By Kris Osborn, President, Center for Military Modernization
(Washington DC) What is the potential cost in lives if the Pentagon decides to cancel the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program to develop a sixth-generation stealth fighter jet?
Whatever it may be, this incalculable quantity cannot be associated with any dollar value. Human lives are priceless, and more American servicemembers will likely risk injury or death in combat in a future without a sixth-generation U.S. aircraft. Adversaries such as China and Russia are not only producing fifth-generation aircraft already — the Su-57 and J-31 — but they are also stewarding their own sixth-generation efforts. That means we have to ponder the consequences of an enemy able to establish air supremacy over the United States in a war.
Decision-makers need to be aware of those consequences when they consider concerns that the NGAD program simply costs too much. Should an adversary have reason to believe they could quickly achieve air supremacy in an engagement, the U.S. loses the ability to deter a war.
An actual combat engagement in which the U.S. loses air superiority, or perhaps never even establishes it, is unthinkable right now. If it became a reality, it could be catastrophic in terms of lives lost and damaged technologies, platforms, and systems.
The Pentagon and military services should of course make every effort to reduce costs by solidifying requirements and streamlining supply chain complexities. The U.S. Air Force plans to spend as much as $2.3 billion on NGAD in 2024, and costs are likely to increase as production and prototyping ramp up more fully.
As is often the case with new, paradigm-breaking technologies, up-front costs tend to be much higher than regular production costs, in large measure due to what is called non-recurring developmental costs. This was the case with the highly visible U.S. Navy Ford-class aircraft carrier program, which received consistent criticisms for delays and cost overruns. By contrast, the B-21 program has largely been on time and on budget, suggesting that large program development can vary considerably depending on the technologies involved and the overall maturity of the design.
Yet another factor to consider with the NGAD is the value-added of digital engineering, which is a big reason why early prototypes are already airborne, years ahead of what was anticipated. By using advanced computer simulations to replicate parameters for weapons performance, designers and engineers can assess multiple options without needing to first “bend metal.”
Developers do not need to spend many years building numerous prototypes. They can instead narrow down design and technology choices well in advance of actually building a system. Senior Air Force leaders have for many years said that the NGAD program benefited substantially from the use of digital engineering. So did other programs, such as the Air Force’s new Sentinel ICBM.
When one considers the costs of a new platform, up-front developmental expenses need to be accounted for. But most of all, one needs to weigh the possibility of simply not building a sixth-generation aircraft. This would of course put lives and U.S. assets at much greater risk of successful attack, resulting in billions of dollars of destroyed equipment such as tanks, aircraft, or fixed infrastructure.
Should we leave an adversary with the ability to quickly achieve aerial overmatch, the entire U.S. fleet of F-35s is first in line in being much more likely to be destroyed. The absence of sixth-generation speed and stealth technology would also place fifth-generation aircraft at much greater risk of being hit by advanced enemy air defenses.
One final factor to consider is that an effective sixth-generation stealth fighter could perform missions that would otherwise require much greater numbers of fourth-generation aircraft. This means that the actual operational expense associated with a sixth-generation aircraft could drop considerably when it comes to actual combat use of aircraft.
We might save money now by scrapping the NGAD, but we would pay a dear price down the line.
NGAD Air Force & Navy Comes to Life
The Navy and Air Force variants of a 6th-generation Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) stealth fighter are rapidly coming to life, and not a moment too soon as the current threat environment is such that a faster, stealthier, and far more lethal fighter jet could soon be deemed critical.
Video Above: Colonel Michael Stefanovic, Director of the Strategic Studies Institute for the Air Force sits down for an exclusive interview with Kris Osborn
It is important to recognize that, through ongoing software upgrades, the F-35 may well remain dominant into the 2070s and beyond, as many of the most substantial technological leaps forward will likely be in the areas of computing, AI, mission systems, weapons, and command and control. These areas can be modernized in paradigm-changing ways without having to reconfigure the main fuselage or fundamental architecture of the plane itself.
