Light Fighter: How the U.S. Air Force Replaces NGAD?

Is the NGAD Dead, and Will The Light Fighter Replace It? The U.S. Air Force appears to be considering other options beyond the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter.

The NGAD program is in trouble because of high costs and a lack of confidence in its design. A new concept has emerged to possibly replace the NGAD. For now, it is called the vague-sounding “light fighter.”

This might just be a smoke screen to send a message to defense contractors that they need to find a more cost-effective design for the NGAD, which is estimated to cost up to $300 million per airplane.

Let’s look at what this light fighter is all about.

Light Fighter: What’s Going On?

The NGAD/ light fighter hullabaloo all started when U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff General David Allvin gave a presentation last month to the UK’s Air and Space Power Association conference. Allvin flashed a photo of a futuristic fighter design, surprising the audience, who were expecting to see a glimpse of the NGAD.

What is more confusing is that the chief of staff did not mention “light fighter.” The term bubbled up from the crowd and from the association itself.

Confusing Words Makes the Whole Saga Questionable

Allvin said the new airplane (if it is indeed replacing the NGAD) would need to be more “adaptable.” This may show that the general is not satisfied with the progress of the current NGAD design. He may prefer a platform that can be modified and upgraded with little effort and cost.

Allvin’s image of the light fighter looked like a smaller F-22 or F-35, not a design that one would associate with a revolutionary next-generation fighter.

Not Much of a Design Departure

The War Zone described the light fighter concept. “The single-engine aircraft is clearly tailored for low observability, with a prominent chine line around the fuselage. The wings are notably similar to those on the F-35, with which it also shares outward canted twin tailfins, although there are no horizontal stabilizers. The relative size of the bubble canopy helps determine the size of the notional light fighter, which is somewhat smaller — although not dramatically smaller — than the Joint Strike Fighter.”

The general referred to this approach for the light fighter as “built to adapt” instead of “built to last.” Unfortunately, Allvin has made the whole issue of an NGAD replacement murky. He did not mention the NGAD by name, so it was left to the Space Power Association to read between the tea leaves about what he meant.

This speculation comes while Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has projected a less-than-optimistic tone regarding the NGAD. The usually candid and loquacious Kendall was speaking at a conference in Dayton, Ohio, at the end of July and intimated that the Air Force would place the development of the NGAD “on pause” so design features and cost estimates could be reviewed. Kendall did admit that the branch would still pursue a “sixth-generation crewed aircraft.”

Kendall asked a rhetorical question. Does the service have “the right process? … the right operational concept?” Kendall wondered. “Before we commit to moving forward on a single design [and a] single supplier, we’re going to take a hard look at that,” he explained.

So, what are the chief of staff and the secretary talking about? It may be that they do not really know at this early stage of the NGAD. One thing is clear. They are not sold on the current design of the NGAD and not confident about the new airplane. The light fighter may be an option, but is it worth all the time, money, and resources to build a new fighter that is dupe of the F-22 and F-35?

I think not. The NGAD concept is exciting and should be pursued. Perhaps it could be unmanned, which would make it a departure from the current Air Force practice of using real pilots for their fighters and bombers. Maybe the NGAD could be the Loyal Wingman that is tethered to an F-35. This would make it more of a support unmanned aircraft and not meant to replace the F-22 or F-35.

(ILLUSTRATION) — An artist illustration shows a flight of unmanned weapons carriers escorted by a sixth generation air dominance fighter during a combat mission over an undisclosed location. Mike Tsukamoto/staff; Airman 1st Class Erin Baxte.

I don’t see the Light Fighter coming to fruition. It does not appear to be innovative in its design. It could be stealthier than the F-35 or F-22, but it does not check all the boxes to become a whiz-bang next-generation fighter. Look for the Air Force to re-examine the NGAD program. A short pause is prudent before sinking substantial funds into the program. Let’s not get carried away with this light fighter. It seems to be just an artist rendering on a PowerPoint slide and not the real direction the Air Force is going with its 6^th generation fighter.

About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare, plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.