Did the Trump administration move too quickly to commit to the F-47?
On March 21, President Donald Trump announced that Boeing was being awarded the contract to develop the Next Generation Air Dominance fighter, or NGAD, now called the F-47 — a major commitment by the Trump administration.
As outgoing secretary of the Air Force in the Biden administration, I had the opportunity to make that decision but I chose to defer it until after the presidential election. Why? At first glance, the decision to ensure the U.S. Air Force has the most capable manned fighter in the world doesn't seem to be a tough call.
But Congress needs to look beyond the obvious appeal of this advanced aircraft and ask the Trump administration some hard questions: Is this the right airplane for our defense strategy? Is it affordable? Does it displace higher priorities? I deferred the NGAD decision because I didn't have those answers before I left the Department of the Air Force — and it's unclear whether the Trump administration has them now.
I started the NGAD program in 2015, when I was under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and Logistics. At the time, I launched the Aerospace Innovation Initiative, or AII, to build experimental prototypes, known as X-planes, that would develop and test high-risk and high-payoff technologies for the next generation of fighters after the F-35, while also supporting competition and maintaining cutting-edge aircraft design teams in the defense industrial base. This program successfully produced the technologies that are the basis for the designs that competed to become the F-47.
Following AII's success, the Air Force moved on to developing more detailed tactical designs with all the features and subsystems required to support the Air Force's chosen mission. When I returned to the Pentagon as Secretary of the Air Force in 2021, I found that the Air Force had decided to pursue a follow-on to the F-22, a fighter designed for manned Penetrating Counter Air, or PCA, missions. Such missions involve flying deep into enemy airspace and fighting against robust, state-of-the-art defenses. The PCA emphasis brought with it significant costs — tens of billions for development and hundreds of millions per aircraft for production. These expenses limit the potential aircraft inventory to small numbers. We currently have fewer than 200 F-22s. These airplanes are precious, and we can't tolerate high losses in this fleet.
We don't know what conflicts or warfighting scenarios will drive the Trump administration's defense investments. PCA designs are based on the need to take the air superiority fight deep into heavily defended enemy territory, but we have to ask: Is this a sound planning scenario for nuclear powers like China or Russia? If the Trump administration's strategy emphasizes homeland security and defensive scenarios, wouldn't a lower cost design more focused on Defensive Counter-Air, or DCA, make more sense? Would a multirole next-generation design, like the F-35, make more sense? Would an aircraft designed to work with uncrewed tactical aircraft, like the Air Force uncrewed collaborative combat aircraft, make more sense? The decision to buy the F-47 needs to be the right choice for the future — this is the only new crewed fighter aircraft the Air Force will likely pursue for a long time.
Just before I left office, I authored a report for Congress on the Department of the Air Force that the U.S. would need in 2050. I discussed the strategic environment we could expect at that time and what the Air Force and Space Force would need to do to prepare. I predicted a transition to reliance on uncrewed aircraft that would most likely be controlled by crewed aircraft designed for that purpose, providing superior capabilities and putting fewer pilots at risk. The F-47 will be able to control uncrewed aircraft, but it isn't optimized for that function. Congress needs to ensure that the Trump administration has considered the relationship between the F-47, the Trump defense strategy and the overall future of the Air Force.
Moreover, whether the F-47 will fit into the Trump administration's 2026 budget and future years program remains an open question. When the Air Force created its first draft 2026 budget and five-year program in 2024, we concluded we couldn't afford NGAD no matter how capable and relevant it was. Congress needs to ask what has changed since then.
Over the next five years, the F-47 program will require tens of billions of dollars in additional funding. At this point, with all the other demands on the Air Force budget, including recapitalizing two legs of the nuclear triad, it's unclear whether this administration — or the next — will be able to continue this program. Congress should demand to see the affordability analysis the Trump administration should have completed before awarding the contract.
Congress should also consider whether the Trump administration's future year defense plan and budget will prioritize higher priority investments than the F-47. When I left the Pentagon, the Department of the Air Force had a list of unfunded strategic priorities that were higher priority than NGAD. At the top of the list were counter-space weapons and airbase defense. Neither of these is a direct Air Force responsibility, but both are critical to the success of the entire Joint Force. China is well on its way to fielding robust space-based targeting systems that threaten all of our land- and sea-based forces. We must acquire counter-space systems at scale or China will be able to target all of our assets at sea and on the ground with impunity and in real time. China also has an ever-expanding arsenal of sophisticated weapons ready to strike our airbases in the Pacific. Those bases are limited in numbers, not well defended and each is subject to attack by literally hundreds of missiles of all types. Our new F-47s — and all of our forward-based aircraft — will never get off the ground if we don't address these threats through substantial budget increases.
