they are ready for a downselect.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Click to expand...


"
RENO, Nevada—The U.S. Navy’s aviation forces are gearing up for an F/A-XX down select and preparing to get going on the program, which had appeared to be in limbo in recent weeks.

The need for the fighter remains and the service is ready to move forward on the program, the commander of Naval Air Forces tells Aviation Week in an interview. Although the choice of prime contractor to build the fighter still awaits approval at senior levels of the Pentagon and the White House, the service is ready to get going now, he notes.

“We’re awaiting down select of which prime is going to win the contract and that kind of stuff,” Naval Air Forces Commander Vice Adm. Daniel Cheever said in the interview at the Tailhook Symposium here. “That’s a pretty high-up decision, there’s a lot of stakeholders,” he adds, while stressing, “We’re excited, once they do down select, to move out on it.”

The comments come amid renewed momentum for the multi-billion-dollar decision, after Pentagon officials in the rollout of the fiscal 2026 budget request appeared to slow down the program.


In a June briefing, a senior defense official told reporters that the Pentagon’s fiscal 2026 request included just $74 million for F/A-XX to complete the design of the aircraft as a way of “maintaining the option for F/A-XX in the future.” At the same time, the Pentagon was going “all in” on the U.S. Air Force’s Boeing F-47. Defense and Navy civilian leaders have voiced concern about industry’s ability to build both the F-47 and F/A-XX simultaneously, though companies have rejected the idea.

Since the budget’s unveiling, some senior Navy uniformed officials have pressed to continue the F/A-XX at pace. The service has a “validated requirement for carrier-based sixth-generation aircraft,” Adm. Daryl Caudle, the nominee to be the next chief of naval operations, said during a July 24 Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing.

“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,” Caudle said in submitted testimony.

Continuing F/A-XX was a central theme of Tailhook, the annual gathering of naval aviators. At the event, Cheever tells Aviation Week that “the case is simple” that sixth-generation aircraft are needed to meet the threats on a timeline that the Defense Department needs.

“If you have air superiority, then you have sea control. Those things go together,” Cheever says. “So, you need that fourth-, fifth-, sixth-generation mix. And as fourth-generation comes down in numbers, then you need that … fifth-, sixth-generation mix. And I think the Navy’s done it well with the fourth-, fifth-, sixth-generation mix of what’s coming.”

Boeing and Northrop Grumman are in the running to develop and build the F/A-XX.

The Navy is prioritizing range and survivability for the aircraft. The service has said F/A-XX targets about a 25% increase in range for the aircraft, which is expected to be larger than other carrier-based fighters. The aircraft will be powered by a derivative of existing engines, with both GE Aerospace and RTX’s Pratt & Whitney in the running to provide the powerplant.

The F/A-XX is the nearest high-priority acquisition program for the Navy’s aviation forces, but not the only one. The service wants to move quickly to replace the T-45 trainer with the Undergraduate Jet Training System, and it is looking at a longer-term plan to replace the Lockheed Martin MH-60R/S helicopters.

Cheever says he has become “pretty excited” with how the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump and Defense Department leadership is looking at acquisition.

“I think we’re on the cusp of moving with more speed, more purpose, more focus, more priorities for what’s needed, when it’s needed,” he says. “And also, if you move faster sometimes your costs actually go down because you move at speed instead of stretching these things out longer and longer.

“So there’s excitement there, or at least there’s excitement for me for what we can do in the future, and in the next, literally, year to months.”
 
Forest Green said:

F/A-XX Next Generation Naval Fighter Selection Could Still Happen​

www.twz.com

F/A-XX Next Generation Naval Fighter Selection Could Still Happen

The Navy's Air Boss says he is still "eagerly awaiting" a decision about moving ahead with F/A-XX.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...

The new information here:
Cheever, whose formal title is commander of Naval Air Forces, talked to TWZ‘s Jamie Hunter about F/A-XX and MQ-25 on the sidelines of the Tailhook Association’s annual symposium last Friday.

F/A-XX is “ready for down-select, to which of the vendors you would go with, and we’re just excited,” Cheever said. For “Naval Aviation, fourth, fifth, and sixth-generation on an aircraft carrier is a phenomenal capability and absolutely needed for air superiority, which allows [for] sea control.”

