An increased focus on long-range strike capabilities is what the U.S. Air Force is considering as an alternative to its expensive new manned sixth-generation stealth fighters as part of its Next Generation Air Dominance System (NGAD) family. A low-cost design, primarily focused on acting as a “quarterback” for Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones, is also still under consideration, simply continuing with the original plan, and will not complete the development process. A highly advanced manned tactical jet that would cost an additional $20 billion. The service has already announced that it will leave the final decision on how to proceed or not to the incoming Trump administration, based on the recommendations of an overhaul of the program.
Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall today provided additional details about an alternative to the original plan for a new sixth-generation NGAD fighter jet in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank. Last year, the service announced it would put development work on the NGAD aircraft on hold and begin a thorough review of the program’s core requirements and objectives. The review is understood to be close to completion, if not complete.
“The Air Force (initially) created a requirement for an aircraft that was essentially a replacement for the F-22, and that’s what we’ve been working on for the last few years,” Kendall said. “We’re now at the point where we’re finalizing the design going forward and deciding whether to go into production or not. And this is really the most important milestone for almost any program.”
“Alternatives to the F-22 successor concept include something more similar to the F-35 successor,” which is “a much cheaper, multi-role aircraft designed as a manager.” It was designed even more for the CCA and its role,” the Air Force’s top civilian official added. “And there was another option that we considered, and that was to rely more on long-range attacks.”
“People are talking about not building another crew or aircraft. I don’t think we’re there yet. I think that could be considered,” Kendall continued. “We could continue to rely on the F-35 and continue that for the foreseeable future and focus on CCA. I’m personally not ready to do that.”
Air Force officials, particularly Kendall, have repeatedly emphasized the possibility of replacing the current NGAD fighter program with a lower-cost design more specifically centered around CCA management. A forward drone controller route could mean aircraft maximize fuel and network capacity with weapons and sensors distributed across the unmanned platforms they manage. This could lead to cheaper, smaller jets. TWZ previously explored what such a design would look like in a very detailed feature. You can view it here.
Last October, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Albin said the B-21 Raider stealth bomber could take on more roles and missions as a result of a review of the NGAD fighter program. The B-21 is already configured to perform a wide range of missions, including battle management and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), in addition to long-range strikes.
It’s also worth noting here that, although it’s not clear if Kendall referred to this directly today, long-range strike is also a terminology within the Air Force, referring to a larger group of systems, including the B-21. It is. The AGM-181 Long Range Standoff (LRSO) nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missile is also known to be part of the LRS’s “system of systems,” but there is much more to the classified area. and you can read all about it. Click here for details.
In his remarks on CSIS, Kendall added that increasing emphasis on “long-range attacks” is “something we can do in any case.” “So that’s something we’re looking at as an option. It’s relatively inexpensive and it probably makes sense to do more things that way.”
Kendall did not elaborate on what a long-range strike would mean to replace NGAD fighters. But after Allbin’s comments about the B-21 last year, TWZ wrote:
“As The War Zone has explored in detail in the past, the B-21’s size, long range, high-altitude ceiling, wideband low observability (stealth), and other capabilities actually It could be very suitable for supporting forms of aviation “-anti-aircraft combat. The Raider has the potential to serve as a launch platform for air-to-air missiles, especially the very large and very long-range types. Its payload capacity would also allow it to carry a large number of small air-to-air missiles. The B-21 can also use air-to-ground munitions to help suppress and destroy enemy air defense missions (SEAD/DEAD), which is also part of the air superiority equation. ”
“Perhaps most importantly, the B-21 could also serve as an airborne nerve center for anti-aircraft missions, especially controlling unmanned aircraft such as the Air Force’s planned Joint Combat Aircraft (CCA) fleet. , in the most heavily contested airspace. Unmanned aircraft could feed targeting data back to raiders with air-to-air equipment. The B-21 may also be able to launch some of those drones itself.”
A greater focus on long-range strikes could also lead to a broader reconceptualization of what air superiority will look like for the entire U.S. military going forward, something Air Force officials have previously hinted at. Ta. There are other operational factors contributing to the final decision regarding the NGAD fighter, including new concepts of operations and tactics, techniques, and procedures for the adoption of CCA, as well as plans for new stealth tanker aircraft.