Congress must demand that the Trump administration provide a national defense strategy with the 2026 budget and explain how the F-47 supports that strategy. The administration also needs to show the F-47 is affordable and that it hasn't come at the expense of higher priority needs. Congress must ensure that the Trump administration provides the needed support for the F-47 decision. Until then, the jury is still out on whether the F-47 contract should have been awarded.
Frank Kendall served as the Secretary of the Air Force during the Biden administration.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CartCon 2025: Tariffs, turbulence and the future of resilient retail
At second-annual CartCon conference in Napa Valley, CA, the tone was electric with anticipation but also laced with urgency. Billed as a summit for the company's expansive ecosystem of brands, vendors and strategists, the event served as both a product showcase and a pressure valve. Nowhere was that tension more visible than during one of the conference's hardest-hitting panels, a deep dive into the complexities of tariff policy and its ripple effects on global sourcing, consumer pricing and retail resilience. The panel consisted of three voices with rare insight into the collision of policy and commerce: Chris Smith, president of Summit Global Strategies; Tim Manning, former White House supply chain coordinator under President Joe Biden; and Nick Stachel, logistics strategy adviser at Izba Consulting. What followed was not a high-level overview, but a granular exploration of the legal, political and operational forces shaping how, and where, products are made, moved and sold. From globalization to geo-economics Smith opened the discussion by tracing the historical arc of U.S. trade policy. For decades following World War II, American trade strategy revolved around multilateralism. The U.S. saw global trade not just as an economic imperative but as a geopolitical tool, creating allies, raising standards of living and preventing conflict. But in 2016, that long-standing consensus fractured. The bipartisan abandonment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership signaled a sharp pivot. As Smith explained, the political center collapsed under the weight of the 'China Shock,' a term describing the decimation of American manufacturing towns due to offshoring. Smith described President Donald Trump's tariff policy as a psychological reset. Before Trump, U.S. tariffs averaged around 2%. Within months, they jumped to 18% in key categories. This wasn't just an economic strategy, it was anchoring. 'It's like burger sizes,' Smith said, relating back to Wendy's psychological marketing strategies. 'Before Trump, we had singles and doubles. Now the triple is on the menu, and everything else looks small by comparison.' Tariffs, he added, have become Trump's 'cat toy' — a provocative distraction wielded without consistent strategy. Even if future administrations soften tariff policy, Smith warned, the structure of global trade has already shifted. Retailers and manufacturers alike are building permanent workarounds. Inflation, particularly in consumer goods, is the slow-burning consequence. While Smith provided the philosophical backdrop, Manning broke down the legal tools underpinning today's tariff landscape. The real disruption, Manning emphasized, has come through the use, and misuse, of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Originally designed as a tool for national security sanctions, IEEPA has been repurposed by the Trump administration to enact sweeping tariffs with little congressional oversight. Manning described the legal and logistical chaos for businesses from these tactics. In just six weeks, the Trump administration issued 17 executive orders using IEEPA authority, stripping trade policy of its usual predictability and process. For businesses, this has been catastrophic. Sourcing strategies built over years have unraveled in days. 'We're in a volatile environment,' Manning said. The cost of doing business now includes factoring in the potential for abrupt, unexplained swings in tariff exposure. Long-term investments have become high-risk bets, and in many cases, they're simply not being made. On-the-ground retail strategy Bringing the policy talk down to the warehouse floor, Stachel outlined how brands are actually coping with this new reality. In the short term, some are fast-tracking inventory from China before new tariffs hit, relying on expedited ocean freight and cross-docking at West Coast ports to minimize delays and avoid customs bottlenecks. Others are making subtler moves — like holding prices steady on high-visibility products – say, a gaming console – while raising prices on accessories and add-ons to recoup margin. Stachel noted that many brands have moved beyond the now-familiar 'China Plus One' strategy, opting instead for a 'China Plus Three' approach. They are spreading risk across Vietnam, India and Mexico, often working with global manufacturing giants like Foxconn that can seamlessly shift production across borders without retooling or retraining labor. In essence, brands are outsourcing flexibility itself. For those planning beyond the current election cycle, geographic diversification is no longer enough. Brands are factoring in port access, transportation infrastructure, exposure to natural disasters and local workforce stability. Some are eyeing countries like Morocco, Colombia and Thailand as next-generation sourcing hubs. Nearshoring to Mexico has particular appeal, not just because of its proximity to U.S. consumers, but because of the downstream economic benefits. 'We're still benefiting from a cross border perspective, from a transportation trucking perspective, from a warehousing perspective, as these border towns are growing, the economies in the small border towns are growing as well,' said Stachel. These sourcing shifts are backed by hard data prepared by Stachel. According to a comparative analysis of emerging manufacturing markets, countries like Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines are increasingly viable alternatives to China, not only in terms of labor costs but also port infrastructure and U.S.