The US Air Force's sixth-generation fighter may be a stillborn project
Alas, the United States is truly “on the verge of a big mess.” And according to all the canons of a detective story, such movements may begin that the whole weapons the world will be eating tons of popcorn watching this outstanding show.
What's the intrigue? The fact is that, due to very strange circumstances, the new sixth generation US Air Force fighter may turn out to be a stillborn project. Yes, that's it, no more and no less.
For years, the US Air Force has consistently maintained that its shrouded in secrecy program to develop the sixth-generation Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter jet ensures that the Air Force can continue to dominate the skies into the mid-21st century and eventually replace its already impressive but the F-22 Raptor stealth fighters are somewhat expensive to operate (just a little bit).
Air Force officials have argued that NGAD, which is expected to cost $16 billion to develop, is being developed at an unprecedented rate. In 2020, the Air Force reported that at least one full-scale NGAD demonstrator had begun flight testing and would remain the service's top priority. The Air Force was expected to award a contract this year to Boeing or Lockheed-Martin to build at least 200 NGAD fighters, each expected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Apparently, something went wrong, because some not entirely clear, very cautious statements began from people like Air Force Chief of Staff Daniel Allwin, who on June 14 was very cautious about the future of NGAD.
“Discussions are still ongoing and no decision has been made yet. "We're looking at a lot of very difficult options that we have to consider."
An ominous darkness swirled over the segment of the Pentagon where the headquarters and services of the US Air Force are located. The negativity was greatly added by the news that the Air Force leadership was about to announce layoffs. Allwin suggested that the service had found "a different way to develop capabilities" by not requiring a sixth-generation manned fighter, but by "building on" a fighter jet with drones Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), originally intended to accompany NGAD in combat."
So right away: down with NGAD, leaving UAVs with vague capabilities?
It's possible that the Air Force's unexpectedly mournful tone regarding NGAD could be a political ploy designed to provoke Congress into providing additional funding. Indeed, services sometimes present unattractive results in the hope of prompting such costly interventions.
I must say - not without reason. There are plenty of examples of Congress stepping in to save programs or vehicles that were actually wanted out of service. You can remember on the go history A-10 Thunderbolt and the Littoral Combat Ship program. Although this will no longer save the Freedoms and Independences, even though three Niagaras have been given money.
But it's possible that real budget cuts, coupled with changes in how the Air Force views the utility, cost and longevity of fielding a sixth-generation stealth fighter, could ultimately doom NGAD.
Notably, the US Navy also recently announced that it is indefinitely postponing a sister program, NGAD (also called NGAD), aimed at developing a sixth-generation carrier-based jet fighter called the F/A-XX. This aircraft is also called Project2937 or Link Plummeria in some budget documents. It would replace the notable FA-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft, which will cease production in 2025.
Concept art of Boeing's F/A-XX stealth fighter. This jet is designed for deck operations on large aircraft carriers with an emphasis on air defense. fleet using long-range missiles.
Although the FA-XX contract is expected to go to the Big Three (Northrup Grumman, Lockheed-Martin and Boeing) this year, the Air Force announced in March that it would hold back two-thirds of the program's annual budget of 1,5. $XNUMX billion to focus on improving operational squadron readiness. This, you know, is on a budget and below the belt...
What was NGAD supposed to do?
The Air Force currently operates two stealth fighters: about 180 F-22A Raptors, which are optimized for air combat, and about 260 F-35A Lightning multi-role fighters, which are more focused on strike missions. More than 1000 more F-35A Lightnings are expected to follow.
The F-22A Raptor stealth fighter launched the AIM-9M Sidewinder short-range missile in 2001. It is generally estimated that short-range infrared-guided missiles have an 80% kill rate in air combat, but approaching an enemy fighter to deliver them carries a high risk of mutual destruction. Stealth fighters such as the Raptor are more likely to be able to safely enter the Sidewinder's range from an advantageous angle without being detected by the enemy.
