The U.S. Department of Defense has proposed a major pivot in next-generation fighter development, seeking to funnel $500 million away from the U.S. Navy’s F/A-XX program to the U.S. Air Force’s F-47 fighter initiative. This move, revealed in a report to the House and Senate defense policy committees, has sparked significant debate in Washington, potentially impacting the Navy’s long-term air superiority goals.
The Pentagon’s rationale, according to internal communications seen by Bloomberg, is centered on industrial and technological efficiency. “Simultaneously pursuing two sixth-generation fighters risks under-delivery on both,” the Department of Defense wrote, advocating for the Air Force’s F-47—backed personally by President Donald Trump—as the more viable candidate for immediate investment.
The F-47, a sixth-generation stealth aircraft designed to replace aging fleets and maintain dominance in contested airspaces, was awarded to Boeing in March 2025 under a multi-billion-dollar contract. With full presidential support and an ambitious timeline to reach operational capability by 2029, the F-47 is positioned as a keystone project of the Trump administration’s defense modernization agenda.
“Given the schedule delays and cost growth across numerous airframes, DoD recommends a focus on the F-47, giving the Navy’s F/A-XX program time for technical maturity and development,” the Pentagon noted. “Phasing the F/A-XX after the Air Force’s initial F-47 development will alleviate capacity concerns in the industrial base.”
However, this strategic prioritization has sparked resistance from Capitol Hill.
Despite the Pentagon’s recommendation, the House Armed Services Committee has firmly rejected the idea of redirecting funds away from the Navy. Instead, lawmakers approved the full $500 million allocation for the F/A-XX as part of a $3.9 trillion defense and spending package.
The Senate Armed Services Committee followed suit, including $750 million specifically to accelerate the F/A-XX’s development in its version of the tax reconciliation bill unveiled on June 3. The decision represents a bipartisan rebuke to the Pentagon’s reprioritization, even with Republicans holding majorities in both chambers.
Heather Vaughan, a spokesperson for the committee, underscored the lack of transparency from the Department of Defense. “Absent any new information from the Navy concerning revision to defined capability gaps and shortfalls, mission requirements, cost, or acquisition strategy for F/A-XX, the committee continues to support the development of this critical platform,” she said.
For naval aviation, the issue of delayed modernization is nothing new. The Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, once a cutting-edge platform, entered service only in 2001—years after its Air Force counterpart, the F-15E Strike Eagle, had already become operational in 1989.
A similar pattern was evident in the Joint Strike Fighter program. The F-35C, the carrier-optimized version, achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in 2019, significantly later than the F-35A (2016) and the F-35B (2015). The delays were due in part to the Navy’s unique operational requirements and the high cost of adapting advanced aircraft to operate from aircraft carriers.
The Navy often faces additional engineering burdens—such as reinforced landing gear and folding wings—to enable aircraft to operate from the confined and high-impact environment of a carrier deck. These challenges contribute to extended timelines and higher development costs.
The timing of this latest interservice funding dispute is especially critical given the escalating threat landscape in the Indo-Pacific. Chinese military modernization is accelerating, with the country reportedly flight-testing two new stealth aircraft—informally known as the J-36 and the J-XDS or J-50.
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), head of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, warned that any slowdown in the F/A-XX program could leave the U.S. Navy at a tactical disadvantage.
“We need sixth-generation fighters. The US Navy needs sixth-generation fighters,” Calvert asserted during a recent posture hearing. “I’m concerned that any hesitancy on our part to proceed with the planned procurement of the sixth-gen fighters for the Navy will leave us dangerously outmatched in a China fight.”
His comments echo long-standing concerns that the U.S. cannot afford to delay military readiness in a region where China’s anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities are evolving rapidly. As Beijing’s defenses grow more sophisticated, the necessity for long-range, stealth-capable, AI-integrated fighters becomes ever more urgent.
Though still under development, the F/A-XX promises to be a transformative platform for naval aviation. Designed to replace the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler, the new aircraft is expected to have a 25% longer range than current fighters, advanced stealth, and the ability to operate in coordination with unmanned aircraft via “man-on-the-loop” AI systems.
Rear Adm. Michael Donnelly has described the aircraft as essential to future air superiority. “The sixth-generation fighter will be specifically designed to work closely with unmanned aircraft,” he noted, a feature crucial to sustaining operations in contested and denied environments.
Adm. James Kilby, Acting Chief of Naval Operations, emphasized the importance of aircraft carriers in future conflicts. “The carrier is the most survivable airfield we have, period, and stop. The sixth-gen fighter is the keystone of our air wing of the future,” Kilby told lawmakers. “That carrier has got sustainment power, and the thing that delivers it is a fifth-gen and sixth-generation fighter into the future.”
Following Lockheed Martin’s withdrawal from the F/A-XX competition in March, Boeing and Northrop Grumman remain the two major contenders for the Navy’s next-generation jet. Industry experts note that sidelining the program could trigger talent losses, supplier attrition, and long-term cost escalations.
A Reuters report last month warned that delaying the contract award by even three years “would effectively cancel the program as it is currently defined,” as pricing structures and supplier agreements would likely expire, necessitating a new competition.
“Aviation programs that rely on highly specialized supply chains and skilled labor cannot be turned on and off like a switch,” Rep. Calvert reiterated. A significant delay could unravel years of R&D and engineering groundwork already laid by the competing defense contractors.
President Donald Trump’s administration has made no secret of its intent to leave behind a legacy of military revitalization, with the F-47 as a centerpiece. The administration insists that the aircraft will become operational before the end of Trump’s term in 2029. This political calculus appears to be driving the pressure to consolidate funding and prioritize the F-47’s accelerated development.
In this context, the Navy’s F/A-XX may be seen as politically expendable in the short term, despite warnings from defense experts and legislators.
While there is consensus on the need for next-generation fighter jets across all branches of the U.S. military, the trade-offs in timing, funding, and industrial base capacity are proving difficult to reconcile. Advocates for the Navy argue that deferring the F/A-XX invites unacceptable risk at a time when the United States must project airpower across the vast expanses of the Pacific.
Critics of the Pentagon’s funding shift also highlight that forcing a sequential development path—wherein the Navy’s fighter follows the Air Force’s—could perpetuate a cycle of delay and second-tier capability for the sea service. As seen in the past, such delays can widen the technological and operational gap between services.
What remains uncertain is whether Congress will sustain its opposition to the Pentagon’s request in the long term. As budget negotiations unfold and lobbying from defense contractors intensifies, lawmakers may be forced to revisit their current stance.
For now, however, the F/A-XX remains alive, buoyed by strong support in both chambers of Congress and framed by the urgent need to maintain air superiority in an increasingly contested Indo-Pacific theater.
Whether the Pentagon will eventually shift course or double down on its prioritization of the F-47 remains to be seen. What is clear is that the outcome of this funding battle will have lasting implications for the future of U.S. airpower, the structure of its defense industrial base, and the military’s readiness to confront emerging global threats.
