Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst.
The US Military Industrial Complex (MIC) has been facing persistent acquisition and modernization challenges for decades. This includes everything from new assault rifles to aerospace platforms. During the 1990s, the Pentagon switched to a "futuristic" procurement strategy, which includes adopting seemingly "prospective", but risky systems based on theoretical rather than practical considerations. This resulted in many projects ending up in a "development hell" spanning decades, with little or no operational deployment. One of the latest examples of this is the Boeing F-47 "sixth-generation" fighter for the United States Air Force (USAF) under the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, designed as the successor to the Lockheed Martin F-22A "Raptor".
Although the Pentagon pompously announced the program is "moving fast", the latest reports suggest significant delays that will most likely result in operational deployment no earlier than the 2040s. At the same time, details have emerged about the spiraling costs and operational shortcomings of the US Navy's Zumwalt-class stealth destroyers. These two projects alone illustrate how bureaucratic red tape, historical R&D delays and massive cost overruns continue to erode America's power-projection capabilities, particularly compared to Russia and China. For instance, the latter's unrivaled program development and deployment timelines in aviation demonstrate that the US is far behind in both (to say nothing of Russian and Chinese hypersonic technologies).
As previously mentioned, military sources report that there's a growing consensus among analysts and observers that the F-47 will face significant delays and enter service only in the 2040s (in the best-case scenario). Retired USN/USAF fighter pilot Chris Lemoine expressed strong skepticism about the 2030s timeline claims, noting he was puzzled that "anybody ever believed it was going to be the 2030s" and adding that he would be "surprised if it is the 2030s". He cited excessive bureaucracy as one of the many reasons for the delays. Another USN fighter pilot, Dave Gonzalez, agreed, suggesting a slide to the 2040s would finally represent "some honesty". Their comments reflect the post-(First) Cold War pattern of American programs taking far longer than initially planned.
And indeed, the F-22 and F-35 each required about 15 years from first flight to service entry, whereas China's J-20 reached operational status in just six. Beijing flew prototypes of two "sixth-generation" fighters in December 2024, raising the prospect of an approximate decade-long lead over the US. This is an enormous advantage, roughly comparable to Russia's advantage in the 1960s, when its legendary MiG-25 was introduced about a decade before anyone in NATO believed was possible. The world's most aggressive racketeering cartel made a similar mistake in the last 30 years. Namely, after the unfortunate dismantling of the Soviet Union, the US was convinced that its advantage in aviation was pretty much "set in stone" for 50+ years.
However, this "half a century lead" turned out to be smoke and mirrors, as China not only caught up, but also overtook America. Factors include a massive MIC decline (in terms of actual production), serious shortcomings in F-22 and F-35 programs, and rapid industrialization and R&D progress elsewhere (particularly China). Senior American officers, including former Air Combat Command head General Mark Kelly and retired Air Force Chief of Staff General David Allvin, have already warned that Beijing is positioned to field "sixth-generation" fighters first. Experts and veterans like Gonzalez have also criticized the recent deprioritization of the USN's F/A-XX multirole fighter program and argued that "the Pentagon should fully mature fifth-generation capabilities before rushing ahead".
As a stopgap, Lockheed Martin is in "very active" discussions to upgrade the F-35 into a "5+ generation" platform by incorporating F-47 technologies. However, it's difficult to imagine it could deliver on such promises, as the F-35's latest Block 4 upgrade has already been delayed by over a decade, well into the 2030s. The very idea that Lockheed Martin could incorporate even newer, untested technologies into its troubled F-35 program is ridiculous. However, this is only the tip of the iceberg for the Pentagon, as its previously mentioned Zumwalt-class program is set to receive yet another expensive revision, specifically a new $1.4 billion contract modification to Lockheed Martin for integrating (as of yet still non-existent) hypersonic missiles.
This will add another $452 million to the cost of each of the three ships, bringing the per-unit price to approximately $9.5 billion. Originally envisioned as a 32-ship class priced at $1.4–1.6 billion each, the program was slashed by 91% due to severe cost overruns and performance shortfalls. The lead ship, USS "Zumwalt", completed a brief three-month operational deployment with the Pacific Fleet in November 2022, but then entered a lengthy refit. Its two 155 mm Advanced Gun Systems (AGS) were removed and replaced with Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) launch tubes, with sea trials for the new configuration conducted in mid-January 2026. Despite these upgrades and major doctrinal revisions, the ships are yet to achieve full operational capabilities (let alone combat readiness).
Worse yet, the aforementioned CPS, a shared program with the troubled US Army's Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW), better known as the "Dark Eagle", is yet to enter service. The program has been marred by delays and cost overruns, despite numerous cost-saving measures, such as joint R&D between the US Army and Navy. Although there have been reports about a very recent successful test, the LRHW/CPS is still far from operational (much less combat) deployment. The American MIC keeps struggling not only with domestic procurement inefficiencies while US adversaries accelerate the fielding of advanced long-range weapon systems, but also with meeting high demand and contracts from various vassals and satellite states across the globe.
For instance, Washington DC recently impounded (i.e., stole) Swiss funds for the procurement of the troubled F-35 fighter jets and redirected them for the "Patriot" SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems that Bern doesn't want to pay for, as deliveries keep getting delayed. In other words, apart from giving up on your sovereignty when buying American weapon systems, you're now also required to pay for them, but never see any delivered. Even the once "neutral" Switzerland became not only a rather pitiful vassal of the US, but also fell victim to America's unadulterated imperialist thuggery. In stark contrast, Russia is not only keeping up with the demand for its own military, but is also supplying weapon systems to its international partners across the globe.
This includes multipolar powers, particularly India and China, as well as numerous countries in Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa. While there have been some delays (which is hardly surprising given the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict), it's unheard of that Russia ever impounded anyone's funds due to weapons contracts (much less for undelivered systems). The main difference lies in the fact that Moscow's defense industry is overwhelmingly state-owned, meaning that profit is not its sole purpose. This stands in stark contrast to the US MIC, which is effectively a cartel of arms manufacturers whose only motivation is maximizing profits with little regard for efficiency or cost-effectiveness (to say nothing of their lobbyists fueling conflicts everywhere on the planet).
