Lockheed Martin Out of F/A-XX Fighter Competition: Article Summary and Key Points – Lockheed Martin, despite its stealth fighter expertise, is reportedly excluded from competition for the U.S. Navy’s sixth-generation F/A-XX fighter program, intended to replace the F/A-18 Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler.
Key Point #1 – This leaves Boeing and Northrop Grumman competing for the contract, both facing significant consequences.
Key Point #2 – Boeing has heavily invested in fighter facilities, while Northrop Grumman brings strong stealth design experience from the B-2 and B-21 bombers.
Key Point #3 – Differences in Navy and Air Force requirements, particularly around propulsion and cost, may have influenced the exclusion of Lockheed. The Navy seeks a cost-effective, carrier-compatible fighter distinct from the Air Force’s expensive NGAD program.
Inside the Navy’s Decision to Drop Lockheed from F/A-XX Next-Gen Fighter Program
Despite being the prime contractor on three tactical aircraft that have functioned as the U.S. armed forces’ main stealth fighters, Lockheed Martin is reportedly out of the running for the U.S. Navy’s next-generation F/A-XX fighter/attack aircraft. The future aircraft is envisioned as the Navy’s analogue to the Air Force’s Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program. It would be the service’s next carrier-capable platform.
The F/A-XX would be a sixth-generation design, like the NGAD is proposed to be. It would replace the Navy’s inventory of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growler electronic warfare (EW) aircraft. Both are evolutionary designs of the original F/A-18A/B- and C/D-model Hornets.
The F/A-18 itself started out more than 50 years ago as the YF-17. That aircraft was originally developed by Northrop in the 1970s to compete against the General Dynamics F-16 for the Air Force’s light fighter program.
Removing Lockheed Martin from the F/A-XX program would leave Northrop Grumman and Boeing as the only remaining contenders. The implications for both companies are extensive.
Boeing made a huge investment at its main fighter aircraft plant in St. Louis, spending $1.8 billion on the building of a new advanced combat-aircraft facility at the site of the former McDonnell-Douglas corporation. This considerable investment is essentially wasted if the company wins neither the F/A-XX nor the NGAD.
The Other Stealth Experts
At the same time, Northrop Grumman has not developed a carrier fighter since the F-14 Tomcat—also introduced in the 1970s—raising the question of how much expertise in this design discipline still remains at the company.
Nothing is known for sure at this point, but there are unsubstantiated stories that suggest Northrop Grumman might be the solution.
The Northrop half of the company is responsible for other famous stealthy aviation designs: the B-2 stealth bomber from the 1980s, and today’s B-21. The F/A-XX is supposed to demonstrate advanced stealth characteristics and is also to be a long-range, long-endurance platform. Thus, it would rely less on air-to-air refueling. It would need just the kind of range and payload performance that the B-21 is designed for.
B-21 Raider Stealth Bomber.
One rumor has the NGAD and/or F/A-XX missions being displaced by the company’s B-21 Raider stealth bomber. Another has Northrop bidding for the F/A-XX by developing a smaller version of the B-21 design that could fit onboard a carrier flight deck.
This second option would harken back to the days of the A-12 Avenger program that was cancelled at the end of 1990.
A-12 Avenger II. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
Why Was Lockheed Martin Shunted Aside on F/A-XX?
As mentioned above, Lockheed Martin designed the F-117 Stealth Fighter, the F-22 Raptor, and all three variants of the F-35. These platforms all were designed to evade enemy radar nets, take out targets, and still survive.
The company has also been mentioned as being favored to win the NGAD program. The F/A-XX would presumably need to be designed to carry out some version of the same missions the NGAD would conduct, so why was Lockheed Martin removed from the competition?
According to some reports, Lockheed Martin had fallen short of the necessary criteria to move forward in the competition, but those reports give no indication of what those criteria might be. The decision is also not official at this point, as the Navy is said to be delaying any announcement until there is a confirmed new Secretary of the Navy in place.
The smartest guess is that while the Navy had at one time envisioned a design for the F/A-XX that paralleled some of the Air Force’s work on the NGAD, in recent years the two programs’ development paths diverged.
The key factor here is the very high cost of the Air Force solution, which appears to be far beyond what the Navy has in mind.
In an interview last November, Rear Adm. Michael Donnelly, director of the air warfare division in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, discussed how the cost issue and other items had influenced the process.
Propulsion system design, a major shortcoming of the F-35, was one area where the Navy and Air Force are not on the same page. The Navy is no longer interested in the adaptive-cycle engine technology concept that has been advanced for the NGAD by the two main U.S. propulsion contractors, GE and Pratt & Whitney.
NGAD 6th Generation Fighter: Original artwork courtesy of Rodrigo Avella. Follow him on Instagram for more incredible aviation renders.
“We’re looking at more of a derivative-type engine solution,” said Donnelly. “That’s just one example where we probably are different in many ways from the Air Force. In totality, they are two unique programs from an acquisition point of view and also going forward, so we’re relatively independent of each other at this point.
“We feel really good through the concept development that we’ve got the right bracket for those requirements and the attributes we need to deliver the capability. We’ll continue to look at that as we go through the next phases of the acquisition process and make smart decisions.”
About the Author: Reuben F. Johsnon
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.
Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.