Summary and Key Points: The U.S. Navy is set to choose a prime contractor for its new F/A-XX fighter, a next-generation carrier aircraft replacing the aging F/A-18 Super Hornet. Following Lockheed Martin’s elimination and Northrop Grumman’s existing focus on the B-21, Boeing has emerged as the likely winner.
-However, Boeing’s recent program struggles raise concerns about awarding them both the Navy’s F/A-XX and the Air Force’s F-47 fighter programs.
F/A-XX Fighter for US Navy. Navy graphic mockup.
-The Navy seeks a highly capable stealth jet, avoiding joint procurement issues experienced with the F-35. Despite Boeing’s challenges, Pentagon may rely on subcontractors like Lockheed Martin to mitigate risk and ensure program stability.
Boeing: The Winner of the F/A-XX Fighter Program?
This week, the United States Navy is expected to announce which of the three major US defense aircraft companies will be contracted to build its next-generation F/A-XX fighter jet. The aircraft is one of several Navy procurements. It includes its new-age aircraft carriers focused on countering the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) increasing military presence in the Indo-Pacific region.
Reuters reports rumors that the selection would come this week, citing information the news agency says came from the sources that informed the outlet of the plans of the Navy’s senior procurement staff.
Like the US Air Force’s (USAF) March 21 announcement for the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program (now designated F-47), the F/A-XX contract will be awarded for the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of the program. This procedure is part of every major military aircraft program, which used to be called Full-Scale Development or FSD.
This initial step in the F/A-XX development will be worth several billion dollars. This cost would appear to be a lower price tag than the budgeted figure for the USAF’s F-47. The EMD phase is budgeted at US $20 billion for that project.
The F/A-XX Requirement and EMD
This EMD project only produces a final design and prototype aircraft that will be flown for test and evaluation purposes. Engaging a production line that would turn out fighters to be delivered to operational units and flown off aircraft carriers will be a much larger, separate second phase.
In total, the entire program is projected to cost hundreds of billions over the life of the aircraft’s production and in-service history, which could be decades in length.
The F/A-XX is designed to replace the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in the US Navy’s fleet, which was originally designed over five decades ago. Like the carriers that first entered service in that decade, it is time for the F/A-18 to be retired.
Design requirements for the F/A-XX are calling on the winning design to produce a naval aviation aircraft that can deliver next-level stealth, extended range, and enhanced endurance. It will integrate seamlessly with uncrewed combat aircraft and the Navy’s carrier-based defense systems.
Who Is Best Suited For The F/A-XX Award?
It is unsurprising if those requirements sound similar to what you have read or heard recently. This similarity is because, except for being capable of operating off the carrier, the F/A-XX specifications sound very close to a carbon copy of what the USAF announced on March 21 as the basis for the NGAD program.
However, the confluence of NGAD performance requirements being the same as F/A-XX would be precisely what the US Navy is trying to avoid. Too much commonality might mean the two programs could end up being combined into one airframe.
The Navy would find itself again part of another “Joint” program like the F-35, with the USN having a minority share in the effort. This situation is an eventuality that the naval aviation community has been taking great pains to avoid.
Should this come to pass, the requirements for the F/A-XX would be diluted by the inclusion of the USAF into the program. The per-unit cost would also increase measurably—due to combining two services’ design specifications into one aircraft.
To date, the Navy has yet to comment publicly on the plans for awarding a winner for the F/A-XX program. The newly confirmed Secretary of the Navy, John Phelan, also hasn’t issued a statement.
Initial production models of the F/A-XX are planned to enter Navy service in the 2030s to dovetail with the retirement of the current-day F/A-18 fleet, which is expected to remain operational into the 2040s.
Who Will End Up Building the F/A-XX: Boeing?
Until this month, the three major US defense industrial OEMs—Boeing, Lockheed Martin (LM), and Northrop Grumman—had bids for the F/A-XX.
However, on March 4, LM was eliminated from the bidding, and with Northrop Grumman heavily engaged with the B-21, Boeing appears likely to be the possible option for the F/A-XX.
Under normal circumstances, Boeing, as the company that built the F/A-18E/F, would be the logical choice for the Navy program. However, with Boeing now selected for the F-47, the same company would manage both next-generation fighters.
Placing two massive weapons programs with one OEM is not a standard, approved procedure within the US procurement system and is generally considered bad business practice. The Pentagon has not permitted this to happen in the military’s history. DoD has always tried to encourage competition and avoid any major contractor having monopoly control over some weapon system category.
“It is hard to see the DoD risking so much on just one company that has such a poor track record,” said another expert, a former senior military officer who has advised the major defense OEMs.
But this may very well be the very unconventional and only available solution. The worry, said former senior executives from both Raytheon and LM, is that “Boeing has a stable of programs that are currently in trouble and/or are losing money: the KC-46 tanker, the new Air Force One, the T-7A jet trainer and the Starliner spacecraft” that left two astronauts stranded on the ISS for months.
The NGAD and the F/A-XX together could make or break Boeing’s defense division, said more than one of those that 19FortyFive spoke to. “What is likely to happen is that LM will be called in as a subcontractor on one or both programs,” said one of the former industry execs. “That way if Boeing begins to falter there will be someone there to prop them up—both from the stealth technology aspect as well as financially.”
About the Author: Reuben F. Johnson
Reuben F. Johnson is a survivor of the February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and is now an Expert on Foreign Military Affairs with the Fundacja im. Kazimierza Pułaskiego in Warsaw. He has been a consultant to the Pentagon, several NATO governments, and the Australian government in the fields of defense technology and weapon systems design. Over the past 30 years he has resided in and reported from Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Brazil, the People’s Republic of China and Australia.
