Latest news with #F47
Reuters
a day ago
- Business
- Reuters
Boeing sends contract offer to union members
July 22 (Reuters) - Boeing (BA.N), opens new tab sent a contract offer on Tuesday to union members who assemble its fighter jets in the St. Louis area. The company's proposal includes a 20% general wage increase over four years and a $5,000 ratification bonus, as well as more vacation time and sick leave. Local union leaders are recommending that the more than 3,200 members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District 837 approve the contract when they vote on Sunday, the day it expires. Boeing's defense division is expanding manufacturing facilities in the St. Louis area for the new U.S. Air Force fighter, the F-47, after it won the contract earlier this year. The company is expected to expand its workforce in the coming years, as well.
Globe and Mail
4 days ago
- Business
- Globe and Mail
Prediction: Boeing Won the F-47 Contract -- and Maybe F/A-XX as Well
Key Points Boeing beat out Lockheed Martin to win the F-47 fighter jet contract in March. Now, Boeing may have a chance to win the Navy's F/A-XX as well, and by default. The Pentagon is requesting funds for the F-47, but asked for almost no money for F/A-XX development. 10 stocks we like better than Boeing › The news struck defense stock investors like a missile from a clear blue sky: In March 2025, the U.S. Air Force announced that its first-ever sixth-generation fighter jet will be built not by Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT), the world's biggest pure-play defense contractor and the company that built both of America's last two fifth-generation fighter jets (the stealthy F-22 and F-35). Instead, the Pentagon handed the contract to build the sixth-generation F-47 stealth fighter to Boeing (NYSE: BA). Along with the contract came the potential to generate anywhere from $20 billion to $50 billion in revenue developing the new fighter, and hundreds of billions more from building it. Now, it appears the F-47 contract could be an even bigger deal for Boeing than we originally thought. F-47, F/A-XX-zero Late last month, as Defense Scoop reports, the Pentagon requested $3.5 billion from Congress to continue development work on the Boeing F-47. In contrast, the Pentagon asked for just $74 million in research and development funding for work on its own sixth-generation candidate, a fighter-bomber still described only as the F/A-XX. As one senior Defense Department official explained, the Pentagon made a "strategic decision to go all-in on F-47." The F/A-XX, however, got put on a shelf, because "the industrial base can only handle going fast on one program at this time." That's a curious explanation. Given the tens of billions of dollars up for grabs by the winner of the F-47 contest, it's all but certain that up until the winner was announced in March, both Boeing and Lockheed were "going fast" and "all-in" on developing rival prototypes to win that contest. With F-47 now destined for Boeing, I suspect Lockheed would have been more than happy to go "all-in," to pivot, and try to win the other sixth-generation contract in contention: F/A-XX. Perhaps what the Pentagon really meant to say was that there's a limited number of Defense Department dollars available to fund R&D work -- and not enough to pay for developing both planes at the same time. That would make a bit more sense, and better explain why F-47 is getting $3.5 billion for its development next year, and the F/ A second bite at the F/A-XX apple? At the same time, in a more recent development, we learned just last week that the U.S. Navy isn't entirely uninterested in F/A-XX. As Breaking Defense reports, the Navy has prepared an "Unfunded Priorities List" (a sort of martial Christmas wish list) for fiscal 2026. And on this list, the Navy suggests (hopefully) that, should Congress happen to find a spare $1.4 billion lying around, it would take it most kindly if that money could go to the Navy to continue development of the F/A-XX. Such extra funding, explains the Navy, "will enable Navy to award the 6th Generation Strike Fighter [F/A-XX] contract to industry," and specifically to either Boeing or Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC), the two companies still bidding on the contract, which has been under consideration for more than a decade. Granted, if Boeing and Northrop are the only two companies still in contention for F/A-XX, it's probably not going to help Lockheed out much. But it could turn out to be a double blessing for Boeing. Two for the price of one In yet another twist on this