“They [the Navy] haven’t made a decision yet. So that’s what the down-select is. We’re waiting for the decision, and I’m not the decision maker. I’m just eagerly awaiting,” Cheever told TWZ last week.

“To me, it [MQ-25] is the key that unlocks manned-unmanned teaming on the aircraft carrier. So once we get MQ-25 flying, and it’s supposed to fly in 2025, that is the big thing,” Cheever told TWZ at Tailhook. “Now, I unlock all of the manned-unmanned teaming that can happen on the aircraft carrier in the future.”

“It’s got a lot of potential,” the vice admiral told TWZ last week. “[It’s got] huge range.”

“Absolutely,” Cheever said when asked specifically about the MQ-25 taking on additional roles in the future, though he did not elaborate.
Click to expand...
 
Exactly Sferrin, plus it would put the US Navy years behind the rest of the world in terms of fighter development and the F/A-18E/F would be aproaching their end of their lives in terms of take off's and landings on carriers. I would rather have the F/A-XX program go ahead than canceling it.
 
FighterJock said:
Exactly Sferrin, plus it would put the US Navy years behind the rest of the world in terms of fighter development and the F/A-18E/F would be aproaching their end of their lives in terms of take off's and landings on carriers. I would rather have the F/A-XX program go ahead than canceling it.
Click to expand...

Lol, it certainly wouldn't put the USN behind the rest of the world in terms of fighter development regardless of whether it's cancelled or not.
 
In a Reversal, Northrop Grumman may be awarded F/A-XX over Boeing

With the delay in swearing in Trump’s SECNAV, USD(A&S) and DEPSECDEF (8 to 10 weeks after the F-47 announcement), I think the following F/A-XX scenario is a distinct possibility, based on what I’ve been told and what I’ve been reading.
  • The Navy source selection evaluation board decided on Boeing in the February/March timeframe.
  • At that time, acting CAPE Director Payne and others convinced Hegseth to hold off on an F/A-XX announcement until the 3 aforementioned DoD officials are confirmed.
  • The 3 senior officials did indeed have reservations about Boeing taking on both F/A-XX and F-47 (contrary to my previous speculation that OSD was holding up Milestone B approval because of a different opinion on the roles & missions most needed for the next carrier-based combat aircraft).
  • USD(A&S) Duffey, as the DAE, directed SECNAV to issue an RFP solicitation amendment, requesting more information about cost and schedule risks, including detailed manpower/staffing plans, for the F/A-XX EMD and LRIP phases. Essentially the same Program Execution issues first stated publicly by SECNAV Phelan in June.
  • It’s likely that Boeing and Northrop were given 30 days to respond to the RFP amendment. The Navy’s source selection team recently wrapped up its evaluation and has individually briefed the relevant OSD overlords.
  • The long-awaited Milestone B decision meeting is imminent. A final go-ahead by DAE Duffey, with concurrent head-nods by DEPSECDEF Feinberg, Hegseth and/or Trump, would allow the long-awaited F/A-XX announcement to be made.
  • Contract award in early FY2026, government-speak for October/November.
----------
My Query to AI:

For an ACAT 1D program (i.e., F/A-XX), can the DAE (USD-A&S) modify the selection criteria after RFP responses have been received, especially if the government has determined that there is a new risk associated with all offerors currently within the competitive range?

AI’s Answer:

Yes, the Defense Acquisition Executive (DAE) can modify the selection criteria (i.e., evaluation factors and subfactors) after receipt of Request for Proposals (RFP) responses in an Acquisition Category (ACAT) ID program, including in scenarios where a new risk has been identified that affects all offerors within the competitive range. However, this must be done through a formal amendment to the solicitation in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.206 and Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures (SSP), rather than an arbitrary or undocumented change.

For ACAT ID programs (major defense acquisitions with Milestone Decision Authority retained by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, who serves as the DAE), the DAE has overarching authority over program decisions, including risk management and acquisition strategy (DoD Instruction 5000.85). While source selection is typically executed by the SSA (often the Component Acquisition Executive or designee for high-value acquisitions), the DAE can direct or approve changes to ensure program objectives are met.
 
It's just my view, but it seems unlikely that the Government would award both fighter programs to BA; F/A-XX and the F-47. LMT is out - or at least that's what we're told. In my view, NOC was the likely F/A-XX winner since the F-47 was announced.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom