Kendall warns F-47 fighter may not be worth the cost

Former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall is urging Congress to take a closer look at the Trump administration’s recent decision to award Boeing the contract for the F-47—the Air Force’s next-generation fighter jet, formerly known as the NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance) program.

In a Defense News op-ed, Kendall writes that while the F-47 promises cutting-edge capabilities, such as control over uncrewed aircraft, there are unresolved strategic and budgetary concerns. As the official who launched NGAD’s precursor program in 2015, Kendall has long supported innovation in air combat. But he chose to delay the final contract award during his tenure, believing the Biden administration and Congress lacked critical information on cost, alternatives, and fit with long-term defense strategy.

Kendall points out the F-47 is tailored for penetrating counter air (PCA) missions, involving flying deep into enemy territory to secure air dominance, but questions whether such a strategy fits future conflicts with nuclear powers like China or Russia. He suggests more cost-effective alternatives, such as defensive counter air fighters (aircraft designed to protect airspace by intercepting and neutralizing incoming enemy aircraft or missiles) or manned-unmanned teaming systems.

He also raises red flags about the F-47’s financial burden: tens of billions in development and hundreds of millions per plane. The Air Force previously determined it could not fit the program within its 2026 budget. Kendall argues Congress should demand updated affordability analyses and ask whether the F-47 diverts funding from higher-priority areas, such as counter-space weapons and airbase defense—critical gaps in deterring China’s growing missile and surveillance capabilities.

His bottom line: Congress must press the Trump administration for a coherent national defense strategy that justifies the F-47 investment, proves its affordability, and confirms it doesn’t undercut more urgent needs.