Key Points and Summary on F-47 Fighter – Boeing’s F-47, the U.S. Air Force’s next-generation stealth fighter, faces a critical dilemma: it may be obsolete before it even flies thanks to drone technology.
-As the cost of the manned F-47 program soars to a potential $300 million per jet, a debate rages over whether cheaper, autonomous “loyal wingman” drones (CCAs) are the smarter investment for future air combat.
-South Korea’s recent decision to cut funding for Apache helicopters in favor of drones highlights this shift.
-The author argues that Boeing should develop both manned and unmanned versions of the F-47 to truly determine the future of air power.
The F-47 Fighter vs. Drones
South Korea has just cut funding for the planned purchase of Boeing AH-64E Apache attack helicopters, reportedly to re-allocate funding towards drones. This raises an important question. Is this the end of an era for manned flight? It’s a fraught time for American defense contractors like Boeing.
The aerospace giant is the prime contractor for the F-47 NGAD sixth-generation fighter jet. This airplane will take a significant time to develop, and by the time it is ready, manned flight may be a thing of the past.
The problem with the F-47 “flying supercomputer” is that it may become obsolete by the time the new warbird flies on a regular basis. Some defense strategists, as well as those new to the field, such as Elon Musk, have called for drones to be the primary U.S. tool of aerial warfare.
Why Not Just Use Autonomous Drones
The F-47 could serve as a drone quarterback that can control a flight of loyal wingmen. These are called the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) that can perform missile strikes, electronic warfare, and battle damage assessment.
Why not skip the F-47 and just rely on the unmanned craft?
The F-47 Is Trump’s Baby
This is a question that must be answered before the Air Force invests time, money, and resources into the NGAD. President Donald Trump is fully on board. He may have named the new airplane the “47” because he is the 45th president. The airplane announcement took place in the Oval Office, so we can expect the Department of Defense and Republicans in Congress to support funding for the F-47.
This brings us to the combat capabilities of the ultra-stealth warbird. Just how survivable will it be in an advanced threat environment with layered air defense systems, such as the Russian S-500 and the Chinese HQ-9? One F-47 could be replaced by several CCAs. This is a cost-effective approach that has the ability to keep a human pilot from being shot down. No one wants a live pilot to die or be taken prisoner by the enemy.
How About Both a Manned and Unmanned Version?
One thing Boeing could do would be to make the F-47 both manned and unmanned and see which aircraft performs better by having an old-fashioned competition. There is no substitute for a human aviator. Humans have better judgment and agility in decision making at the forefront of a dog fight. They can better execute the OODA loop when flying. This is a decision calculus framework based on the cycle of Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act. Highly trained and skilled aviators are able to digest maximum amounts of information, process it rapidly, and make decisions more efficiently.
Autonomous drones are also not yet ready for prime time. The CCA is being tested, but networking the craft and allowing it interoperability with other service branches has yet to be accomplished. Therefore, replacing the F-47 with a full-time flight of CCAs is not a fully baked idea.
However, it could save money. The F-47 NGAD could cost as much as $300 million per unit. Drones, on the other hand, are less expensive. Additionally, if a CCA is shot down, there are plenty more that can be sent to the skies.
Human Flight Is the Best Kind of Flight
We are definitely in the age of drones, but is it time to abandon manned flight? Air Force traditions that depend on live pilots are deeply ingrained, and fully autonomous drone flight is not yet assured. That’s why it may be better to make the full transition to drones slowly and gradually rather than haphazardly.
One problem with the use of full-time drones is their limited speed and agility. There is no substitute for ultra-fast maneuvers. Just watch the latest documentary on the U.S. Navy Blue Angels demonstration team or attend an air show. No drone can replicate that level of speed and agility.
On the other hand, a drone can make a bombing run if it cannot dogfight like a manned fighter jet. Additionally, they excel at launching air-to-surface missiles. There is no question that they can collect intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance data.
Boeing Has Difficult Decisions Ahead
Boeing should take a close look at the manned-unmanned debate. The $300 million human-piloted warbird could be developed only to see that drones have eclipsed the F-47 in combat and reconnaissance capabilities. That’s why it may be time for a compromise and create two versions of the NGAD – one manned and the other unmanned – and let the games begin. This approach would have higher up-front costs, but it would be one way evaluators could make a fair decision on speed, acceleration, survivability, and maneuverability.
The South Korean decision to curtail spending on the Apache attack helicopter in order to invest the savings in drones should wake up Boeing. It would be a shame if the F-47 were obsolete by the time it reaches initial operating capacity. That’s why designers and engineers must refrain from cost overruns and schedule slips, and oversee the NGAD teaming with the CCA. Human pilots may find themselves on the sidelines while autonomous drones rule the skies instead.
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.
More Military
The U.S. Navy’s Submarine Crisis Is Real