The F-35 Can Fly Alongside NGAD
In short, the F-35 seems to have the potential to stay in front of threats for decades. However, this does not mean there is not an urgent need for a U.S. Navy and Air Force 6th-generation fighter for several key reasons. The F-35 is a multirole fighter with speed, maneuverability, breakthrough computing, and a drone-like 360-degree surveillance capability. Attributes that make it an ideal “partner” or supplement to an ultra high-speed, ultra-stealthy 6th-gen stealth fighter.
A sixth-generation craft will be more of an F-22 replacement in terms of air supremacy and speed, yet many of its breakthroughs will come in the realm of “manned-unmanned” teaming and command and control. New datalinks, command and control technology, and AI-enabled data analysis will enable a 6th-generation “family of systems” wherein a single manned platform simultaneously operates five or six drones.
The concept for a 6th-generation fighter or NGAD, as explained by Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, is described as one of the services’ key “operational imperatives” wherein a family of systems will perform a wide range of missions.
There are far too many of those most needed attributes for a 6th-generation fighter to cite, however, AI-enabled targeting data analysis, sensor range, and fidelity will need to be paradigm-changing. A breakthrough high-speed, ultra stealthy 6th-generation aircraft will massively achieve overmatch if it has an F-35-like long-range and high fidelity targeting sensors to see and destroy enemy targets from standoff ranges b
efore it is seen itself. An ability to network with ground command centers, drones, other fighter jets, ground vehicles, Navy ships, and even satellites will enable the platform to gather and process time-sensitive data needed to move in and attack and destroy an enemy.
While speed and maneuverability will of course be critical, long-range sensors, networking, high-speed, AI-enabled computing, and weapons guidance will likely be what separates the 6th-generation fighter from competitors.
The urgent need for a 6th-generation aircraft like NGAD is largely driven by the current threat circumstances, which include the emergence of the Chinese J-20 and J-31 and Russian Su-57. While there is no clear indication that these platforms are in fact superior to a U.S. Air Force F-22 and F-35, their existence certainly drives an additional need to stay in front of great power rivals. China and Russia already suffer from a significant numbers deficit when it comes to 5th-generation aircraft, yet the attributes and specific performance parameters of Russian and Chinese may be somewhat of a mystery. All the more reason why breakthrough or “disruptive” technologies need to be leveraged.
Navy’s F/A-XX
Of course planning and technological specifics related to F/A-XX are likely not available for security reasons, yet conceptual work on the fighter has been under way for many years and the Navy’s 2024 budget request asks for as much as $9 billion in funding for the new jet. The requests spreads the billions out over the next five years, yet an essay in The Drive pointed out that this may be an indication that prototypes or demonstrators are on the near horizon.
This would not be surprising given the large extent to which the Air Force, for example, has successfully accelerated weapons platform design, development and production through the use of digital engineering. Advanced computer simulations can now precisely replicate key weapons performance parameters, a circumstance which enables weapons developers and innovators to analyze a number of different designs and performance specs of a given weapons system much more quickly and efficiently.
Along with the Air Force 6th-gen aircraft, the service’s new ICBM called the Sentinel also emerged ahead of schedule due in large measure to the successful application of digital engineering. Senior Air Force weapons developers, for example, say digital simulations enabled engineers and analysts to assess eight or nine different ICBM models before deciding which ones to build. This proved critical as the Air Force did not need to build ten different prototypes and “bend metal” as much to determine the optimal designs.
Therefore, given the success thus far with the use of digital engineering across several large weapons platforms, it seems entirely feasible that such progress at least in part accounts for Navy progress and funding increases with its F/A-XX aircraft. Perhaps demonstrators will take to the sky if they have not already. Designed to fly alongside and ultimately replace the F/A-18 Super Hornet, the F/A-XX is expected to break new ground in the realm of carrier launched stealth aircraft.
