U.S. Air Force Rethinks Fighter Jet Strategy Amid Pacific Tensions

[Social Media]

 

The U.S. Air Force recently surprised many by reconsidering its ambitious plan to develop a sixth-generation stealth fighter, a project estimated to cost around $60 billion. This new jet, known as the Next-Generation Air-Dominance (NGAD) fighter, was intended to replace the aging fleet of F-22 Raptors, widely regarded as the world’s most advanced fighter jets. Although the F-22, which debuted in the 2000s, remains unmatched in terms of stealth and combat capabilities, its time is running out, and the Air Force needs to plan for the future.

 

The NGAD program was expected to deliver around 200 advanced fighters, each costing about $300 million, which is three times the price of the current F-35 Lightning II. The hefty price tag reflects the jet’s cutting-edge technology, designed for long-range missions over the Pacific Ocean, where U.S. air bases could be separated by vast distances. Current fighter jets like the F-15, F-16, F-22, and F-35 have limited ranges, making them reliant on aerial refueling—a vulnerability that could be exploited in conflict with China.

 

General David Allvin, the Air Force’s chief of staff, was the first to express doubts about the NGAD program, suggesting that the design might not be the right fit. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall echoed this sentiment, indicating that the Air Force is exploring cheaper alternatives. “We’re looking at whether we can do something that’s less expensive and do some trade-offs there,” said Kendall, highlighting a shift in focus toward affordability.

 

The primary appeal of the NGAD was its long range, facilitated by large fuel tanks and next-generation adaptive engines designed for high efficiency. The fighter was envisioned to have a range nearly double that of the F-22, enabling it to reach critical areas like Taiwan and the first island chain stretching from Japan to the Philippines without depending heavily on tankers. However, the rising costs have made Air Force leaders reconsider this strategy.

 

In July, Allvin presented a concept for a smaller, lighter stealth fighter that might be easier and cheaper to produce. This hypothetical aircraft resembles the F-35 but is even smaller, with a single engine and potentially lacking the advanced adaptive technology that drove up NGAD’s costs. While cheaper and adaptable to new technologies, a lighter fighter would sacrifice the long range needed for operations in the Pacific, possibly forcing the Air Force to rethink its combat approach.

 

This reconsideration has led to uncertainty about the future of the NGAD program. There is no guarantee that the Air Force will fully abandon the NGAD, nor is it clear if the conceptual light fighter will ever be realized. If it does replace the NGAD, the Air Force might have to adjust its strategy in a potential Pacific conflict, relying more on bombers and missiles rather than direct aerial combat over Taiwan.

 

One potential approach involves using stealth bombers to launch cruise missiles from bases far removed from the immediate combat zones, effectively avoiding direct confrontations with Chinese fighters. This strategy could be a game-changer, emphasizing missile strikes from a distance rather than traditional dogfights. In January 2023, a war game simulation by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) demonstrated this tactic’s potential effectiveness. In these scenarios, Chinese missile strikes decimated U.S. bases, forcing American forces to operate from great distances. Yet, with the help of long-range bombers and U.S. Navy submarines, the Chinese invasion fleet was successfully neutralized.

 

These simulations suggest that the Air Force’s focus on finding the perfect fighter jet—whether the NGAD or a lighter alternative—may not be the critical factor in a future war with China. “In most of the simulations, Chinese missiles devastated US bases across the region, compelling the Air Force to launch bombers from thousands of miles away,” the CSIS report notes. In these war games, American fighters often never left the ground, and missiles, rather than jets, played the decisive role.

 

As the Air Force continues to weigh its options, it faces a complex decision: invest in an expensive long-range fighter or pivot to a more economical, short-range option that reshapes its approach to warfare. The outcome could significantly impact U.S. air strategy in the Pacific, where the ability to adapt to evolving threats will be just as crucial as the capabilities of any single aircraft.

 

Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-08-31

 

 

 

Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

[newbee2022]

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

The U.S. Air Force recently surprised many by reconsidering its ambitious plan to develop a sixth-generation stealth fighter, a project estimated to cost around $60 billion. This new jet, known as the Next-Generation Air-Dominance (NGAD) fighter, was intended to replace the aging fleet of F-22 Raptors, widely regarded as the world’s most advanced fighter jets. Although the F-22, which debuted in the 2000s, remains unmatched in terms of stealth and combat capabilities, its time is running out, and the Air Force needs to plan for the future.

 

The NGAD program was expected to deliver around 200 advanced fighters, each costing about $300 million, which is three times the price of the current F-35 Lightning II. The hefty price tag reflects the jet’s cutting-edge technology, designed for long-range missions over the Pacific Ocean, where U.S. air bases could be separated by vast distances. Current fighter jets like the F-15, F-16, F-22, and F-35 have limited ranges, making them reliant on aerial refueling—a vulnerability that could be exploited in conflict with China.

