Recently, U.S. President Trump made a speech at the Davos Forum in Switzerland, stating that if the F-47 sixth-generation fighter jet project fails to meet his expectations, it might be renamed. This statement is not the first time Trump has made personally colored remarks about high-end military equipment projects, but it once again focuses attention on the U.S. sixth-generation aircraft project and its complex defense industry ecosystem.
U.S. President Trump attending the 2026 Davos Forum in Switzerland
Core Challenges Facing the F-47 Project
According to the U.S. military media "The War Zone," the F-47 project, as a key measure for the U.S. to maintain next-generation air superiority, has been under strategic pressure since its conceptual stage to maintain a global technological gap. However, the problems revealed during the project's progress reflect the bottlenecks the U.S. faces in maintaining absolute technological leadership.
F-47 Fighter Jet Renderings
The primary contradiction facing the F-47 project lies in the complexity of technology and rising costs. The sixth-generation fighter jet is set to be a complex system integrating advanced stealth, adaptive cycle engines, manned-unmanned collaborative combat systems, artificial intelligence-assisted decision-making, multi-source sensor fusion, and directed energy weapons. The maturity and integration of each subsystem require substantial investment and time, leading to continuously increasing R&D costs. The cost of the main manned fighter jet project is expected to exceed $300 million, causing concerns within the U.S. government about the scale of procurement. In fact, cost control has become a long-term challenge in the development of the U.S.'s next-generation main battle equipment.
Main U.S. Fighter Jet Models
Secondly, there is significant uncertainty in the technical path. Compared to the established "4S" standards of fifth-generation fighters, the specific technical specifications and operational concepts of sixth-generation fighters are still under multiple rounds of discussion and iteration.
Some analysts believe that whether focusing on penetrating air superiority, serving as a command center for drone swarms, pursuing full-domain awareness, or maximizing stealth performance, it is difficult with current technology to integrate all these capabilities into a single platform. Therefore, the fundamental issue with sixth-generation fighters lies in the trade-offs in technical solutions. From the initial NGAD program being canceled to the current cost overruns of the F-47, repeated adjustments in project specifications and design have delayed the overall progress.
Additionally, coordination between the management of the U.S. sixth-generation fighter jet project and the requirements of various military branches is insufficient. The U.S. Air Force hopes the F-47 can quickly form combat capability to address so-called "high-end threats," yet its next-generation fighter jet project has been struggling to move forward. The high difficulty of the technology and the concept of rapid iteration have caused the original schedule to be constantly changed.
Delays in development schedules and postponed test milestones have become common phenomena, which directly led to Trump's public dissatisfaction with the F-47, exposing the contradiction between forward-looking R&D and urgent operational needs under the current U.S. defense acquisition system.
F-35 Fighter Jets Being Delivered
Trouble Between the Trump Administration and the Traditional Defense Industrial Complex
Trump's public comments on the progress of the F-47 project go beyond the concern for a single piece of equipment, reflecting the complex contradictions between his administration and the traditional U.S. defense industrial giants. These contradictions manifest at the following levels:
On one hand, the Trump administration attempts to exert pressure on traditional prime contractors. In the U.S. defense market, companies such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon Technologies have long dominated defense contracts, forming a stable interest structure.
The Trump administration criticized the high executive compensation and generous shareholder returns of these companies. At the same time, key projects led by them, such as the F-35, Columbia-class submarines, B-21 bombers, "Sentinel" intercontinental ballistic missiles, and the F-47, have repeatedly encountered cost overruns and schedule delays.
According to a Reuters report in early January, Trump threatened to limit stock buybacks, executive dividends, and push for reforms in contract payment methods to encourage traditional contractors to improve efficiency, control costs, and shift some responsibility for project delays to the industry.
Small Drones from Anduril Company
On the other hand, the Trump administration shows a clear inclination to support emerging defense companies. Companies such as SpaceX, Palantir, and Anduril, representing commercial aerospace, big data analytics, artificial intelligence, and autonomous systems, are gradually entering the traditionally dominated areas by the five major defense companies through their innovative technical paths, flexible business models, and lower cost structures.