Unfortunately, the amazingly maneuverable Raptors are saddled with outdated 1990s electronics and expensive stealth coatings from last century, and a major upgrade would be impractically expensive since the F-22 is no longer in production.
Thus, the Air Force looked to the NGAD to replace the F-22 and complement the F-35 as a complete 21st century fighter.
Century Tech air superiority fighter featuring more thrust from next-generation adaptive cycle engines, more cost-effective stealth materials to reduce operating costs, integrated artificial intelligence and control capabilities drones, as well as advanced networking capabilities for sensors and fire control. These features are designed to help maintain an advantage over the new stealth aircraft and ground-based integrated air defense systems of China and Russia.
What went wrong? What killed the Air Force's new stealth fighter in its infancy?
A senior Air Force official using the handle "Mike Black" wrote on social media that the Air Force's investment in conventional the war are undermined by the need to simultaneously modernize land-based and air-based nuclear weapons that they would prefer never to use in combat.
Well, that's an excuse. Indeed, the U.S. military is currently pursuing three major replacement programs that simultaneously address the LGM-30G Minuteman III ground-launched intercontinental ballistic missile, the B-2 stealth bomber, and the AGM-86 cruise missile for the B-52.
According to plans, they will be replaced by Northrop Grumman's LGM-35 Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile, Northrop Grumman's B-21 Raider stealth bomber and Raytheon's AGM-181 LRSO cruise missile. The cost of developing Sentinel, in particular, has already exceeded budget by 37%, to $125 billion.
In his messages, Black wrote that in the current conditions, the Pentagon cannot afford the B-21, NGAD and Sentinel at the same time. He argued that the military would prefer NGAD fighters, but, guided by political motives, intends to spend tens of billions of dollars to modernize/restore nuclear missile silos.
Did the F-35 eat up NGAD's budget?
Another theory put forward aviation journalist Bill Sweetman, argues that cost overruns on the F-35 and failed Block 4 efforts could reduce the budget needed to fund NGAD efforts.
The F-35 fighter jet was notoriously saddled with a long, painful and over-budget development process, but it did become a commercial success in the 2020s (export orders continue to grow) and still appears to be performing satisfactorily in the air, according to -still remaining one of the safest aircraft.
But two huge problems remain.
First, operating costs per flight hour remain high and rising (currently for the Air Force about $6,6 million per year for the F-35A), which prompted the service to mandate flying the aircraft less frequently as operational readiness levels steadily declined. within five years.
Second, the F-35 upgrade program to the new Block 4 standard is so behind schedule and so over budget that the Air Force announced in April that it was significantly scaling back the upgrade, eliminating numerous capabilities planned for the Tech Refresh 3 upgrade.
In the end what? That's right, we got there.
In general, this all smacks of such horror from the history of our 90s, when pilots did not fly because there was no money for kerosene and aircraft maintenance. But here in the USA there is plenty of money, the question is that they are saving an expensive resource. In general - aviation insanity in the flesh. And how to get out of this situation is not entirely clear, because there is a vicious circle here: a decrease in flight time affects the training of flight personnel, which is also not good for the combat effectiveness of the Air Force.
Could Collaborative Combat Aircraft's unmanned aerial vehicles replace NGADs?
The Air Force appears to see a path where separately designed NGAD-interoperable CCA drones could operate with the F-35 (and perhaps even the F-15EX and F-16). Armed with new long-range air-to-air missiles (AIM-260 and possibly upgraded LREWs), the drones could theoretically maintain air superiority without NGAD, according to some in the Pentagon.
Of course, the CCA unmanned aerial vehicle designed to interface with NGAD was originally intended to fly alongside other aircraft such as the F-35 fighter jet, and it is likely that over time other aircraft could be adapted to serve as lead aircraft for the CCA.
