Boeing CEO says F-47 fighter jet win over Lockheed cements its spot in the fighter business. It's back in the stealth fighter game.

Business Insider

24-04-2025

Boeing's CEO said that the US Air Force's pick of its sixth-generation fighter design over Lockheed Martin cements its spot in the fighter jet business. The win puts it back in the stealth fighter game after its Joint Strike Fighter loss over two decades ago.
Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg said on an earnings call on Wednesday that President Donald Trump and the Air Force awarding Boeing the contract to build the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter, called the F-47, was "a transformational accomplishment."
He said being the prime defense contractor for the world's first sixth-generation fighter "will secure our fighter franchise for decades to come." He later added that the "F-47 win is a key step for building our future, cementing our franchise in the fighter business."
Competition for the next-gen fighter was stiff, with fighter jet designs from Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman under consideration. When the latter withdrew from the project, it left only the same two contractors that competed for the Joint Strike Fighter at the turn of the century.
The announcement that Boeing will build the next stealth fighter jet came after decades of Lockheed Martin dominating the stealth fighter industry. Lockheed's Skunk Works built the first operational stealth aircraft, the F-117 Nighthawk, and then it was the prime contractor for both US fifth-gen stealth fighters, the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.
Lockheed's selection for what later became the F-35 program in 2001 was a heavy blow to Boeing, which had worked with Lockheed on the F-22, a fifth-generation air superiority fighter. The coming F-47 is expected to replace F-22, and it is expected to be ready for combat by the end of this decade.
In 2022, the head of Boeing's defense division, Ted Colbert, said that "fighters are an important business to the Boeing Company" and that "we haven't given up the fight in that space. We are continuing to invest in it."
Boeing builds capable fourth-generation fighters like the Air Force's F-15 Eagle and Navy's F/A-18 Super Hornets, but until recently, it had been out of the stealth fighter game for a while.
Lockheed Martin's CEO said in response to the decision that it would not protest Boeing's selection for the NGAD program. Instead, the company is talking about supercharging the F-35 jet, turning it into a kind of fifth-gen plus fighter aircraft.
James Taiclet said on a Lockheed earnings call this week that the company would instead upgrade the F-35 to be able to reach 80% of the F-47's capabilities for half the cost. He said that the effort would be informed by what the company learned in its bid for the sixth-generation fighter contract.
The new Boeing contract is said to be cost-plus, which means the government covers Boeing's expenses as it develops the jet and also gives Boeing a fee that can be altered based on how well the jet performs.
Ortberg was questioned about this and what risk the company was taking with the F-47 on Wednesday's call and responded by saying he would not comment on the contract structure.
He said that Boeing had not committed to any "undue risk." The Boeing CEO added that "clearly, we haven't come off our strategy of ensuring we're entering into the appropriate contract type for the appropriate type of work.
"I wouldn't worry that we've signed up to undue risk like we've done in some of our past fixed price programs, but that's about all I can say on that right now," he said. Boeing lost billions of dollars on the contract for the new Air Force One.
Boeing presented a positive picture of the company's defense business and overall finances in its earnings call, reporting a smaller-than-expected quarterly loss.
It reported a loss of 49 cents per share in the first quarter, while analysts had expected it to report an adjusted loss of $1.29 per share, according to data compiled by LSEG and reported by Reuters.
Brian West, Boeing's executive vice president and chief financial officer, said on the call that Boeing's core defense business "remains solid, representing approximately 60% of our revenue and performing in the mid to high single digit margin range. The demand for these products remains very strong, supported by the threat environment confronting our nation and our allies."
He said "the game plan" is to get the Boeing Defense, Space & Security division "back to high single-digit margins."
He said that "the defense portfolio is well-positioned for the future, and we still expect the business to return to historical performance levels as we continue to stabilize production, execute on development programs, and transition to new contracts with tighter underwriting standards."
When Trump announced Boeing's NGAD contract win in March, the president suggested the US might export the jet, but it would be a less-capable version. The US regularly sells modified export versions of weapons, but that is a notable departure from the F-35. The F-22 notably was never exported.
It's unclear what this will mean for the F-47, as it's still early days. Lately, Trump's isolation of allies has rattled the F-35 program. Some European companies have been seeking to capitalize, but that program continues.
Frank Kendall, the former secretary of the US Air Force during the Biden administration, said on Defense & Aerospace Report's "Air Power" podcast in March that he doubted US allies would be willing to buy the F-47 because of the expected costs and the new attitude toward allies.
Kendall paused the NGAD program last year over concerns about the potential cost — some estimates were as high as $300 million per plane — and questions about whether a new crewed fighter aircraft is what the Air Force needs for future fights. He left that decision to the Trump administration.
After the decision, Kendall questioned whether the new administration rushed into the F-47. Congress, he said, needs to ask hard questions: "Is this the right airplane for our defense strategy? Is it affordable? Does it displace higher priorities?"