The Air Force Needs The F-47 And The Navy Needs The F/A-XX

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.”