Analysis on the USAF Capability Request for Information Concerning a 6th Generation Fighter

Lajos F. Szászdi

 

*This analysis was originally saved on November 16, 2010, in Falls Church, Virginia.

 
The fighter gap is becoming all too real. There are proposals in the U.S. Congress to ax the U.S. Marine Corps' F-35B. The U.S. Air Force (USAF) and U.S. Navy have delayed the entry into service date of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) to 2016, about the time of the PAK FA’s entry into service. Further cuts of the JSF may follow, and the proposed solution is to buy modernized versions of 4th generation fighters like the F-16 and the F/A-18E/F. In addition, according to the November 10 issue of Jane's Defence Weekly, on November 1st the USAF issued a capability request for information on a 6th generation fighter.

 

I will discuss my first analysis, about the need of a sixth generation fighter in the face of a looming foreign fifth generation fighter threat. There was an article from Jane’s Defence Weekly of May of this year on Boeing’s proposal for a sixth generation fighter for the Navy. It was estimated in the article that the Navy may need the new fighter to substitute its F/A-18E/F Super Hornets from 2025, and that the Air Force may need the new fighter to replace its F-22 from 2027/2028. Since the first operational F-22 were delivered to the Air Force in 2003, as we mentioned in our PAK FA paper, by 2028 those Raptors would be 25 years old.  If the in-service date of the Air Force and Navy F-35 is 2016, by 2028 the older planes would be only 12 years old. Yet, the Air Force is thinking already of having a sixth generation replacement for the F-22, which may enter service by around 2030.

 

I believe that the Air Force’s interest in acquiring a sixth generation fighter may not only be based on the expected need to have a new fighter aircraft after the current aircraft in service have been operational some 25-30 years. I believe that the Air Force realizes that with foreign fifth generation aircraft like the PAK FA entering service by around 2015, by 2028 or so the F-22 would have lost its technological edge and thus a sixth generation fighter may be needed to maintain the technological advantage and superiority over the fifth generation fighters of the competition, Russia and China.

 

The interest in a sixth generation fighter that may enter service around 2030 may mean that the Air Force is acknowledging that by that year its foremost air superiority fighter, the F-22, may not be superior to foreign fifth generation fighters like the PAK FA. If this motive is real, that means also an acknowledgement that the fifth generation F-35, which by 2028 would be some 12 years old, may not be superior, to say the least, to the Russian fifth generation fighter. So following this line of thought, the Air Force would then need a plane that would be superior to the PAK FA, the proposed sixth generation fighter.

 

Also, Japan is in the early stages of studying the possibility of producing a sixth generation fighter. The problem is that the chief of the Russian Air Force already had voiced the need to have a sixth generation fighter, as we referenced in the footnote nº 18 of our 2009 Fighter Gap BG (Backgrounder). Hence, the technological arms race between the U.S. and Russia will continue in the production of new types – and generations - of fighter aircraft. Rest assured that if we are beginning to develop a sixth generation fighter, the Russians will do it also. For them is not just a matter of national security, it is also business and the interest to maintain a privileged place, a leading niche in the international market of fighter aircraft.

 

The second analysis is with regard to the proposed sixth generation fighter and the Navy. As in our next project preliminary proposal, UCAV (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle) flying wings may be able to carry out most of the missions now tasked to piloted fixed-wing aircraft. Because of the high cost of the F-35 program, it may be that the number of procured JSF might be much less than what was originally planned. In such an instance, UCAV may be less costly – no need to invest in training and supporting a fighter pilot, less costs in terms of developing and maintaining avionic displays and cockpit systems for the pilot to operate, the fact that no human life would be put at risk, etc. In the Navy the fighter interceptor role could then be played by the sixth generation fighter after 2025. The problem is that if there are less F-35, then you have a major fighter gap as by 2030 the overall U.S. fighter force would be based on the new sixth generation fighter – Boeing’s F/A-XX concept for example – presumably entering service, the less than 200 F-22, those F-35 that would have been produced after expected budget cuts, and the remaining fourth generation ++ F/A-18E/F, and those modernized F-15 and F-16 left.

 

The Air Force may entertain also the idea of having less F-35 and more UCAV to carry out strike and reconnaissance missions, for example. The reasons would not only be economic or for the purpose of not exposing the life of the pilot but also operational – you can have a stealthier design in a UCAV if you eliminate the pilot’s cockpit and you could carry also more fuel, increasing the range of the aircraft. Thus, by around 2030 air defense may depend largely on the new sixth generation fighter (if it is acquired), the remaining F-22 and the F-35 that were procured. But not only the technical quality of a fighter aircraft and pilot training are required to win an air war, for numbers matter much. A case in point is the P-47 Thunderbolt, which was “the most widely built U.S. fighter” of the Second World War. This fighter proved to be the nemesis of the Luftwaffe and of German ground forces not just because it was a superior aircraft but also because it was deployed in superior numbers.

 

By the way, through open sources intelligence analysis I believe the Russians have developed a radar enabling them to detect stealth aircraft using the cold plasma cloaking device that we mentioned in our latest Russian fifth generation fighter BG. The point is that neither side (U.S. and Russia) will rest and fall back on their current achievements, for they will continue to develop new weapon systems and countermeasures to neutralize those weapons, as first tribes and then nations have been doing since the beginning of warfare.