-bound vessel frequency. Vietnam, for instance, operates nearly 50 seaports, including Ho Chi Minh City and Hai Phong, both of which have multiple sailings to the U.S. each week. Indonesia boasts over 100 ports, including Tanjung Priok in Jakarta. Even Cambodia, though limited in scale, has weekly direct sailings from both Phnom Penh and Sihanoukville. These figures underscore the importance of transportation fluidity and market access in sourcing decisions. As Stachel emphasized, brands are no longer optimizing solely for cost, they're optimizing for resilience. Both Smith and Manning cautioned that the real reckoning may be ahead. While tariff impacts are already being priced in at the retail level, the broader inflationary wave has yet to crest. Smith called inflation the 'other shoe,' likely to drop later this summer as new tariffs pass through the supply chain and collide with already fragile consumer sentiment. Uncertainty, they agreed, has become the greatest tax of all. With businesses unable to predict future policy, many are frozen. Manning advised attendees to monitor key macroeconomic signals, including treasury bond activity, consumer confidence indices and safety stock drawdowns. Executive orders posted on he added, are the best early indicators of a sudden policy shift. What retailers are saying – and doing The audience at CartCon also offered candid perspectives. Through real-time polling, attendees offered a rare window into how brands are navigating the chaos. Asked what recent policy had most affected their supply chains, 68% cited China tariffs, with an additional 24% naming de minimis enforcement, or stricter checks on duty-free, low-value imports. In a sign of just how volatile the environment has become, 64% said they revisit their sourcing strategies quarterly. And nearly half, 47%, have responded by raising prices. Twenty-nine percent have changed sourcing countries, while 18% are simply eating the cost. Looking ahead, most brands aren't betting on reshoring. Asked if they expect to source more from the U.S. in five years, 70% said their sourcing would remain about the same, and 30% expected an increase. No one expected to source less. It was a striking rebuke of the idea that domestic manufacturing is due for a renaissance, at least for the retail segment. Tariffs and uncertainty are already impacting consumer demand. Thirty percent of respondents said they expect a consumer slowdown by Q4 2025, while 45% said they're already feeling one. And yet, the vast majority, 82%, said they are not cutting marketing budgets in response. In today's environment, visibility is survival. In a forward-looking poll, 81% of respondents said online shopping will be the dominant channel in the next decade, compared to just 6% for stores. Even more striking, 75% believe direct-to-consumer models can still succeed, suggesting that agility, not abandonment, is the key to survival. The post CartCon 2025: Tariffs, turbulence and the future of resilient retail appeared first on FreightWaves. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Boston Globe
5 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
‘It's a net positive for us.' For some US manufacturers, Trump tariffs pay off
AccuRounds is exactly the kind of high-end manufacturing company that's supposed to benefit from the Trump tariffs —and right now the plan seems to be working. After a sluggish 2024, AccuRounds workers are putting in overtime as they transform steel rods into hundreds of highly specialized industrial gadgets, and the company is looking to hire. Revenues were up by 20 percent in the first quarter of 2025 and Tamasi expects the same for the current quarter. Revenues last year came to about $20 million, he said. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up AccuRounds makes precisely machined pieces of metal that mostly go inside bigger machines, ranging from commercial aircraft to industrial robots to drug manufacturing systems. For instance, one component goes into a pump that excretes the glue used to assemble iPhones. Another is a driveshaft that's found in most of the machines used worldwide to make influenza vaccines. Advertisement AccuRounds also makes surgical tools such as trephenes, the razor-sharp cookie cutters used to extract diseased corneas from human eyes during transplant procedures. AccuRounds even makes components for high-end flutes played by professional musicians. Advertisement AccuRounds is nothing like the grimy machine shops of old. It's clean and well-lit, with a multitude of computer-guided milling machines, each costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Plexiglass windows on each machine are splashed by a constant spray of cutting oil, which cools and lubricates the cutting tools and washes away metal debris. Twelve-foot steel rods are fed into the mill, where they're automatically shaped, drilled and cut into the proper shape, then dropped into a finished-parts bin. Lately the company's installed robotic arms at some of the milling machines. Made by Universal Robots, a Danish company owned by North Reading-based That doesn't mean fewer jobs, Tamasi said, just different ones. 'It's a commitment that we've made to our team here, that technology, The company's recent revenue surge began right after the re-election of Donald Trump, who'd campaigned on a promise to revive US manufacturing by levying high tariffs on imports. 'It was the end of November, early December,' said Tamasi. 'That's when we started to see things turn.' One customer who had been purchasing from machine shops in Singapore and China told Tamasi that the impending tariffs had cause a change of heart. 'They mentioned they spent a couple of years farming work out,' Tamasi said. 