Close interactions between Trump and the executives of these companies, along with opening green lights for them in national security launches and data services, mark the rise of new technological and capital forces in Washington.
Although the F-47 project is currently still being bid by traditional aviation giants, the disruptive technologies required, such as artificial intelligence, high-speed data links, and low-cost expendable drones, happen to be the strengths of emerging companies. The Trump administration intends to introduce competition here, break the traditional framework, and build political alliances with the new capital camp. Especially in the field of unmanned companion aircraft for the F-47 project, Anduril Company, leveraging its experience in artificial intelligence, has introduced the YFQ-44A drone, which is now competing with traditional defense companies like General Atomics and Northrop Grumman.
Therefore, the F-47 project reflects the competition between different capital and technology routes within the U.S. Traditional aviation giants rely on deep engineering expertise, extensive supply chains, and political lobbying power, while emerging unicorns represent agile innovation and potential for business model transformation.
The outcome of the competition between the two sides is an excellent way to observe the future development of the U.S. defense industry and technology. Trump's dissatisfaction with the progress of the F-47 and his statement about renaming it can be seen as a warning to the traditional system's efficiency, and may also be a way to create a policy and public opinion environment for emerging forces closely related to him to enter core projects.
Boeing Factory Aircraft Production Line
Strategic Considerations Go Beyond the Equipment Itself
Looking at Trump's defense industry policies, the core focus is not on equipment performance, but rather on more macroeconomic industrial policies. The series of twists and turns in the F-47 project should be examined within this framework.
Since the beginning of Trump's first term, promoting "manufacturing re-shoring" and "revitalizing American industry" has been a key political agenda. Trump pays close attention to the R&D and production of the F-47, even linking the naming of this advanced equipment to his presidential term, because he views the F-47 as an important tool for industrial policy. Similarly, Trump's high-profile intervention in the naming and design review of a new warship in December 2025, introducing the so-called "Trump"-class battleship, was based on the same purpose.
According to rumors on foreign social platforms, one of the reasons why Trump prefers to award the F-47 project to Boeing is to maintain Boeing's status as a symbol of American traditional industry. Since 2018, Boeing has experienced multiple commercial setbacks, and its defense division has become a key support. Awarding the sixth-generation aircraft project to Boeing not only relates to its cutting-edge aviation competitiveness, but also carries political significance for maintaining industrial chain employment and specific state election situations. In this context, equipment performance and project progress often take a back seat to broader industrial and employment goals.
Ready to Launch Falcon Rocket
In addition, the Trump administration's collaboration with emerging capital forces represented by Elon Musk aims to cultivate new growth points and voter bases. Supporting companies like SpaceX is not only intended to reduce launch costs or gain technology, but also to shape their developments in space exploration, artificial intelligence, and new energy as new manufacturing and high-tech employment growth points for the United States.
The Trump administration hopes to link these cases with its own policies to demonstrate that the "America First" policy can be realized through encouraging emerging tech companies and innovation. Such collaborations have clear political intentions, aiming to build a new industrial alliance beyond the traditional defense complex.
However, against the backdrop of the U.S.'s long-term trend of deindustrialization, whether relying solely on individual high-end equipment projects or a few tech companies can truly achieve the revitalization of manufacturing and widespread employment growth remains questionable. High-end equipment manufacturing has a high degree of automation, and the employment impact is concentrated among a small number of high-tech talents, offering limited support for ordinary people's employment. Moreover, long-term reliance on government orders is unsustainable.
Additionally, there is a structural contradiction between the jobs created by developing emerging tech companies and the jobs lost in traditional manufacturing. Deeply tying national high-end weapon development with short-term industrial policies and political goals may further distort development priorities and increase project management risks, which may not be beneficial for the sustained consolidation of the U.S. military's technological advantage in the long run.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/7598453297934025231/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author.