That existing app might have clear interfaces according to the government reference architecture that allow it to easily transfer data to other pieces of software. But its probably also packaged to run in its own container. And might have to be modified to run on whatever compute hardware the new aircraft is using. And be tested. And be maintained.
Im not super experienced in this stuff yet so its also been a way for me to vent about the problems that I am familiar with haha.
LRS-B: awarded 2015. First flight: 2023 (8 years). IOC: 2027 (12 years). So much for "rapid."
USAF has only forecast one aircraft arriving at Ellsworth in 2027. IOC is a full squadron of operational aircraft, usually 10 to 20, as defined by the operating command. The best case I could make for IOC assuming all goes well from here is 2029.
What year?
Congress needs to do it's fkin' job. It's become a clown show 24/7 over the last decade or so. When's the last time they actually passed a budget?
To be fair to congress, they've been pushing for award on the contract. They're the only reason it got the extra funding, and gave the caveat that this funding had to be used for downselect. Navy and Congress have both be on the side of awarding it since March 2025.
Because protesting this administration has worked out so well for others. Members of congress filed an impeachment vote for Hegseth and the speaker sent everyone home till after the midterms to avoid a vote.
Ward Carroll said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NR6KcGQKHcI may be mistaken, but in my opinion, the announcement will be delayed until after the midterm election.
Wouldn't surprise me. No matter who gets it there will be a lot of sad/pissed people looking for a camera. There's no upside.
The expansion around STL was purely strategic from Boeing in the hopes that they would win the contract. NG is doing similar in Melbourne to make themselves more appealing for the proposal.
Given the industrial concerns being continuously raised as much as I don't want it I think a preference for Boeing seems likely. If that is the case I 100% agree with the Pentagon concerns raised of Boeing trying to execute both F-47 and F/A-XX at the same time. One will definitely suffer or potentially both or it will manifest within T-7, MQ-25, VC-25B, KC-46, E-7 etc given those programs are already Boeing Defense programs under "Active Management" by the customer.
At the moment I would say it is 50/50...
There are also industry base concerns, as in keeping 3 primes in the business of designing fighters.
That isn't a USN decision though, it is managed above them and if the statement keeps being made that there are Industry concerns it points to a Boeing preference. I don't think NG has the same concerns today with where B-21 is at and the workforce for F/A-XX would be different to Sentinel.
Always count on the Navy to choose the wrong one!At the moment I would say it is 50/50...
I agree they shouldn't but USN has to select the best option they are provided with.
Yep, interesting thought that the announcement delay does alleviate concerns for NG at least. They're finishing the most extensive T&E part with B-21.
I don't think that is reflective of the last ten years of Boeing effort. Right resourcing is the right skills, talent and experience and based on what has happened with multiple programs Boeing appears to have a finite number of ideal people they can move around. They aren't exactly attracting a lot of top tier talent either, emerging startups are grabbing a lot of the top talent with the promise of working on interesting projects.
I take the opposite view. F/A-XX will almost certainly have greater production numbers over a longer duration with some possibility of export whereas the production numbers of F-47 will likely be lower as is the export potential. F-47 export probably requires GCAP to fail, unlikely, and the US be interested in exporting to other than Israel, lower tier nations. Could maybe see Germany if things improve but that seems about it. IMO F/A-XX meanwhile has classic F/A-18 export potential, a cheaper 6th gen.
That is a distinct possibility...
And that budget issues, unless FY27 is somehow passed before late Jan, likely prevent a fast start anyway even with an award.
Based on what I've picked up, this could be NG's reason. The other possibly is that they see Venn-diagram-like overlap between NGAD and a B-21 anti-air derivative. Sure, the former has an afterburner, but the latter has much greater payload capacity. Both are long-range ELO subsonic cruisers. If the F-47 unit cost is half of the B-21 A/A derivative, there's a compelling cost/effectiveness argument to be made. If the F-47 unit cost estimate grows during development, the case becomes even stronger.
What makes you think a heavy naval fighter will have significant export potential? Neither F-14 nor F/A-18E/F were particular export successes, especially compared to the F-15.
Which is why there's no way Boeing will get it.At the moment I would say it is 50/50...
I agree they shouldn't but USN has to select the best option they are provided with.
That's like saying we can get rid of companies that know how to build fighters because a company that builds missiles could build them. We already shot ourselves in the head by consolidating down to three and you want to finish the job?
What are the other options? F-47 will be prohibitively expensive and likely not available for export except to a very select few, GCAP is big necessitating it being expensive to own and operate and will likely have a smaller production run than F/A-XX. No french alternative and if a nation is deciding between Chinese and US Western 6th gen designs they probably don't get to decide.
Not finishing the job, just that CCAs give an opportunity to broaden the base as we can comfortably say 6th gen will be the last manned fighter series built... (very tongue in cheek...)
Mostly because Boeing's track record hasn't been great for over a decade.