story, Axios reported earlier this month on one hypothetical outcome from the Pentagon funding one sixth-generation jet, while making the other one cool its jets. As the news agency explained, a lack of funds for developing more than one aircraft, combined with a clear need for new aircraft for both the Air Force and the Navy, opens up the possibility that the F/A-XX and F-47 development programs could end up merged. Specifically, "the Navy could end up with a tailored version of the F-47 [as its new F/A-XX] instead" of a completely different F/A-XX developed by a different company. This would be similar to how the F-35 program created F-35A variants for the Air Force, alongside F-35B and F-35C variants for the USMC and Navy. Logically, such a move would kill two birds with one stone. With development of the F-47 so far advanced already (Boeing has reportedly been working on it since 2019), $3.5 billion in new funds could suffice to finish up the F-47. Then, development work on that plane could be leveraged and tailored to create a similar aircraft that's suitable for launching from and landing on aircraft carriers for the Navy. Presto-change-o, the F-47 might spawn an F/A-47 variant suitable for the Navy. Is this how the situation will play out in practice? Only time will tell. But if Axios is right, it would be great news for Boeing -- two contracts for the effort of winning just one -- and doubly bad news for Lockheed Martin stock. Should you invest $1,000 in Boeing right now? Before you buy stock in Boeing, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Boeing wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $652,133!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,056,790!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,048% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 180% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 15, 2025
Forbes
11-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
The Air Force Needs The F-47 And The Navy Needs The F/A-XX
The F-47 6th generation fighter jet was unveiled by President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense ... More Pete Hegseth in March. (Photo by Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images) The United States Navy's annual "Unfunded Priorities List" for fiscal 2026 included $1.5 billion for its F/A-XX program to develop a sixth-generation fighter to replace the aging Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and the electronic warfare variant, the EA-18G Growler. There had been speculation earlier this year that the U.S. Navy would announce the contract award winner, which is expected to be either Boeing or Northrop Grumman. In March, Boeing was selected to produce the F-47, the sixth-generation manned fighter that is the centerpiece system of systems of the U.S. Air Force's Next Generation Air Dominance program. That has raised questions about whether Boeing has the bandwidth to build two next-generation aircraft. That issue even extends to the entire industrial base. All About The Base The fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II relies on a robust supply chain comprising more than 1,900 companies. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor, but principal partners include BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and RTX among others. Developing two fighters simultaneously, with different requirements, could put a strain on the industrial base. "It is true that the leading companies forming the U.S. industrial base for aircraft manufacturing are somewhat saturated with existing programs," explained Sourabh Banik, project manager for Aerospace & Defense at international analytics company GlobalData. "Lockheed Martin has orders for the F-35, Northrop Grumman is producing the B-21, and Boeing is developing the T-7 trainers and now the F-47 sixth-generation fighters," Banik added. "However, the industrial base remains robust enough to undertake an additional aircraft development program in the form of the F/A-XX." A bigger concern would be how the Pentagon plans to fund the two fighter programs, and it could face resistance on Capitol Hill, especially as memories of the cost overruns, schedule delays, and reliability issues with the F-35 aren't yet distant memories. "Congress is more than likely concerned about the costs of having two sixth-generation programs than anything else," warned Wayne Shaw, director of Aerospace & Defense at consulting firm Frost & Sullivan. Yet, some lawmakers may be on board, as it is likely to create additional opportunities and the jobs that come with them. "This would