In March 2025, just weeks into his second presidency, Donald Trump awarded Boeing the contract for the crewed sixth-generation fighter, the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, now christened the F-47.
Boeing won the engineering and manufacturing development contract, valued at over US$20 billion, beating out Lockheed Martin.
This was the biggest win for the beleaguered company after a horrible 2024, when regulators scrutinized its commercial business, whistleblowers alleged the ignoring of safety regulations, FAA audits revealed cost-cutting measures and falsified inspection records, a two-month strike by company workers, and nearly US$ 1 billion in monthly financial losses.
The NGAD contract was rightly described as an existential contest for Boeing’s future after it lost out to Lockheed Martin for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) competition, which became the F-35 Lightning II, and the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program that became the F-22 Raptor, and to Northrop Grumman, which won the B-21 Raider contract.
The NGAD contract was crucial, as rivals Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman had won lucrative, decades-long airplane contracts for the F-35 and B-21 programs.
On the other hand, Boeing’s legacy fighter jet programs, such as the F-15 and the F/A-18 Hornet, are nearing the end of their life cycles, and the company has been perpetually bleeding on programs like the KC-46 and the new Air Force One planes.
The crucial victory might have extended a lifeline to Boeing, but is the company the right choice for delivering the next-generation stealth fighter jet, described by Trump as the most capable combat aircraft ever envisioned?
Is Boeing The Right Choice For F-47?
When the NGAD contract was awarded, China mocked the choice of Boeing as prime contractor for the high-stakes project.
Wang Ya’nan, chief editor of Beijing-based Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the state-run Global Times that Boeing has not won a major fighter jet program for decades.
“Having a company like this to lead a sixth-generation program is actually very risky,” he said.
Given the US-China rivalry to be the first to field a sixth-generation fighter jet, Beijing’s mockery of Boeing was expected.
However, several former US fighter jet pilots have also questioned Boeing’s choice for a strategic, high-stakes project like the F-47.
For instance, C.W. Lemoine (“Mover”), a former USAF F-16 pilot and co-host of aviation podcasts, expressed skepticism about Boeing’s selection for the F-47 NGAD contract.
In a video reacting to the announcement, he highlighted Boeing’s track record of issues on other programs as a reason the company might be a poor choice, citing delays and problems that could recur with the F-47.
Specifically, he stated: “Boeing has had problems with pretty much everything except for the F-15EX… the T-7 has had a host of problems… KC-46 has had a host of problems.”
He questioned whether Boeing can successfully execute a clean-sheet sixth-generation design given these failures, implying risks of cost overruns and technical setbacks.
Similarly, T.K. Hartsock (“Gonky”), a former Navy F/A-18 and USAF instructor pilot, raised concerns about the lack of concrete details on the F-47’s capabilities and Boeing’s execution.
He implied Boeing might struggle with delivery timelines and integration of advanced tech.
Hasard Lee, a former USAF F-35 and F-16 pilot and author, expressed doubt about Boeing’s ability to deliver on the F-47’s ambitious goals.
He noted that while the F-47 aims to exceed the F-22 in maneuverability and integrate F-35-level sensors with better stealth and IR management, “it remains to be seen how Boeing will achieve these goals.”
All these former pilots have highlighted several key concerns, such as Boeing’s inexperience in designing and delivering a fighter jet from scratch, its lack of experience and technological know-how in designing stealth fighter jets, price overruns, and repeated timeline delays with its existing defense programs, such as the KC-46 aerial refueling and strategic military transport aircraft and T-7A Red Hawk trainers, as well as a host of problems with its civilian airliner aircraft, such as 787 Dreamliners.
Notably, Boeing has not produced a start-to-finish jet fighter project in nearly eighty years!
Today, Boeing delivers the F-15 Eagle and the F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets; however, neither aircraft was designed or developed by Boeing.
The F-15 has been a star performer for Boeing. However, the F-15 was designed and initially produced by McDonnell Douglas.
