There is now a new concept and rendering of the US Air Force’s long-standing quest to identify, build and deploy a new “Light Fighter” for the force able to both support ground troops and perform critical air engagements. This newest concept is “stealthy” and quite different than ideas and aircraft constructed in previous years, which envisioned a counterinsurgency light attack support aircraft for less-contested airspace where there is little to no threat of air defenses.
What We Know About Light Fighter
The new “Light Fighter” concept, unveiled recently by Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin at the Global Air and Space Chief’s Conference in London, was introduced as more of a “built-to-adapt” platform than an aircraft “built to endure.”
As presented by Allvin, the image (see below) of the aircraft looked like a stealthy, light, single-engine F-35 with “built-to-adapt” on the wing. The aircraft’s fuselage in the rendering seemed quite similar to an F-35 with its rounded single-engine, blended wing body and rounded nosecone. The air duct inlets appear smaller and lower than those featured on the F-35 however the similarities are striking.
The presentation and discussion of the Light Fighter concept and its potential similarity to the F-35 was discussed in an interesting essay about the unveiled image in The War Zone.
“Looking something like a scaled-down F-35 stealth fighter, the single-engined aircraft is clearly tailored for low observability, with a prominent chine line around the fuselage,” the War Zone writes.
A Game Changer?
The idea for an aircraft of this kind is clear and by no means unprecedented; however, the stealth-concept shown is new with this recent image.
Yes, indeed, the image of the new Light Fighter concept appears quite stealthy, yet the aircraft somehow will be designed to be “light,” “lower-cost,” and “attritable” at the same time.
Light Fighter Concept. Image Credit: YouTube/U.S. Air Force Screenshot.
The idea is to engineer a lower-cost, more expendable, and potentially even unmanned alternative to an exquisite, expensive, manned 6th-gen aircraft able to keep pace with technological change through ongoing, iterative software upgrades.
Light Fighter: NGAD Replacement?
Could the ‘Light Fighter’ concept emerge as an alternative to the Air Force’s stalled Next-Generation Air Dominance program?
With senior leaders expressing concerns about the cost of the NGAD, the ‘Light Fighter’ could offer a stealthy, lower-cost, yet upgradeable solution. This possibility raises intriguing questions about the future of air defense strategies.
However, the prospect of this kind of aircraft raises significant questions and, perhaps to some extent, reinforces why a manned 6th-generation host stealth fighter platform able to operate groups of Combat Collaborative Aircraft may be better equipped to meet the emerging threat environment. Initially, should a Light Fighter aircraft be stealthy, as indicated by the image, it needs to be clarified how low-cost that might be. It may be made with ultra-lightweight, expendable components with a stealthy configuration without using expensive coating or radar-absorbent materials.
Breaking Down Air Force Terms
Also, the idea of “built-to-adapt” vs. “built-to-last” raises a few questions, and the two ideas are incompatible. Most of the recent new large Air Force platforms are designed deliberately to “last” and be “adaptable” or upgradeable.
Since the earliest days of conceptual work on the now airborne B-21 Raider new stealth bomber, the aircraft was described as built with common standards and “open architecture” to accommodate new software upgrades and modernization initiatives as they emerge. The concept of the B-21 and the F-35 “continuous modernization” program aims to enable consistent, iterative software upgrades and technological enhancements as quickly as they become available for “adapting” to new threats and keeping pace with technological change. The idea of adaptability for large weapons platforms has been a priority for the Pentagon for at least several decades to ensure that promising new platforms don’t become obsolete or behind the developmental curve by the time they are deployed.
For years, the entire developmental philosophy for the F-35, B-21, and other large platforms has been deliberately grounded in merging longevity with adaptability by engineering systems with the interfaces and technological infrastructure to adjust, adapt, and integrate new technologies. This is done, in large measure, through the use of common standards and the often-used phrase “open architecture.”
The Air Force plans to fly the F-35 into the 2070s, something made possible through ongoing upgrades and adaptability. In fact, “adaptability” is the main reason a large platform can “endure” and extend its relevance into future years as threats change and become more advanced. Therefore, while a Light Fighter concept may indeed be much less expensive than a fully developed manned NGAD, the idea that “adaptable” is somehow at odds with “durable” or “able to last” seems misplaced. Instead, it would seem the opposite might seem more accurate, meaning a platform is “durable” and “can last” only if it’s built to be extremely “adaptable.”
About the Author: Kris Osborn
Kris Osborn is the 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.