 

General David Allvin, the Air Force’s chief of staff, was the first to express doubts about the NGAD program, suggesting that the design might not be the right fit. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall echoed this sentiment, indicating that the Air Force is exploring cheaper alternatives. “We’re looking at whether we can do something that’s less expensive and do some trade-offs there,” said Kendall, highlighting a shift in focus toward affordability.

 

The primary appeal of the NGAD was its long range, facilitated by large fuel tanks and next-generation adaptive engines designed for high efficiency. The fighter was envisioned to have a range nearly double that of the F-22, enabling it to reach critical areas like Taiwan and the first island chain stretching from Japan to the Philippines without depending heavily on tankers. However, the rising costs have made Air Force leaders reconsider this strategy.

 

 

In July, Allvin presented a concept for a smaller, lighter stealth fighter that might be easier and cheaper to produce. This hypothetical aircraft resembles the F-35 but is even smaller, with a single engine and potentially lacking the advanced adaptive technology that drove up NGAD’s costs. While cheaper and adaptable to new technologies, a lighter fighter would sacrifice the long range needed for operations in the Pacific, possibly forcing the Air Force to rethink its combat approach.

 

This reconsideration has led to uncertainty about the future of the NGAD program. There is no guarantee that the Air Force will fully abandon the NGAD, nor is it clear if the conceptual light fighter will ever be realized. If it does replace the NGAD, the Air Force might have to adjust its strategy in a potential Pacific conflict, relying more on bombers and missiles rather than direct aerial combat over Taiwan.

 

One potential approach involves using stealth bombers to launch cruise missiles from bases far removed from the immediate combat zones, effectively avoiding direct confrontations with Chinese fighters. This strategy could be a game-changer, emphasizing missile strikes from a distance rather than traditional dogfights. In January 2023, a war game simulation by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) demonstrated this tactic’s potential effectiveness. In these scenarios, Chinese missile strikes decimated U.S. bases, forcing American forces to operate from great distances. Yet, with the help of long-range bombers and U.S. Navy submarines, the Chinese invasion fleet was successfully neutralized.

 

These simulations suggest that the Air Force’s focus on finding the perfect fighter jet—whether the NGAD or a lighter alternative—may not be the critical factor in a future war with China. “In most of the simulations, Chinese missiles devastated US bases across the region, compelling the Air Force to launch bombers from thousands of miles away,” the CSIS report notes. In these war games, American fighters often never left the ground, and missiles, rather than jets, played the decisive role.

 

As the Air Force continues to weigh its options, it faces a complex decision: invest in an expensive long-range fighter or pivot to a more economical, short-range option that reshapes its approach to warfare. The outcome could significantly impact U.S. air strategy in the Pacific, where the ability to adapt to evolving threats will be just as crucial as the capabilities of any single aircraft.

 

Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-08-31

 

 

 

Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

Good morning America. Preparing for the next Desaster, starting another war what you will not win? War mongering again and again? When will you ever learn???😶

[Gweiloman]

16 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Good morning America. Preparing for the next Desaster, starting another war what you will not win? War mongering again and again? When will you ever learn???😶

While China invests billions in building infrastructure and new technologies for the betterment of humanity, America invests billions in weapons of death. No wonder that more and more countries are moving away from this schoolyard bully.

[JonnyF]

Waste of money. 

 

The days of wars being fought by Dangerboy Dave in his cool plane are long gone.

 

I suggest the US spends it money on cyber security. 

[expat_4_life]

59 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Good morning America. Preparing for the next Desaster, starting another war what you will not win? War mongering again and again? When will you ever learn???😶

 

I fear the answer is never, too much corruption - doesn't seem to matter who gets elected.  The rot extends through all the institutions.

Edited August 31 by expat_4_life

[thaibeachlovers]

On 8/31/2024 at 8:33 AM, Social Media said:

As the Air Force continues to weigh its options, it faces a complex decision: invest in an expensive long-range fighter or pivot to a more economical, short-range option that reshapes its approach to warfare. The outcome could significantly impact U.S. air strategy in the Pacific, where the ability to adapt to evolving threats will be just as crucial as the capabilities of any single aircraft.

IMO neither. The future is obviously in unmanned planes, and mass produced with less advanced technology. Without a pilot they will be able to fly at speeds far beyond the ability of a human pilot and will not need to be stealthy.

 

I'm guessing, but IMO the days of dog fights are long gone and it's just delivering cruise missiles or such like to a target.

[thaibeachlovers]

23 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

While China invests billions in building infrastructure and new technologies for the betterment of humanity, America invests billions in weapons of death. No wonder that more and more countries are moving away from this schoolyard bully.

You said it better that I could.

Simples- there is more profit to be made in war than peace, and IMO the US is all about profit for the 1%. After all, it was they that made Americans unemployed so they could make more profit by exploiting poor Chinese. Now that China has become advanced through the money and tech that the US gave to them to make that profit it's coming back to bite the US. Perhaps they are depending on Musk to escape to Mars when it all goes wrong.