The program began in the late 1960s, when the U.S. Air Force selected McDonnell Douglas’s proposal over competitors such as Fairchild Republic and General Dynamics.
The first prototype flew in July 1972, and production started in 1973. McDonnell Douglas handled the core engineering, including the twin-engine layout, advanced avionics, and air superiority focus.
Boeing entered the picture after its 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas. Since then, Boeing has maintained production, continued upgrades, and introduced new variants, such as the F-15EX.
Similarly, the F/A-18 Hornet was designed and developed by McDonnell Douglas and Northrop. The F/A-18 was derived from Northrop’s YF-17 in the 1970s for use by the United States Navy and Marine Corps.
The first flight occurred in November 1978, and the F/A-18A entered service in 1983. McDonnell Douglas led the engineering, focusing on carrier operations, twin-engine reliability, and multirole capabilities.
Following the 1997 merger with McDonnell Douglas, Boeing took over production and developed the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
While Boeing can rightly claim credit for redesigning the aircraft and adding crucial features such as AESA radar and improved stealth, the Hornet’s core lineage traces back to McDonnell Douglas and Northrop.
The B-1 Lancer shares a similar story.
The B-1 was conceived in the 1960s as a supersonic strategic bomber to replace the B-52 and B-58. North American Rockwell won the contract in 1970 after competing against Boeing and General Dynamics.
The B-1A prototype flew in 1974, but the program was canceled in 1977 before revival as the B-1B in 1981. Boeing acquired Rockwell’s aerospace and defense businesses in 1996.
Since then, Boeing has been the prime contractor for sustainment and upgrades.
This inherited experience highlights a key vulnerability: Boeing’s defense portfolio in fighters and bombers relies heavily on 1990s acquisitions rather than organic innovation.
Acquiring a legacy fighter jet and handling its production, maintenance, and upgrades is very different from designing a fighter aircraft from scratch.
Even in Boeing’s in-house defense platforms built from scratch, such as the KC-46 Pegasus tanker and T-7A trainer, there have been several issues, including cost overruns, repeated schedule delays, and manufacturing defects.
Another crucial concern is Boeing’s lack of experience in designing stealth fighter jets compared to competitors such as Lockheed Martin (F-117, F-22, F-35) and Northrop Grumman (B-2, B-21).
However, it must be noted that Boeing has some experience with stealth fighters.
It designed the Bird of Prey, a stealth demonstrator in the 1990s that pioneered “gapless” control surfaces and shielded engine intakes to reduce radar visibility. It flew 38 times and influenced modern stealth designs.
Additionally, Boeing designed the X-32, its official entry in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) competition in the early 2000s, which was a stealth-capable prototype but lost to Lockheed’s X-35 (which became the F-35).
However, Boeing has never fielded a fully operational stealth fighter in production.
This puts them at a disadvantage, especially because the F-47 is envisioned as a highly stealthy platform.
While the F-35 is considered a stealth platform, and the F-22 is tagged stealth+, the F-47 is envisioned as a stealth++ platform.
Critics argue that, given Boeing’s lack of decades of advanced fighter R&D and design experience, the F-47 will be a problem-plagued debacle of the sort Lockheed faced with the F-104 Starfighter and General Dynamics and Grumman faced with their jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none Vietnam-era F-111 “Aardvark.”
For the US, a lot is riding on the F-47, as it sits at the core of the US Air Force’s Next-Generation Air Dominance initiative, a program intended to replace the F-22 Raptor and secure air superiority against near-peer competitors for the next three to four decades.
Introducing the plane, Trump has said that “nothing in the world comes even close to it, and it’ll be known as the F-47.”
It remains to be seen if Boeing can deliver on these expectations and make history.
- Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from the University of Sheffield, UK.
- VIEWS PERSONAL OF THE AUTHOR.
- He can be reached at ahlawat.sumit85 (at) gmail.com
