Latest news with #F-47
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Pentagon 'All In' On Air Force's F-47, Puts Navy's F/A-XX On Ice
The Pentagon's proposed Fiscal Year 2026 budget fully commits to the U.S. Air Force's F-47 sixth-generation stealth fighter, while effectively shelving the U.S. Navy's plans for a next-generation carrier-based F/A-XX combat jet. U.S. officials say a key driver behind this decision is a fear that America's industrial base cannot develop and produce two different advanced stealth fighters simultaneously. In addition, previously planned purchases of stealth F-35 Joint Strike Fighters are set to be slashed by more than half as part of a shift in resources to key upgrades for those aircraft and sustaining existing fleets. Earlier today, senior U.S. officials briefed TWZ and other outlets on the Fiscal Year 2026 budget proposal, the release of which has occurred with little fanfare after being significantly delayed, a significant departure from previous years. 'F-47, the first crewed sixth-generation fighter, is moving forward with $3.5 billion in funding following President Trump's March 2025 decision to proceed with Boeing's development,' a senior U.S. military official said. 'The Navy's FA-XX program will maintain minimal development funding to preserve the ability to leverage F-47 work while preventing over-subscription of qualified defense industrial base engineers.' Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth first publicly disclosed the $3.5 billion figure at a Congressional hearing earlier this month. 'We are maintaining a request of $74 million for the F/A-XX program in this budget to complete the design of that aircraft. We did make a strategic decision to go all in on F-47,' a senior U.S. defense official added. This is 'due to our belief that the industrial base can only handle going fast on one program at this time, and the presidential priority to go all in on F-47, and get that program right.' Funding the completion of the design work on the Navy's program will allow for 'maintaining the option for F/A-XX in the future,' the senior U.S. defense official continued. Earlier this month, Boeing Defense and Space CEO Steve Parker very publicly pushed back on the idea that the U.S. industrial base was not capable of working on the F-47 and F/A-XX at the same time. Northrop Grumman has also been in the running for F/A-XX, something the company pressed ahead with after dropping out of the Air Force's NGAD combat jet competition in 2023. Lockheed Martin was reportedly eliminated from the Navy's next-generation fighter competition in March. Regardless, the F/A-XX program has been very clearly in limbo for months now. In March, reports indicated that a contract announcement for the Navy's next-generation fighter would follow quickly from the F-47 news, but that never materialized. A report earlier this month from Bloomberg News, based on budget documents the outlet had seen, had said that the Pentagon was instead moving to redirect $500 million in funding from F/A-XX to F-47, and called attention to the industrial base concerns. 'At this time, I would say pretty much everything is under consideration to get the TACAIR [tactical aviation] capability that our warfighters need as quickly as possible,' the senior U.S. defense official added in response to a question about whether a navalized variant of the F-47 might now be on the table. 'That's really what we're looking at the most, is the schedule of all these programs.' Though the F-47 and the F/A-XX have long been expected, in very broad terms, to share some mission sets, including acting as an aerial 'quarterback' for drones, fundamental requirements for a land-based fighter differ significantly from those of a carrier-based design. The F-35 offers a prime example of this reality in that, despite their outward appearance, there is only approximately 20 percent parts commonality between the land and carrier-based variants, as well as the short takeoff and vertical landing-capable version. Aviation Week reported last year that the Navy was forging ahead with F/A-XX as a distinctly independent effort from the Air Force's Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) combat jet program, which resulted in the F-47. As noted, the Pentagon's latest budget proposal for the 2026 Fiscal Year also includes cuts to planned purchases of F-35s. 'F-35 procurement is reduced from 74 to 47 aircraft,' according to the senior U.S. military official, who did not offer a breakdown by variant. Previous reports have said that it is F-35As for the Air Force that are getting slashed. Doing this will allow for 'maintaining minimum production rates, with increased funding for Block 4 modernization and significant investment in spares of about a billion dollars to address sustainment and readiness challenges.' The Block 4 upgrade package promises major improvements for all variants of the F-35, including a new radar, improved electronic warfare capabilities, and an expanded arsenal, but has suffered significant delays and cost growth. Joint Strike Fighters also need an additional set of hardware and software updates, called Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3), to even be able to accept the planned Block 4 upgrades, work on which also encountered significant difficulties. The U.S. military went so far as to stop accepting deliveries of new F-35s for roughly a year due to issues with TR-3. Starting in May, executives from Lockheed Martin have been publicly saying that their position is that the development of TR-3 is now complete, though the U.S. military had yet to formally sign off on that as of earlier this month. Spare parts shortages, coupled with other maintenance and supply chain problems, have been longstanding issues for the F-35 program. These problems, collectively, have been a major contributor to low readiness rates for all U.S. F-35 fleets for years now, something TWZ has explored in great detail in this past feature. The Fiscal Year 2026 budget request does include $3 billion in funding