mean more jobs in their districts based on how OEMs and their supply chain are spread out across the country. Having personally toured the Lockheed Martin F-35 production line at Plant 4 in Fort Worth, Texas and the portion of the Boeing EA-18G made by Northrop Grumman in Hawthorne, Calif., I do not see this as an issue as in both cases, what I observed was not a 'maximum effort,'" suggested Shaw. "There is capacity within the U.S. defense industry to design and build an F-47 for USAF requirements and an F/A-XX for USN requirements." Joint Effort Not In the Cards The F-35 Lightning II remains unique in that it was developed with three distinct variants, including the F-35A, the conventional takeoff and landing version for the U.S. Air Force; the F-35C, the carrier-based model for the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps; and the short takeoff and vertical landing F-35B, which the USMC can operate from remote bases as well as from the U.S. Navy's amphibious assault ships. In the case of the F-47 and F/A-XX, the services have different needs. The F-47 will serve as an air superiority fighter, replacing the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, while the F/A-XX will be a multirole carrier-based fighter. It would be challenging for the two programs to find a middle ground that satisfies both needs. "As someone who flew a jamming variant of the F-111 and finished my flying as a U.S. Navy Weapons School Instructor in the EA-6B, let me remind the Forbes readership that we learned this lesson with the F-111 in the 1960s," said Shaw. "The requirements for a carrier-based aircraft are substantially different than those for a land-based aircraft, plain and simple." The catapult launches and landings, what the Navy calls traps, can only be described as "punishing to airplanes." The airframe structure has to be built to withstand the incredible acceleration of the catapult launch and the deceleration of the trap. The Pentagon has attempted to develop aircraft that meet the needs of both services, but with limited success. "In addition to needing a beefy tailhook, another aspect of carrier-based versus land-based operations is the need to have folding wings for storage aboard the carrier below the 'roof.' The F/A-XX will need to do that, whereas the F-47 will not," Shaw added. "Also, the F/A-XX will need to be built for the corrosive salt-water atmosphere of ocean-going aircraft carriers." Trying to develop a single fighter for both the Air Force and Navy, even with features unique to each service, will only add time and costs, and it will still fall short. Compromise is a word that has no place when describing a sixth-generation fighter. "If the US chooses to fund both the F-47 and F/A-XX fighter programs, it will not be the first time the country has initiated the development of multiple frontline combat aircraft programs simultaneously," said Global Data's Banik. "In the 1960s, the U.S. simultaneously funded the development of the F-16 and F/A-18 aircraft under the Lightweight Fighter program. Both aircraft are still considered the most cost-effective and reliable workhorses of the US Air Force and Navy." An Upcoming Win For Northrop Grumman There had been considerable speculation this spring about whether Boeing would secure another contract win after receiving the NGAD contract from the Air Force. As the maker of the highly capable F/A-18 Super Hornet, there was speculation that the Navy's F/A-XX contract was Boeing's to lose. However, this overlooks the fact that the original F/A-18 Hornet was actually a product of McDonnell Douglas, with Boeing's Super Hornet derived from it after the companies merged. "There is also the vendor preference of the U.S. Navy versus the U.S. Air Force," Shaw noted. "The U.S. Navy, by and large, prefers Northrop Grumman, Grumman back in the day, to Boeing. In fact, the Navy's relationship with Grumman dates back to the FF-1 biplane and continued with the "Grumman Cats" during World War II, which included such aircraft as the F4F Wildcat, F6F Hellcat, F7F Tigercat, F8F Bearcat, and, more recently, the F-14 Tomcat, made famous by the film Top Gun. "The USAF and Boeing also have a long history," said Shaw, although Northrop produced the B-2 Spirit and Northrop Grumman is building the B-21 Raider bombers for the Air Force. "There needs to be an F-47 for the USAF's sixth generation air superiority needs, and there needs to be an F/A-XX for the U.S. Navy's sixth generation air superiority needs," Shad continued. "Will it be expensive? Yes. Is it needed? Yes. This is where hard choices will need to be made."