“There continues to be a need for manned aircraft to provide reliable communications and command and control to unmanned aircraft, and we believe that can be achieved from tactical manned aircraft working with CCA. I think it’s a model to follow,” Kendall said today. “The next generation of aerial refueling. All our long-range aircraft based on conventional aircraft are becoming increasingly vulnerable to very long-range and even very long-range anti-aircraft systems, and their survivability needs to be addressed.”
When it comes to NGAD fighters, Kendall today largely reiterated what he has said in the past about focusing on the program. He also left the door open to the possibility that the Air Force could simply continue with its original plan, something it has done before.
“Two things made us reconsider that platform. One was the budget,” the Air Force’s top civilian official explained. “With the current budget levels that we have, it was very difficult to see how we could finance that platform. We needed another $20 billion or more in R&D (research and development), … We had to start buying aircraft at many times the price of the F-35, and we couldn’t afford more.”
It is unclear how much the Air Force has spent on the NGAD fighter program to date. The formal competition has been ongoing since 2023. The service requested $276 million and $815 million in fiscal years 2024 and 2025, respectively, for risk mitigation and other development work. This was part of a funding request of just over $1.9 billion and nearly $2.75 billion in these fiscal cycles for the entire NGAD initiative. Classified funding streams and funds spent on advocacy efforts over the past decade, including those that produced flight demonstrators, are also part of the equation. It’s also worth noting that the F-22 program cost a total of about $70 billion, of which about $30 billion was spent on initial, non-routine research and development.
The Air Force previously announced plans to buy about 200 new NGAD jets to replace its similarly sized F-22 fleet. Kendall has said in the past that based on publicly available information, each aircraft could cost more than three times the average unit cost of an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, or more than $300 million.
“And Air Force operators and senior operators came in and said, when we think about this aircraft, we don’t know if it’s the right design concept. Is this really what we need?” Kendall added. “So we spent about three or four months analyzing, bringing in a lot of former chiefs of staff and people that I knew early in my career and really respected, to figure out what was the right thing to do. I tried to find out what was going on. “
“At the end of the day, a big part of the consensus in that group was that there was value in moving forward with this, and there was a reason to move forward in the industrial base, but there were other things that really needed to be funded first. There are priorities.” To Kendall. “So this decision ultimately comes down to two things: Do we have enough money in our budget to buy everything we need and NGAD? Is it right to buy it?”
Kendall spent the last year worrying about whether his service would be able to pay for the purchase of NGAD fighters, a second CCA base, and a new stealth aerial refueling tanker, while other important priorities such as B-class fighter jets also weighed on Kendall. He said he was concerned about having to pay the costs. 21 and Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile. The Secretary of the Air Force has cited Sentinel’s ballooning costs as a major factor in reconsidering the NGAD aircraft program.
“We don’t know right now whether the incoming Trump administration is going to increase or reduce the defense budget,” he added near the end of today’s CSIS speech. “I hope someone does, and I hope there are plans in place to match that, but I don’t know the answer to that question right now.”
Whatever the decision, the incoming Trump administration will have considerable options as an alternative to the initial NGAD combat, including a greater emphasis on long-range strike capabilities and low-cost jets like the F-35 successor. is likely to be presented. jet plan.
Updated: 6:30pm ET —
Andrew Hunter, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics, also said in an interview with Breaking Defense magazine today that the U.S. military is “competing” with China on sixth-generation air combat capabilities. He also stressed that the Air Force’s “technological advantage” remains “relevant and our systems are producing superior materiel.”
“It’s fair to say we pay a great deal of attention to the behavior of the Chinese, so not everything that comes out publicly is shocking,” Hunter added, adding that so far in December He mentioned the appearance of two never-before-seen Chinese stealth fighters. “But that being said, their pace is incredibly fast.”
“So it’s about what the IOC (initial operational capability) date is, and there’s a good chance they beat us in that regard. I think we have better capabilities. “But we certainly can’t afford to lose time,” he continued. “They could beat us to death.”
Contact the author: joe@twz.com