for more F-15EX Eagle II fighters for the Air Force, which would increase the planned fleet size of those aircraft from 98 to 129. That service is also asking for $870 million to continue moving ahead on its Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drone program, which would support continued work on the initial General Atomics YFQ-42A and Anduril YFQ-44A designs, as well as the ongoing refinement of concepts of operations. When it comes to any annual budget request from the Pentagon, it is also important to note that Congress still has to approve the proposal and fund it. Legislators regularly make changes to defense spending plans, including when it comes to major weapon system programs. F/A-XX funding has notably been under threat from Congress in the past. Many lawmakers have been raising concerns about dwindling U.S. combat jet inventories across the services, in general, for years now. Sen. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, asked Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. David Allvin at a hearing in May about whether he would be interested in receiving additional upgraded F-16s to bolster his force. The Air Force's top officer told Cotton he would get back to him about whether that was an 'advisable situation.' Lockheed Martin has also started pitching a concept for a 'Ferrari' or 'NASCAR upgrade' to the F-35's core 'chassis,' together with a huge and as-yet unproven claim that it could offer 80 percent of the capability of a sixth-generation design at 50 percent of the cost. TWZ has noted in the past that any work toward that end could help provide a hedge against delays with the F-47 and/or F/A-XX. The Pentagon does continues to insist that it has not completely abandoned the idea of next-generation carrier-based combat jets for the Navy, despite its stated focus on the F-47 at present. 'The department is dedicated to sixth-generation capability. So that's where we're going,' the senior U.S. military official said during the briefing today. 'How that's that's achieved right now, the F-47 is on path to be the leading agent of that, but sixth-gen is where we want to go.' For the moment at least, the F-47, and by extension Boeing, has emerged as the big next-generation tactical aviation winner in the Pentagon's latest proposed budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Contact the author: joe@
India.com
5 days ago
- Business
- India.com
After China and US, another country announces sixth-generation fighter jet plans including KF-21 Boramae and FA-50, share a close relation with India, the country is…
Bad news for India, China, Russia as US decides to...., Will Modi-Putin-Xi Jinping join hands against Trump? After China and the United States, now South Korea has also announced plans to join the race to build sixth-generation fighter jets. According to a top aerospace official, South Korea is getting ready to develop its own advanced warplane. At the Paris Air Show, Shin Dong-hak, who is Vice President of International Business at Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI), said that the technology they are working on like the 4.5-generation fighter jets and drones will eventually help them move toward building a sixth-generation fighter. China's Progress China has already started testing its sixth-generation jet, which is being called the J-36. Recently, videos on social media showed the prototype in action. Reports say the J-36 is around 22 meters long with a wingspan of about 20 meters. It is powered by three WS-10C engines. America's Fighter Jet Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump confirmed that the US is moving ahead with its own sixth-generation jet program by giving Boeing the contract to build it. This new jet is named the F-47. Trump called it 'the deadliest aircraft ever' and said that a test version had already been secretly flying for several years. The F-47 will be built at Boeing's manufacturing plant. South Korea's KF-21 Boramae and FA-50 At the Paris Air Show held last week, South Korea's Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) showcased its latest fighter jets. This included the KF-21 Boramae, a 4.5-generation jet developed entirely in South Korea, and the FA-50, a lightweight combat aircraft. Along with these jets, KAI also presented several unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Experts believe that these fighter jets will soon be able to fly in coordination with drones. The KF-21 is expected to officially join the South Korean Air Force by the end of next year. South Korea to test multi-role combat UAV Speaking at the air show, KAI Vice President Shin Dong-hak explained, 'We are showcasing products that lay the groundwork for sixth-generation fighter capabilities.' He highlighted that UAVs are a big part of this future, and development is being steered in that direction. Shin also mentioned that the KF-21 has an edge over others in its class due to its stealth features and advanced AI co-pilot software. It can control multi-role combat UAVs during missions. KAI is planning to carry out flight tests for its new multi-role combat UAV during the Seoul International Aerospace and Defense Exhibition later this year. India and South Korea: Trusted Partners India and South Korea share a strong and friendly relationship. The two countries have been working closely in various fields, including defense. Their official diplomatic ties began in 1962 and were upgraded to ambassador-level in 1973. Over the years, the partnership between India and South Korea has grown in many areas i.e. economic, cultural, political, and military. In 2010, both countries signed the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) to boost trade and investment. Later in 2015, they took the relationship a step further by declaring it a 'Special Strategic Partnership.' In the defense sector, India has also bought the K9 Vajra howitzers from South Korea.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
21-06-2025
- Politics
- First Post
Did US really name fighter jet F-47 after Trump?
