Follow us on social

Northrop_grumman_unveils_6th_generation_fighter_jet

The Pentagon wants to keep this new multibillion dollar plane a secret

The Air Force just awarded major contracts for a fighter that is supposed to achieve 'air dominance.' Why can’t the public see what it is?

Reporting | Military Industrial Complex

Late last week, the Air Force awarded five identical contracts, each valued at nearly $1 billion. The press release was light on details, but it gave some of the first concrete information about the service’s largest classified initiative: the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, which is expected to deliver the Pentagon’s first sixth-generation fighter jet.

The agreements will more than double the $4.2 billion that Congress has allocated for the program since 2015. And investment in the initiative is expected to grow further as prototype development continues, with the Air Force estimating that the program will cost $11.7 billion from 2024 to 2027.

As costs rise, experts say the NGAD’s secretive nature raises serious concerns about the public’s ability to exercise oversight of the program.

“We know very little of it because the Pentagon leaders decided that they weren’t going to make the same mistake that they did with the F-35,” Dan Grazier, a senior defense policy fellow at the Project on Government Oversight, said, referencing the Pentagon’s controversial fifth-generation fighter jet. “They don’t want to be raked over the coals like they [were] with the F-35 program, so they’re keeping this as secret as possible.”

A recent report from the Congressional Research Service shed some light on the initiative, though details remain sparse. What we do know is that the NGAD will include a new fighter jet, but it may also comprise other aircraft designed to assist the main plane.

As the name implies, the goal of the initiative is to field a system that can establish “air dominance.” According to CRS, part of the program’s goal is to figure out exactly what that would mean. One possibility is that the fighter jet will be bigger and less agile than its predecessors, with a laser weapon attached that “could ensure that no enemy flies in a large amount of airspace.”

Last week’s deals went to five defense giants, including Raytheon Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman — the four largest weapons contractors on earth. The fifth went to General Electric, a leading engine maker. The Pentagon says these contracts are part of the Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion program, which will design the NGAD’s engine.

Observers say there are two possible reasons for DoD’s decision to give out so many competing contracts. First, companies tend to do better when you force them to compete against each other in designing prototypes. 

“It is best practice to have a competitive prototyping process,” Grazier said. This approach was particularly effective in the case of the mid-century Lightweight Fighter program, in which dueling prototypes eventually turned into the F-16 and the F-18, two remarkably effective planes.

But that process can only succeed if it has a sound concept at its core, according to Grazier. In the case of the Littoral Combat Ship, the Navy dumped $30 billion into two different designs for a poorly conceived, overly complicated vessel. After only a few years in service, the Pentagon has already started to retire the LCS due to myriad technical issues.

Given that the NGAD fighter jet is expected to cost “multiple hundreds of millions” of dollars per plane — far more than even the F-35 — Grazier worries that the design may include the sort of high-tech bells and whistles that have a tendency to break down, leaving planes grounded for extended periods of time. (Space-age planes like the F-35 and Osprey have been plagued by such issues, reducing combat readiness and making it difficult for pilots to get flight hours.) 

The second reason for doling out concurrent contracts is more controversial. As Defense One recently reported, the agreements are aimed in part at keeping defense giants “viable to build aircraft for years to come.” 

Grazier argues that there is some logic to this. “It’s important to maintain a robust industrial base,” he said, noting that the United States benefits from having so many domestic manufacturers that can compete for big contracts.

But many wonder if government support for defense primes is the best use of taxpayer money. “This is something that we don’t see for any other industry in this way,” said Lindsay Koshgarian, the director of the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. 

“We’ve just now […] seen a promise of the first investment in renewable energy in a big way from the Inflation Reduction Act, but that’s the first time,” Koshgarian continued, adding that funding for climate security issues “doesn’t nearly amount to how much we’re putting into the military industrial base.”

At the end of the day, it’s going to be hard to tell if the NGAD is worth the investment unless the DoD becomes less secretive about the program. The recent CRS report noted that some lawmakers “have expressed concern that developing a major classified program, like NGAD, risks increased costs and development issues due to limited oversight.” But it remains to be seen whether those unnamed members of Congress will fight to get more information out.

In the meantime, Koshgarian expects that the program’s cost will continue to grow.

“The track record of things like this is that the costs tend to go up over time as they invest more and ramp up production,” she said. “I think we can expect that, if they continue with this, we'll see even higher dollar amounts going in.”


Northrop Grumman's concept image for the sixth-generation fighter jet. (via Northrop Grumman)
Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.