{"id":45902,"date":"2018-07-16T17:44:33","date_gmt":"2018-07-16T17:44:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/airforcetimes\/uncategorized\/2018\/07\/16\/whats-going-on-with-americas-next-fighter-designs\/"},"modified":"2026-08-07T23:38:58","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T23:38:58","slug":"whats-going-on-with-americas-next-fighter-designs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/airforcetimes\/news\/2018\/07\/16\/whats-going-on-with-americas-next-fighter-designs\/","title":{"rendered":"What\u2019s going on with America\u2019s next fighter designs?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

WASHINGTON \u2015 America is developing a pair of two new high-tech fighter aircraft, and you probably haven\u2019t heard much about them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under the leadership of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, the Pentagon has clamped down on talking about cutting-edge capabilities in development, citing concerns about giving potential foes too much information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nevertheless, some details have emerged about the ongoing programs, one each from the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy. And in light of European plans for new fighter designs<\/a>, it is worth revisiting what is, and isn\u2019t, known about the American efforts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2016, the U.S. Air Force unveiled its \u201cAir Superiority 2030\u201d study, which posited that although the service would need a new air superiority fighter jet \u2014 called Penetrating Counter Air \u2014 as soon as the 2030s, it would be just as important that the new plane fit into a “family of systems<\/a>\u201d of space, cyber, electronic warfare<\/a> and other enabling technologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The service then initiated an analysis of alternatives in 2017 to further drill down on Penetrating Counter Air concepts and to refine its requirements<\/a>, but the service\u2019s top uniformed officer sounds interested in a disaggregated mission aproach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhen you look at \u2014 through the lens of the network \u2014 and you look at air superiority as a mission, as a family-of-systems approach, you can see why you don\u2019t hear me talking a lot about a replacement, A for B,\u201d Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein told Defense News in March.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBecause the replacement may not be a single platform, it maybe two or three different kinds of capabilities and systems. And so as we look at air superiority in the future, ensuring that we\u2019re advancing to stay ahead of the adversary, we\u2019re looking at all those options.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Tapper, the Air Force\u2019s special adviser to the deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, echoed Goldfein\u2019s comments during a June 26 panel. \u201cIt\u2019s not necessarily about a new airplane or a new platform. It\u2019s about how you take the power of things that operate in space, things that operate in cyberspace, things that operate in air and terrestrially and subsurface to create effects in the battlespace. So how do you leverage the power of all those data streams and fit them together in new ways?\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners, called the nature of the U.S. program \u201cthe most fascinating question: What does this thing even look like? Is it a manned\/unmanned platform with stealth? Is it a larger mothership that can control all these unmanned systems? I just don\u2019t know.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite silence on the Air Force effort, it\u2019s clear money is being spent to push the effort forward. In the fiscal 2019 budget, the service requested $504 million for \u201cnext-generation air dominance,\u201d its portfolio of future fighter technologies and weapons. The Air Force expects to ramp up<\/a> funding to $1.4 billion in FY20, hitting a high in FY22 with a projected $3.1 billion in spending.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Officials involved in the effort have described Penetrating Counter Air as a survivable aircraft that may have design elements similar to a bomber in order to give it a longer range. Parallel experimentation and prototyping efforts are seen as necessary to prove out breakthrough technologies in areas like propulsion or autonomy that could be ready by 2030.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Naval fighters needed?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For several years, the U.S. Navy has made noises about a new fighter competition known as F\/A-XX<\/a>. In 2012, the Navy issued a request for information that set a target date of 2030 for its initial operational capability. That date, however, seems increasingly unlikely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Facing a mountain of recapitalization costs from the next-generation ballistic missile submarine to a next-generation frigate, the Navy\u2019s timeline is unclear. It\u2019s also unclear whether it wants a new fighter or whether the capability will be replaced with a family of systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe are currently conducting an analysis of alternatives, both in anticipation of the retirement of the F\/A-18E\/F and EA-18G, as well as to maintain options for enhancing the lethality, survivability and effectiveness of the carrier strike group and meet predicted future threats in the 2030-plus timeframe,\u201d Navy Lt. Lauren Chatmas said when asked about the state of the program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An analysis of alternatives basically means the Navy is looking to see if there are already systems in the fleet that can take on the mission requirements of a future fighter, or if there are cheaper ways to do the same thing. The Navy announced in 2016 that the analysis of alternatives, which would include manned, unmanned and optionally manned airframes, had launched that January. That makes the effort more than two and a half years old.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Boeing concept art for a Next Generation Air Dominance fighter jet. (Boeing)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The Navy is looking at some key capabilities it thinks a next-generation system or systems will need to in the 2030s and beyond, Chatmas continued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn terms of technologies, the Navy is considering trades to balance capability, affordability and survivability across a [family of systems] and not limiting the analysis to a single aircraft to meet future threats,\u201d she noted. \u201cSome important areas of consideration include derivative and developmental air vehicle designs, advanced engines, propulsion, weapons, mission systems, electronic warfare systems, and numerous other emerging technologies and concepts.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

F-35 echoes<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notably, the Pentagon\u2019s recently released 30-year aviation plan shows the Air Force intends to complete its analysis of alternatives in the summer of 2018, with the Navy completing its equivalent in mid-2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That could be a sign that the systems will share some technologies. There are likely some shared technologies between the two, including things like directed energy<\/a> or artifical intelligence, which brings back the core question of what a next-generation fighter looks like, and if it is as much a fighter plane as a hub for sensors and \u201cloyal wingman\u201d drones. And in 2015, then-acquisistion head Frank Kendall said the two systems would involve common parts<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But regardless of the final product, the design of the program won\u2019t look anything like the multi-service, multinational F-35 fighter jet.<\/p>\n\n\n\t