In March this year, US President Donald Trump announced 'the world's first sixth-generation fighter jet, F-47. Many thought the number honoured Trump, but there is more to the story. read more On March 21, 2025, US President Donald Trump announced from the Oval Office that he had directed the American Air Force to move forward with the development of 'the world's first sixth-generation fighter jet .' He was flanked by US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, who went on to boast about the fighter jet's 'speed, manoeuvrability and payload.' Hegseth said that the fighter jet promises to be something 'the likes of which nobody has seen before.' Trump went on to interject his defence secretary, pointing to the name 'F-47' for the fighter jet. 'Nothing in the world comes even close to it,' Trump said. 'It'll be known as the F-47. The generals picked the title. It's a beautiful number.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The announcement of the fighter jet's name came as a surprise since it was supposed to succeed the F-22 aircraft. Many soon started to wonder if the fighter jet was named F-47 to honour the 47th President of the United States, Donald J Trump. Well, the assessment might be partially true, but there is more to the story. To understand the reason why number 47 was chosen for the new line of fighter jets, let's first see how the United States names its weapon systems and aircraft. How do they get the names? It is pertinent to note that the US military has a longstanding naming protocol for its aircraft. The rules of the game are governed by something called the 'Mission Design Series', established by the Defence Department in the 1960s. 'This system uses letters and numbers to symbolise identifying characteristics of military aerospace vehicles of direct interest to the DoD,' an Air Force memo obtained by Bloomberg read. The first letter depicts the basic mission of the aircraft. For example, the letter 'B' denotes that it is a bomber and the letter 'P' denotes that it will be used for patrolling. Then there is a dash, which is followed by a number, called the 'design number'. According to an article by the US Naval Institute, this number conveys that the 'aircraft is a specific design of that particular type or basic mission.' The number tends to follow a sequential pattern. However, the article made it clear that 'there are many gaps and numerous exceptions to these sequences.' there are many gaps and numerous exceptions to these sequences.' Since the F-47 is succeeding the F-22, the fighter jet would fall in the exception category. Honouring history or Trump When a journalist from Bloomberg filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the US Air Force, he received the real reason behind the naming of the aircraft. The records from the Air Force showed that the name F-47 had its roots in an iconic World War II fighter plane, and the generals also found it an interesting way to honour the current US President. The records showed that General David Allvin, the Air Force's chief of staff, had an 'urgent' request for information about a World War 2 aircraft. A few hours later, Air Force researchers sent a two-page description of the P-47 aircraft, popularly known as 'Thunderbolt'. Airmen adopted their moniker for the P-47, calling it 'Juggernaut.' Over time, since the jet looked like a glass milk bottle, it was soon referred to as 'Jug'. In the memo obtained by Bloomberg, the US Air Force described the P-47 as 'probably the best ground-attack aircraft fielded by the United States. From D-Day, the invasion of Europe launched on June 8, 1944, until VE Day on May 7, 1945, pilots flying the Thunderbolt destroyed the following enemy equipment: 86,000 railway cars, 9,000 locomotives, 6,000 armoured fighting vehicles, 68,000 trucks.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD How the Air Force was left by surprise by Trump's announcement When Trump announced the F-47 jet, neither he nor Hegseth mentioned the legacy of the P-47. Bloomberg's assessment showed that there is a possibility that the Air Force may have been caught off guard or were just unprepared when the president said the new fighter jet would be called F-47. It is pertinent to note that Trump's press conference took place at around 11:30 am (local time). The email obtained by the news outlet showed that they were sent soon after the presser. 'Sir, Request coordination with SECDEF office,' an Air Force public affairs official wrote in an email sent to Lieutenant General Dale White, the military deputy in the Air Force's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. However, General Allvin's team dismissed the claim that the decision to honour P-47 was taken after Trump's announcement. At least one reporter pressed an Air Force spokesperson for more details about the 'designation for the F-47.' 'The nomenclature system exists to maintain an orderly, non-chaotic process of naming systems,' the reporter asked. 'Why was it abandoned in this case? And who decided to do that?' the reporter asked. Ann Stefanek, the Air Force spokesperson, did not share additional details on the matter and just remarked: 'General Allvin made the decision.' It will now remain unclear exactly when the decision to honour the aircraft was taken. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD With inputs from agencies.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - A trillion dollars annually for the Pentagon: Military spending is out of control
