Air war
Concept art of a Lockheed Martin Skunk Works sixth-generation fighter. (Lockheed Martin)
FARNBOROUGH AIRSHOW 2024 — Amid a revolution in aerial combat, the head of the U.S. Air Force said Saturday he was “reasonably confident” that America’s next-generation fighter jet will have a pilot, leaving the door open, however slightly, to a radical departure from a fully manned system.
“I’m confident there will be a sixth-generation fighter. I’m reasonably confident it will be crewed,” Kendall told Breaking Defense in an exclusive interview over the weekend.
The fact that the Air Force appears unsure whether the plane will need a pilot, and likely a cockpit to accommodate them, suggests that the service may need to revisit the most basic requirements for its Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter, even though it had originally planned to award a contract for the plane later this year. Speaking broadly about potential changes, Kendall said it would be “reasonable” to conclude that the Air Force needs to go back and do a more thorough analysis of the NGAD’s design and capability requirements.
“We’re in discussions right now about what to do and how to move forward,” Kendall said, pushing back on recent comments from Air Combat Command chief Gen. Ken Wilsbach that a downsizing for NGAD was likely in 2024. “What (Wilsbach) said is not the final word on that.”
Kendall has recently hinted at the possibility of significant changes to the NGAD, suggesting in previous interviews that the Air Force is working to ensure the service has the right design — and at a reasonable price. Elaborating on his thinking, Kendall said a key consideration is the overall price of the air vehicle and engine, noting that the powerplant is “just one piece” and “not a driving factor in itself.”
RELATED: GCAP Partners Introduce New Next-Generation Fighter Concept Based on Evolved Design
The fact that Kendall raised the possibility of an unmanned NGAD following his comments about the need to rethink the aircraft could set off alarm bells among the Air Force’s infamous “fighter mafia,” which takes great pride in the service’s pilot tradition. But according to analyst JJ Gertler of the Teal Group, it’s a sign that Kendall is taking a serious approach to considering all his options to avoid “to lead the team in one direction or another.”
“We knew that (the Air Force was) “We redesigned the system. We knew they measured at least twice before they did any checks. Like any good pilot, they go through a final checklist before they go into the air,” Gertler said.
And, he wrote in an email, it makes sense to consider at least one design with optional crewing. because “In reality, any modern air combat system that is not designed to be unmanned can always be optionally manned.”
For example, modern technologies like networking and fly-by-wire controls mean that “where the operator is no longer important. In fact, the decision to make a platform habitable determines the design and capabilities far more than the decision to make it uninhabitable.” “So in a very real sense, uninhabited becomes the default, unless there’s a reason to put a person on the platform,” Gertler said.
Air Force officials have been warning for years that NGAD would be expensive, with Kendall frequently using a cost criterion of “multiple” of the already expensive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. But with pressing modernization needs and the exploding costs of other critical programs, officials are now openly questioning whether their ambitions are affordable.
“If you look at what we’re doing in our five-year plan – which is on the Hill now – in our fundamental accounts over the next few years, it’s clear that we’ve done something that’s not going to be sustainable, you know,” he said. “We have to address that as well. So we have a number of affordability issues to address over the course of the five-year plan. And we also have to look at and verify, if you will, that we have the right concept (for NGAD).”
Kendall said the facilities needed to operate the fighter jet are another consideration. “The infrastructure needed to support an F-22 class aircraft, if you will, does create some vulnerabilities. The length of the runway, for example,” he said.
Gertler observed that judging by previous comments made by officials like Kendall, ““Some delay in the central component of the NGAD cell not only seems likely, but is already underway.”
“It may not have been common practice in the past, but there is much to be said for the need to design a system that takes into account reality rather than the world as it was at the start of the program or as we would like it to be in 40 years,” he added. “A procurement schedule that does not allow for adaptation to a changing reality will not produce a relevant system.”
Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall speaks with students and guests during the Senior Leadership Orientation Course at Joint Base Andrews, Md., July 24, 2023. The course provides training for newly selected brigadier generals and senior leaders. (U.S. Air Force photo by Eric Dietrich)
An “accumulation” of threats
Since the advent of the F-22 program, the Air Force’s concept for achieving air superiority has revolved around the idea of a stealthy sensor-shooter capable of bypassing enemy air defenses and eliminating threats before being detected — an operational concept the service calls “counter-air penetration.”
Kendall said that concept hasn’t changed much since the early 1990s, when he briefed then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney on what was seen as the most serious set of threats the F-22 could face: Syria’s multi-layered Soviet air defense systems.
But the battlefields have changed in the decades since, and Kendall said the Air Force now faces a list of Chinese threats that include increasingly sophisticated air defenses, advanced anti-stealth technologies and new sensors and weapons designed to dramatically increase the range at which a target can be detected and destroyed.
RELATED: As Air Force mulls plans for sixth-generation fighter, stakes are high for Boeing
Asked about the emergence of new technology that could challenge the NGAD concept, Kendall characterized the growing threats as “cumulative over time.” He suggested, however, that an alternative operational concept could lead to changes in NGAD requirements.
“It’s natural to assume that if you have a certain generation of something, you’re going to buy the next generation of that, and then it’s going to have similar features, a similar operating concept, but it’s going to be better than what you already have,” Kendall said.
“That’s the philosophy that has guided the direction that the NGAD is going. But we’re not fighting Syria anymore. We’re not fighting the Soviet Union anymore,” he said. “We’re fighting China, primarily, to pick up the pace. And we have to make sure we do the right thing.”
Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst at AeroDynamic Advisory, noted that the Air Force’s dismay at NGAD’s operational requirements “points to the idea that true air dominance and superiority may no longer be achievable” – an idea further reinforced by Russia and Ukraine’s difficulty in establishing sustained control of the skies throughout the war in Ukraine.
“This applies to a world where lethality is much higher, threats are much more diffused, and the chances of actually destroying the other side’s air defenses are lower, in which case your use of resources looks very different,” he said.
Ultimately, Aboulafia said he believes the Air Force needs a manned sixth-generation fighter, but the service faces a “fundamental contradiction” in its design requirements and budget that could lead to delays. Cost concerns would naturally push the service toward a smaller aircraft with a shorter range, but a more advanced Chinese threat could require a larger, more capable, long-range jet that would cost more.
“I don’t know what the (right option) is and they may not know, but if there is a redesign, these are two very contradictory directions,” he said.
Kendall, for his part, said NGAD is not just about the capabilities of the platform itself, but also how it fits into a budding kill network that synchronizes future drone wingmen known as Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), space capabilities and a new generation of weapons.
“It’s going to have to work with the CCAs. It’s going to have to work in an architecture that includes space support and other off-board support and an architecture that uses our most advanced weapons,” he said. “So we have an opportunity here to really pay attention and make sure we’re on the right track before we make the final commitment.”