Yahoo
05-07-2025
- Yahoo
What's in a name? Fighters, bombers and modern aerial combat
Aerial combat has evolved from dogfights between high-speed, maneuverable fighters to duels among missile-armed aircraft at long range. In 2015, John Stillion presciently analyzed this transformation. His research demonstrated that victory no longer results from the fastest, most maneuverable fighter destroying an enemy in a dogfight. Instead, air combat today favors larger, less detectable aircraft using networked information to defeat adversaries with long-range missiles. This shift has ushered in a new regime of aerial combat where future air superiority aircraft may resemble bombers more than fighters. The Chinese J-36, J-50 and the multinational GCAP aircraft appear to embody Stillion's principles. The extent to which the Air Force's F-47 and the Navy's F/A-XX embody these design principles remains unclear. Current U.S. Air Force efforts to achieve air superiority against the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) reflect the assumption that aircraft with traditional fighter characteristics — high maneuverability, high speed and small size — will remain the centerpiece of air combat. These include increasing the number of missiles each F-35 can carry, buying F-15EXs, developing unmanned Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) and fielding the F-47 Next Generation Air Dominance aircraft. These efforts are in tension with the changing character of modern aerial combat and magnify the challenge to keep pace with the PLAAF. Fielding survivable bomber-sized aircraft for long-range aerial combat could mitigate these shortfalls. From the earliest days of air-to-air combat, 'seeing first and shooting first' has delivered victory. Whereas aircraft maneuverability and speed were long fundamental to these goals, this is no longer the case. Long-range sensing and extended-range missiles have profoundly altered air-to-air combat. When an information advantage is paired with a weapon kinematic advantage, it allows one aircraft to see first and shoot first. Today, aircraft survivability depends upon reducing signatures to foil long-range detection, tracking, identification and engagement. Speed and maneuverability still matter, but these traits now reside in weapons more than aircraft. Increasingly, aerial combat favors larger aircraft that can carry a greater number of long-range missiles and other payloads over vast distances. A historical example illustrates this trend. Over the past 33 years, the Air Force has averaged a .46 probability of kill for each beyond-visual-range AIM-120 missile fired. These engagements occurred in benign electromagnetic environments. Against the PLAAF, U.S. aircraft would face sophisticated electronic countermeasures, further decreasing each missile's probability of kill and increasing the number of weapons required to destroy a single target. An aircraft's ability to carry a large number of missiles is imperative in contemporary air warfare. Fighters are traditionally small aircraft, which limits the number and size of missiles they can carry. Further, a fighter's small weapons bays constrain missile length and diameter, and thus the range of an attack. These factors leave the Air Force's traditional fighter inventory poorly positioned to capitalize on the critical role that aircraft size plays in contemporary aerial combat. What options exist for increasing the Air Force's aerial firepower in the face of these challenges? One is to field more fighters. Another is to increase the number of missiles per fighter. A third is to fly more fighter sorties. These approaches appear less attractive when viewed in detail. Although buying more fighters, including CCA, could help, the range and payload constraints inherent in small aircraft limit this option's effectiveness. Crucially, the People's Liberation Army's threat to airfields and supporting aircraft, combined with the vast distances in the Pacific theater, may make significantly increasing the number of fighter sorties impossible. Instead, the Air Force should consider nonfighter options for meeting the challenges of contemporary air combat. If the Pentagon moves to embrace Stillion's vision of aerial combat, the size of 'fighters' should increase, perhaps to the size of today's bombers. For example, still in testing, the B-21 Raider appears to possess the survivability and payload required to excel in contemporary aerial combat. Although the aircraft's range and payload remain classified, it is safe to say that they exceed those of today's fighters. Although designed and designated as a bomber, it can more usefully be thought of as a stealthy, networked, long-range aircraft capable of employing a considerable payload of large weapons. The PLAAF presents a resolute challenge to the Air Force. Compounding that threat is air warfare's evolving character, which favors reduced signature and magazine depth over speed and maneuverability. Moreover, the Chinese and other air forces appear to have come to this conclusion and are fielding aircraft that embody these design principles. The United States would do well to pay attention. Fielding larger, survivable aircraft for long-range air-to-air combat would take advantage of aerial combat's transforming character. The Air Force has a rich history of setting new airpower precedents. Now is the time to break paradigms, set new standards for air superiority and strike fear in the Chinese air force. Gregory Malandrino is a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Thomas G. Mahnken is CSBA's president and chief executive officer.
Yahoo
02-07-2025
- 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, 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 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@