The era of trillion-dollar annual Pentagon budgets is upon us. Members of Congress are likely to increase defense spending by $150 billion through the budget reconciliation process. When added to the Trump administration's fiscal year 2026 Department of Defense base budget proposal, Pentagon spending will total over $1 trillion a year. There are two factors that virtually guarantee that defense spending will never dip below that mark again. The first is political. If a future budget proposal dips below the $1 trillion mark, there will be howls about national security cuts, and few politicians are willing to weather those attacks. The second reason is more practical. The reconciliation boost includes development funding for a slew of new weapons programs — the F-47, Collaborative Combat Aircraft, the B-21 strategic bomber, Sentinel ballistic missiles, underwater drones, hypersonic missiles and more. The services aren't buying these weapons yet, just paying to develop them. As expensive as they are now, they will become vastly more expensive in coming years when they go into production. This is the beginning of a Pentagon spending 'time bomb.' New programs currently entering into development will be vastly more expensive than they initially appear as they transition into the production and sustainment phases in coming years. The American people are now dealing with the explosion of the last Pentagon spending time bomb, the one that started on Sept. 11, 2001. We now pay more on the military than at any time since the end of World War II. Even at the height of the war on terror, with American troops fighting in two separate theaters, the military wasn't spending as much in real terms as it does now. After the Sept. 11 attacks, no one seriously questioned military spending in Washington. Politicians almost universally wanted to appear strong on defense, and so few were willing to do anything to impede military spending proposals. The services took advantage of the moment and launched a series of new acquisition programs, few of which had any relevance to the war on terror. The Future Combat System, the Littoral Combat Ship, the F-35, the Zumwalt-class Destroyer and others were begun in earnest after 9/11. These were all programs that began the last time the national security establishment decided the historical moment justified their profligacy with taxpayer dollars. In 2001, it was the fear of global terrorism. Today, a menacing China serves the same purpose. The national security establishment has seriously lost its way. It continues to spend more and more while delivering a lot of disappointments. All components of the U.S. military are far smaller than they were 50 years ago. The Army is approximately 40 percent the size it was in 1975. The Navy went from 559 ships to 293 today. The Air Force had more than 10,000 aircraft then and a little more than 5,000 today. What the military does receive is delivered years late and typically twice the quoted price. Many weapons systems also don't work too well. The F-35 works less than one-third of the time. The Navy is retiring Littoral Combat Ships decades ahead of schedule because they can't perform the missions the Navy needs. Army leaders cancelled the Future Combat System without producing a single operational vehicle. Today, policymakers are doubling down on the same structure used to create the current mess. While the American people continue to pay for the sins of the previous generation of policymakers, today's military leaders are setting up at least the next two generations for even more disastrous Pentagon spending. Defense spending has increased nearly 50 percent since 2000. The post-9/11 spending time bomb accounts for a significant portion of that increase. In 20 years, the American people could easily be spending $2 to $3 trillion a year to cover the obligations made today. The Trump administration still has a good opportunity to establish a better path forward. The first step is to reevaluate the strategy that underpins military policies. The world has changed over the last decade. China is facing mounting political, economic and demographic challenges. The U.S. no longer has massive forces fighting overseas. Before proposing gigantic new military spending, the administration should first formulate an updated strategy that can guide policy decisions. By doing things backwards, the entire national security establishment gives the appearance of making the defense budget itself the strategy. Dan Grazier is a senior fellow and program director at the Stimson Center. He is a former Marine Corps captain who served tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