But this matter is subtle. It’s one thing when a UAV and an airplane were originally designed to interact, but it’s another to adapt an older aircraft that is not ready for this. It is necessary to place interaction equipment somewhere, coordinate and rewrite protocols, and so on. It's not as simple as it seems at first glance.
Interesting: One potential tactical concept is to rely on CCA unmanned aerial vehicles to operate on the "front line" with a high risk of air defense or in dogfights, while the "opposing forces" of manned fighters remain at a distance tens of kilometers deep into its territory. And each of the aircraft controls several drones at the same time, and also contributes to the battle using long-range missiles.
It is worth noting that the Air Force requirements frame the CCA unmanned aerial vehicle as a relatively combat-capable, expensive and (preferably) non-expendable aircraft. This is normal, this is understandable.
BUT! The SSA costs one-third the price of a manned fighter, rather than the one-tenth originally conceived for drones, the family of which have been dubbed “loyal wingmen”! This cost has serious drawbacks, the main one being the cost itself. And, most importantly, it is absolutely not a fact that premium CCA functions could compensate for the capabilities of aging equipment on 4th and 5th generation fighters.
In addition, it is entirely possible that unmanned aerial vehicles can be improved or replaced as new technologies emerge, and this can be done more cheaply and easily than with manned aircraft. It is easier to retrain an operator than a pilot, and he, the operator, will not have to sit in the cockpit, dodge Russian missiles, eject and hope that the rescue squads will be faster than the enemy search squads.
Considering who we send to search for downed enemy pilots, it’s chilling. Fair and cruel.
However, Black argued that the Air Force may try to "shove" the NGAD role and capabilities into the F-35, "...you'll lose the inherent capabilities you get from the NGAD airframe: low observable performance, range/kinematics and payload." "
This is logical. Of course, not a single UAV can carry as much combat load as a fighter can carry. Even a heavy thing like the Russian “Okhotnik” will only be a flying warehouse capable of firing missiles somewhere there. And where - the pilot from a full-fledged aircraft will show.
So far this is the only way of development.
As for competitors, who said that everything will be easier and faster for them? Yes, if you take China, which is expanding its fleet of J-20 stealth fighters and working on new types of aircraft, such as the J-35, and eventually, sooner or later, will create its own sixth generation air superiority fighter .
An image of the Chinese Chengdu J-20 stealth fighter with additional outlines highlighting the internal weapons bays designed to carry weapons to maintain its stealth to radar. The ammunition compartment in the central compartment can carry at least four heavy long-range air-to-air missiles, while the cheeks carry one short-range air-to-air missile. It is estimated that China could have 2024 or more J-200s by 20.
It is in air superiority scenarios that a stealth aircraft with the thrust and maneuverability to sustainably execute aggressive dogfight maneuvers would be a desirable addition to the F-35. Additionally, the NGAD will likely be designed for a longer range than the F-22 and F-35, making it more suitable for the vast Pacific theater and its ability to escort B-21 stealth bombers much deeper into hostile airspace , relying only on internal fuel and not using air tankers for refueling - this could be the focus.
Perhaps the USAF is simply not confident that any very expensive stealth fighter it is building today will remain effective long enough to justify the billions of dollars in development and maintenance costs that will be incurred within a few decades. And several decades is generally not so much...
Officials have hinted that the Defense Department would prefer to avoid a long-term commitment to a manned design (which could quickly become obsolete) in favor of some kind of alternative - choosing less expensive unmanned aerial vehicles in response to technological developments.
Only time will tell how right everyone was there, as the Air Force's apparent change of heart regarding NGAD is sure to spark controversy and debate in Congress and the military-industrial sector more broadly. This is money...
But in general, the lack of confidence in their own developments in the US Air Force looks very, very peculiar. After all, whatever one may say, the F-22 turned out to be a mega-expensive and not a very effective toy. The F-35 is clearly better, but the costs are staggering. And it turns out that tomorrow the F-6 and F/A-15 will step into the 18th generation, accompanied by drones.
Information