Boeing’s F-47, the U.S. Air Force’s newest sixth-generation stealth fighter, may only be the first step in a broader strategy for the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) initiative. This was recently suggested by Andrew Hunter, the former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, in a discussion that shed new light on the program’s direction.
During a recent episode of the Defense & Aerospace Report’s Air Power Podcast, Hunter, alongside former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, revealed that the NGAD manned combat jet effort is designed with an incremental approach. Boeing’s F-47, which won the Air Force’s highly competitive contract, is considered “Increment 1” of the program. However, there will likely be multiple future increments, meaning additional aircraft may be introduced down the line.
This structure challenges the perception that the NGAD competition was a “winner-takes-all” event. Instead, Boeing’s victory secures production of around 100 aircraft for now, but other manufacturers, including Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, could find opportunities in later increments.
According to Hunter, Boeing’s F-47 will serve as a long-range, air-superiority-focused platform designed for power projection in highly contested environments. Kendall echoed this, describing the F-47 as an “F-22-like” aircraft but with significant advancements in stealth, sensors, and avionics.
One of the most notable features of the F-47 is its ability to act as a “quarterback” for uncrewed Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCAs). These drone wingmen will expand the jet’s capabilities, handling tasks such as reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and even combat strikes.
Future iterations of NGAD aircraft could further develop these capabilities, either enhancing the F-47’s design or introducing a separate, complementary airframe.
Lockheed Martin, a major competitor in the NGAD program, was ultimately beaten by Boeing’s F-47 design. Northrop Grumman, on the other hand, voluntarily withdrew from the competition in 2023, though Hunter suggested they were likely to be eliminated anyway.
Despite these setbacks, Hunter’s comments indicate that neither company is necessarily out of the NGAD initiative for good. If the Air Force moves forward with additional increments, Lockheed and Northrop could compete again—potentially as prime contractors for a different aircraft or as subcontractors for Boeing.
Given Lockheed’s extensive experience with stealth aircraft—including the F-22 and F-35—it would not be surprising if the company remained involved in some capacity. Northrop Grumman, which developed the B-21 Raider stealth bomber and has a long history with advanced aerospace projects, could also contribute specialized technology, particularly in stealth and sensor integration.
However, whether the Air Force will opt for a completely new design in future increments or stick with iterative upgrades to the F-47 remains to be seen.
The idea of an incremental approach to fighter jet development isn’t entirely new. The Air Force’s CCA program is already using a similar structure. Companies like Anduril and General Atomics are working on Increment 1 designs—designated YFQ-42A and YFQ-44A—with plans to procure 100 to 150 aircraft before moving on to subsequent increments. The long-term goal for CCAs involves thousands of drones, meaning future iterations will likely introduce new designs and capabilities.
This approach contrasts sharply with the traditional fighter jet development model, where a single aircraft type is expected to serve for decades with periodic upgrades. Instead, incremental development allows the Air Force to field cutting-edge capabilities more frequently, reducing the risks associated with committing to a single design for decades.
Hunter’s remarks suggest that the F-47’s development process could align with the Air Force’s broader vision of fielding adaptable, rapidly evolving combat platforms. However, he cautioned that “time will tell how many increments ever get built.”
While the F-47 is expected to be a top-tier air superiority fighter, later increments could explore alternative designs. One possibility is a less complex and more cost-effective variant, intended to maximize “combat mass” rather than focus solely on elite capabilities.
A lower-cost NGAD fighter could help the Air Force field a larger fleet while preserving the F-47’s high-end capabilities for critical missions. This idea aligns with discussions led by Kendall last summer about balancing quality and quantity in the future fighter force.
Additionally, a cheaper NGAD variant could open the door for exports—something that has already sparked interest from U.S. allies.
During the announcement of Boeing’s NGAD win, former President Donald Trump made headlines by suggesting that the F-47 could be offered to allied nations. He stated that some countries were already inquiring about a “toned-down” version of the fighter, potentially with a 10% reduction in capability.
However, Kendall was skeptical about the feasibility of exporting the F-47. He noted that the unit cost—expected to be at least twice that of an F-35, or around $160-180 million per aircraft—might be too high for most allies. Earlier estimates even suggested that the cost could reach $300 million per unit, though Kendall’s recent statements indicate a lower projection.
Beyond cost, there are significant security concerns. The U.S. has historically been reluctant to export its most advanced fighter jets—most notably, the F-22 Raptor, which was banned from export under the 1998 Obey Amendment. If the F-47 truly embodies a next-generation leap in capability, selling it to allies, even in a downgraded form, could be a tough sell politically.
Still, if the Air Force develops a less expensive NGAD variant, it might be more viable for foreign sales, particularly to NATO allies and Pacific partners like Japan and Australia.
- Another interesting possibility is that future NGAD increments could include mission-specific variants optimized for different theaters of war.
- At a House Armed Services Committee hearing in 2022, Gen. James M. Holmes suggested that the Air Force could develop two distinct versions of the NGAD fighter:
- A long-range variant tailored for the Indo-Pacific, where vast distances make extended range and fuel capacity crucial.
- A shorter-range version optimized for Europe, where airbases are closer to potential conflict zones.
While this idea was reportedly dropped from official NGAD planning, Hunter’s comments suggest that something similar could still emerge through future increments. Even if the base airframe remains the same, modular adaptations—such as different wing configurations or avionics packages—could make each variant better suited for its intended mission.
The idea of developing multiple NGAD variants over time shares similarities with the Digital Century Series concept once championed by former Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper.
Under this vision, the Air Force would rapidly develop new fighter designs every five years, emphasizing digital engineering and modular construction to streamline production. This approach aimed to break the cycle of fielding aircraft that become outdated before they even enter full-scale production.
Hunter’s comments suggest that the NGAD program may incorporate elements of this philosophy, at least to some degree. While it’s unlikely that the Air Force will churn out an entirely new crewed fighter every few years, a more frequent cycle of updates and new iterations could prevent NGAD from stagnating.
With Boeing’s F-47 now under contract for development, the Air Force’s next steps will shape the future of the NGAD initiative. Some key questions remain unanswered:
- Will future increments introduce new designs, or will they be refinements of the F-47?
- How many aircraft will ultimately be procured?
- Will the Air Force explore a lower-cost NGAD fighter to increase fleet size?
- Could an exportable version of NGAD ever become a reality?
For now, what’s clear is that NGAD is not a one-and-done program. The F-47 is just the beginning, and its successors—whether major redesigns or iterative upgrades—will define the future of U.S. air dominance.
As Hunter put it, “time will tell how many increments ever get built.” But for now, Boeing’s F-47 has set the stage for what could be the most ambitious fighter program in modern history.