11-06-2025
- Business
- The Hill
A trillion dollars annually for the Pentagon: Military spending is out of control
The era of trillion-dollar annual Pentagon budgets is upon us. Members of Congress are likely to increase defense spending by $150 billion through the budget reconciliation process. When added to the Trump administration's fiscal year 2026 Department of Defense base budget proposal, Pentagon spending will total over $1 trillion a year. There are two factors that virtually guarantee that defense spending will never dip below that mark again. The first is political. If a future budget proposal dips below the $1 trillion mark, there will be howls about national security cuts, and few politicians are willing to weather those attacks. The second reason is more practical. The reconciliation boost includes development funding for a slew of new weapons programs — the F-47, Collaborative Combat Aircraft, the B-21 strategic bomber, Sentinel ballistic missiles, underwater drones, hypersonic missiles and more. The services aren't buying these weapons yet, just paying to develop them. As expensive as they are now, they will become vastly more expensive in coming years when they go into production. This is the beginning of a Pentagon spending 'time bomb.' New programs currently entering into development will be vastly more expensive than they initially appear as they transition into the production and sustainment phases in coming years. The American people are now dealing with the explosion of the last Pentagon spending time bomb, the one that started on Sept. 11, 2001. We now pay more on the military than at any time since the end of World War II. Even at the height of the war on terror, with American troops fighting in two separate theaters, the military wasn't spending as much in real terms as it does now. After the Sept. 11 attacks, no one seriously questioned military spending in Washington. Politicians almost universally wanted to appear strong on defense, and so few were willing to do anything to impede military spending proposals. The services took advantage of the moment and launched a series of new acquisition programs, few of which had any relevance to the war on terror. The Future Combat System, the Littoral Combat Ship, the F-35, the Zumwalt-class Destroyer and others were begun in earnest after 9/11. These were all programs that began the last time the national security establishment decided the historical moment justified their profligacy with taxpayer dollars. In 2001, it was the fear of global terrorism. Today, a menacing China serves the same purpose. The national security establishment has seriously lost its way. It continues to spend more and more while delivering a lot of disappointments. All components of the U.S. military are far smaller than they were 50 years ago. The Army is approximately 40 percent the size it was in 1975. The Navy went from 559 ships to 293 today. The Air Force had more than 10,000 aircraft then and a little more than 5,000 today. What the military does receive is delivered years late and typically twice the quoted price. Many weapons systems also don't work too well. The F-35 works less than one-third of the time. The Navy is retiring Littoral Combat Ships decades ahead of schedule because they can't perform the missions the Navy needs. Army leaders cancelled the Future Combat System without producing a single operational vehicle. Today, policymakers are doubling down on the same structure used to create the current mess. While the American people continue to pay for the sins of the previous generation of policymakers, today's military leaders are setting up at least the next two generations for even more disastrous Pentagon spending. Defense spending has increased nearly 50 percent since 2000. The post-9/11 spending time bomb accounts for a significant portion of that increase. In 20 years, the American people could easily be spending $2 to $3 trillion a year to cover the obligations made today. The Trump administration still has a good opportunity to establish a better path forward. The first step is to reevaluate the strategy that underpins military policies. The world has changed over the last decade. China is facing mounting political, economic and demographic challenges. The U.S. no longer has massive forces fighting overseas. Before proposing gigantic new military spending, the administration should first formulate an updated strategy that can guide policy decisions. By doing things backwards, the entire national security establishment gives the appearance of making the defense budget itself the strategy. Dan Grazier is a senior fellow and program director at the Stimson Center. He is a former Marine Corps captain who served tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