Certainly many of the specific technologies are likely not available, yet industry and Pentagon weapon developers have in recent years explained a series of potential requirements, concepts of operation and technologies likely to inform Navy 6th-gen development. Some of the key areas which come to mind include the use of multiple drones, drone swarms or other unmanned systems, AI-enabled networking, new generations of sensing and targeting and an ability to share real-time combat data with existing 4th-generation aircraft.
The Pentagon, Navy and Air Force, for example are all fast advancing technology enabling manned stealth fighters to control multiple drones from the cockpit, to leverage speed of attack and enable survivable forward reconnaissance. A carrier-launched 6th-gen could, for instance, direct multiple drones from the cockpit to test enemy air defenses, blanket an area with surveillance or even launch attacks when directed by a human.
The aircraft will likely incorporate new paradigms of stealth technology as well, wherein heat signatures and radar return signals can more easily be greatly minimized, if not eluded completely.
NGAD & F/A-XX to Feature EW
Several years ago, former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said whoever dominates the electromagnetic spectrum will likely prevail in war.
The Navy’s 2024 budget documents reveal this emphasis as they allocate large amounts of money to “spectral” dominance regarding the 6th-Gen F/A-XX stealth fighter jet. Lasers, EW weapons and RF countermeasures are all technologies expected to figure prominently with NGAD, Navy and Air Force budget documents explain. The Air Force’s Fiscal Year 2024 budget request calls for “studies…… to develop operational/system architectures to include family [sic] of systems and spectral dominance platforms.”
Jamming weapons guidance systems, “blinding” an enemies’ targeting sensors, disabling communications systems and interfering with radar systems are all critical future warfare missions potentially performed by electronic warfare systems.
Dominating the electromagnetic spectrum is fast becoming a heavily prioritized area of future warfare focus given the growing extent to which networks and weapons systems rely upon electronics. A precision-guided weapon, for example, cannot hit its target if its RF guidance is interfered with or jammed by an EW.
There are growing applications for EW due to rapid technological advances. AI-enabled, software-driven systems, for instance, can help deconflict the spectrum by identifying friendly from enemy frequencies and identifying which signals to jam. Spectrum information can be bounced off of a database to make rapid identification of which signals to jam.
Also, sensors and communications systems can be tailored to emit a more “narrow” or streamlined “pencil” beam type of electromagnetic signal. This is extremely critical as a larger or broader electronic signature can give away a location to an enemy, whereas a more targeted beam can exact an effect without emitting a large signature. When it comes to weapons guidance systems, developers are working on a technology called “frequency hopping” to essentially “counter” an electromagnetic jamming effort.
Should one frequency be “jammed” or interfered with, weapons guidance systems can be adjusted to essentially “hop” from one frequency to another in order to sustain its track or guidance to a target. Hardening networks, datalinks or communication systems to operate in a jamming environment is critical to sustaining functional
ity in a contested EW environment.
For 6th-generation aircraft, EW can prove critical in the realm of manned-unmanned teaming, as both the Navy and Air Force plan to operate a “family of systems” wherein manned fighter jets control nearby drones from the cockpit. This can enable forward operating drones to “jam” enemy air defenses, overwhelm communications and share critical targeting detail across formations.
Passive EW can essentially “listen” to identify a “line of bearing” on an enemy electronic communication to locate signals to monitor or jam, whereas active EW can emit a signature to block, jam or interfere with a communication.
Platforms are also increasingly using omni-directional antennas to tailor an electronic signal in a specific direction and avoid emitting a large 360-degree signature which would be easier for an enemy to detect. For example, 6th-generation aircraft and the drones they network with can use hardened data links or sigint assets to emit EW signals for offensive use and also “harden” datalinks for more secure information exchange in a contested environment.
These kinds of applications are critical to Navy and Air Force plans for 6th-generation manned-unmanned teaming, referred to as Combat Collaborative Aircraft, or CCA. The concept is to network a “family” of systems to one another in real time using drones in close coordination with manned-fighter platforms to conduct forward surveillance, test enemy defenses, ensure precision guidance, harden targeting sensors or even deliver weapons.
Kris Osborn is the Military Affairs Editor of 19FortyFive and President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University
