NGAD: The Air Force’s 6th Generation Fighter Dilemma

The promise of unparalleled speed, stealth, sensing, and lethality hangs in a mysterious haze of uncertainty as the US Air Force deliberates the future path of its 6th-Gen Next-Generation Air Dominance program, mostly known by its acronym, NGAD.

Demonstrator aircraft of the essentially secret platform have been airborne for quite some time. Yet, recent thinking has service leaders re-evaluating whether a high-cost, “exquisite” platform makes the most sense. Perhaps the host-platform mothership manned 6th-gen fighter could itself be a lower-cost, more attritable aircraft similar to the now emerging Combat Collaborative Aircraft.

What the Air Force is Saying on NGAD

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall described the NGAD program years ago as a “family of systems.” The program has been envisioned as one involving a stealthy, manned aircraft flying in tandem with multiple loyal wingman lower-cost, multi-function support drones called Combat Collaborative Aircraft (CCAs). These CCAs are well underway, and several industry offerings already exist, yet the concept for the main aircraft remains very much under review and “in flux.”

The large, overarching question framing much of the discussion centers around the possibility of massively scaling back the 6th-gen fighter in terms of cost and technological ambition to engineer instead a lighter, more “adaptable” lower-cost jet designed to fly in large formations.  Aside from potential concepts of operation, the main driver of the “redesign” thinking regarding NGAD is focused upon cost.  Multiple reports, including a Defense News interview with Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall saying the service is committed to the “family of systems” 6th-gen concept but is “pausing” on and reevaluating what the engine, design and cost of the fighter should be.

Why All of the Drama and Questions: Costs and Much More

A variety of variables seem to be colliding as the Air Force weighs its options for NGAD, including efforts to lower costs, leverage technology, and engineer enabling attributable yet lethal unmanned systems.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin offered what could be a window into Air Force thinking on NGAD in recent remarks in London at the Royal Aeronautical Society when he stressed the importance of building to “adapt” as opposed to building to “last” or “endure.” Allvin called for the need to engineer future platforms to operate in “formations” across wide, multi-domain operations functioning in a “collective” fashion.

Allvin did not cite NGAD specifically but did talk about the importance of building platforms to support “collective,” “integrated,” “multi-domain” mission objectives.  At the same time, the idea of building a durable, exquisite, high-tech platform and an “adaptable” one are by no means incongruous.

In fact, large platforms like the F-35 and B-21 Raider have for years been developing as open-architecture, “upgradeable” systems capable of adapting with software enhancements and technical upgrades to keep pace with changing threats. Allvin may not have had the NGAD in mind when discussing these ideas.

Beyond Cost: What Happens to NGAD Going Forward?

Are there any variables apart from cost potentially impacting this equation? Is there any reason it might be tactically or strategically advantageous to decrease the technological capabilities of NGAD?

Certainly, the service has been clear that it wishes to build lower-cost CCAs for sensible reasons, as they will likely be at a much higher risk of being destroyed by flying into contested areas as unmanned systems.  Could the service be thinking of a less expensive, less survivable, fully unmanned “host” plane for the NGAD family of systems? While that may save money, the longstanding Air Force concept of having a loyal wingman has been to leverage a man-unmanned interface and enable human decision-makers to perform command and control from the “cockpit” of an aircraft without increasing latency by sending data through a ground control station.

Some paths forward should be considered. Advanced computer processing, AI-enabled systems, and next-generation sensing can all increasingly be performed “in the air” at the point of collection, creating a technological opportunity to improve efficiency, expedite decision-making, and optimize attributes from both human and computing attributes at the edge of combat.

Furthermore, there may be large technological leaps forward in stealth, speed, weapons, and fire control, which might justify the need to proceed with a more expensive yet far more capable 6th-gen fighter. Costs are always the highest at the start of an enterprising program pioneering new technology, as with the F-35. A single F-35 can now sell for less than $89 million, and building a low-tech 6th-gen aircraft would likely generate the need for large-scale expenditures in the future as technology matures. Perhaps the strongest argument for an advanced NGAD is simply based on the observable reality that China is progressing rapidly with its 6th-gen aircraft.

Therefore, massively scaling back the mission scope and concept of operation for the 6th gen NGAD to lower costs may seem at odds with the service’s longstanding vision for how best to develop the new platform.

About the Author: Kris Osborn

Kris Osborn is the Military Affairs Editor of 19FortyFive and 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. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.