'Now they're looking at bringing that work back.' Advertisement Mark Curtin inspected a finished product at AccuRounds. Matthew J. Lee/Globe Staff It's a reminder that tariffs aren't all bad. And AccuRounds isn't the only local manufacturer to benefit. Canton-based Company president Brian Buyea said that even before Trump took office, he was hearing from customers looking to 'reshore' their supply chain with US-made circuit boards. 'Now you start to add the tariffs on top of that, it's started to give us a little more of a positive boost,' Buyea said. Because the Trump administration has so frequently raised and lowered its proposed tariff rates, Buyea couldn't predict their effect on Remtec's revenues. 'It could be anything from a 10 percent pickup for us, to, we could double our business,' he said. Even skeptics concede that import taxes can benefit domestic manufacturers by driving up the cost of products made by foreign competitors. 'These types of polices inevitably have some winners, at least in the short term,' said Scott Lincicome, economist at the To Lincicome. tariffs produce far more losers than winners, as businesses and consumers throughout the economy end up paying more for products. Either they keep buying imports, and pay the tariff, or they switch to more expensive US sources. Many domestic companies use higher tariffs as an opportunity to raise their own prices. And as domestic orders surge, some companies must invest in new plant and equipment, and their new customers will pay for it. 'Over time, you're getting slower growth and a less efficient, less productive economy,' said Lincicome. Advertisement AccuRounds derives only about 5 percent of its revenue from exports, so the company won't suffer much if foreign nations aim retaliatory tariffs at US goods. But the Trump tariffs make it more expensive for manufacturers to purchase the supplies and equipment they need. Steel tariffs are a problem, Tamasi admitted. He'd happily buy US-made steel but 'the quality and the consistency is not there,' he said. 'We've tried everyone.' So he'll keep importing the steel despite the administration's 50 percent tariff. However, AccuRounds' sales contracts stipulate that the company can pass on any increases in steel costs to the end user, shielding AccuRounds from the tariff burden. There's no way around it, said Tamasi. 'If we had to absorb all price increases,' he said, 'we wouldn't be able to compete.' An even bigger hit could come from purchasing new milling machines, priced at half a million dollars or more even before the tariffs. The only ones worth buying, Tamasi said, are made in Switzerland, Germany and Japan. No US company makes the machines he needs, Tamasi said there's no way he can pass this tariff bill directly to customers, but in the long run it could well push his prices higher. Still, if Tamasi's customers are willing to pick up the tab, AccuRounds is a likely victor of the tariff wars. AccuRounds makes specialized metal parts. Matthew J. Lee/Globe Staff Hiawatha Bray can be reached at
American Military News
6 minutes ago
- American Military News
700 Marines deployed to Los Angeles amid major riots
President Donald Trump's administration deployed 700 Marines to Los Angeles and the surrounding area on Monday in response to the city's massive riots against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. In a Monday press release, U.S. Northern Command announced that it had activated the Marine infantry battalion that the Trump administration 'placed in an alert status over the weekend.' 'Approximately 700 Marines with 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division will seamlessly integrate with the Title 10 forces under Task Force 51 who are protecting federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area,' U.S. Northern Command stated. 'The activation of the Marines is intended to provide Task Force 51 with adequate numbers of forces to provide continuous coverage of the area in support of the lead federal agency.' According to the press release, Task Force 51 includes 700 active-duty Marines and roughly 2,100 National Guardsmen in Title 10 status. Northern Command noted that members of Task Force 51 have been trained in 'de-escalation, crowd control, and standing rules for the use of force.' 'Due to increased threats to federal law enforcement officers and federal buildings, approximately 700 active-duty U.S. Marines from Camp Pendleton are being deployed to Los Angeles to restore order,' Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth wrote in a statement on X, formerly Twitter. 'We have an obligation to defend federal law enforcement officers – even if Gavin Newsom will not.' READ MORE: Videos: 500 Marines ready to deploy to Los Angeles amid major riots Northern Command confirmed in the press release that there were roughly 1,700 soldiers from the 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team in Los Angeles and the surrounding area as of Monday. On Monday evening, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Sean Parnell tweeted, 'At the order of the President, the Department of Defense is mobilizing an additional 2,000 California National Guard to be called into federal service to support ICE & to enable federal law-enforcement officers to safely conduct their duties.' According to The Associated Press, Trump's authorization for the Department of Defense to deploy an additional 2,000 National Guardsmen in response to the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles brings the total number of National Guardsmen mobilized by the federal government in response to the riots to over 4,100. In a Tuesday morning statement on Truth Social, Trump said, 'If I didn't 'SEND IN THE TROOPS' to Los Angeles the last three nights, that once beautiful and great City would be burning to the ground right now, much like 25,000 houses burned to the ground in L.A. do to an incompetent Governor and Mayor.'
