The new invisible (stealth) aircraft of the American military aviation are under question due to the huge costs and the advantages offered by AI drones.
The future invisible combat aircraft of the United States, scheduled to replace the F-22 Raptor model by the end of this decade, may no longer be a certainty, as the Air Force leadership fails to find a balance in a long list of modernization programs, as shown in an analysis published by Business Insider.
The new stealth combat aircraft, developed under the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, has long been promoted as the centerpiece of a new "family of systems" designed to fly alongside a constellation of AI drones. However, recent statements from US Air Force officials suggest that the future of the next star aircraft is in question.
"Deliberations are still ongoing, no decision has been made. We are looking at a lot of very difficult options that we need to consider," said Air Force Chief of Staff General David Allvin last week about the future of the NGAD program, which should be announced this year.
Air Force officials have suggested a potential return to an aircraft development model proposed by Air Force Acquisition Chief Will Roper in 2019. According to this strategy, smaller batches of aircraft would be designed to operate with shorter lifespans, allowing for rapid design and technology changes as threats evolve.
F-35, an outstanding aircraft with two major disadvantages
Most modern combat aircraft, such as the F-35 produced by Lockheed Martin, are designed to fly for half a century or more, with a long lifespan seen as a justification for their massive development budgets.
However, despite being an impressive aircraft, the F-35 comes with at least two significant disadvantages.
The first is technological, as acquiring a new combat aircraft today that can remain dominant in the 2070s is almost impossible without adapting or adopting a series of new technologies along the way.
Relying on a single air superiority combat aircraft by the end of this century, the Air Force may have trouble quickly adapting to counter new threats as they emerge.
"We can't put all our eggs in one basket and then wake up to find that the threat has advanced," explained Allvin.
The second disadvantage of the F-35 is economic, as sustaining the lifespan represents a huge part of the total cost of a combat program. The total cost of the program is now estimated to exceed 2 trillion dollars over the aircraft's lifespan, but approximately 1.6 trillion dollars of the total amount - 80% of the total cost - represents its maintenance and support over its decades-long lifespan.
The US Air Force leadership is now questioning whether it would be cheaper to order aircraft with a lifespan limited to a decade or two. These would be cheaper because the last and most costly years of the aircraft's lifecycle would be eliminated. And thus, the US Air Force would change aircraft generations more frequently.
"'Built to last' is an extraordinary emblem from the 20th century, and back then the assumption was that whatever you had was relevant as long as it lasted. I'm not sure that's still valid," said Allvin.
More aircraft, greater competition
There are several important reasons to switch to an equipping model that could produce a new combat design every decade or two, experts believe.
Not only would such a model mean eliminating the most expensive decades of a combat aircraft's lifespan, but it would also allow for the rapid adoption of emerging technologies in the constant flow of new aircraft.
That constant flow of new models could be an advantage in itself, as it could once again make combat models a truly competitive industry.
Today, there are only three major American firms in the combat aircraft business - Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman. And it has been 49 years since another company besides Lockheed Martin won the right to deliver a new combat aircraft to the US Army.
The Digital Century Series strategy will introduce new combat aircraft models every 5-10 years, meaning that the development cycle for the next aircraft will likely start almost immediately after a contract is awarded for the current model.
This could generate the necessary incentives for a greater variety of firms to compete in the design sector. And competition could be even greater by separating design and production contracts.
AI Drones Catching Up Fast
Not only the high costs of equipping with new combat aircraft put pressure on the future of the F-35 and its successor, but also the AI drones meant to accompany them on missions. Designed under the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program, these weapons seem to be progressing rapidly.
Allvin mentioned similar acquisition timelines of 10 years for the new CCA drones. Similarly, this would allow this branch to rapidly develop new technologies and capabilities as they emerge, while keeping costs relatively low for each version of the drones.
Experts already expect these drones to fly alongside the future Block 4 F-35 and could certainly end up accompanying other modernized, yet older aircraft, such as the F-22 and F-15EX.
Although it took its first flight in 1997, the F-22 Raptor is generally considered the most capable combat aircraft on the planet, due to an amazing combination of stealth capability, sensor fusion, and good old-fashioned power. However, because the F-22 entered service after the collapse of the Soviet Union and long before Xi Jinping's rise to power, its production was halted after only 186 were built, of which only about 150 were combat-coded (equipped with all necessary combat systems).
Naturally, soon the question will arise whether it is more logical to extend the lifespan of the F-22 long enough to compensate for the delays in launching its successor, or whether it is worth launching a new state-of-the-art combat aircraft that may not have everything necessary to remain competitive in the 2070s, especially as AI drones become more sophisticated, precise, and affordable.
Regardless of the option eventually chosen by the US Air Force leadership, the longer it takes to decide, the more expensive the option will become, concludes the cited analysis.
T.D.