The U.S. Air Force’s NGAD 6th Generation Fighter Problem Has No Easy Fix

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

The Big NGAD Problem Is Cost: The U.S. Air Force’s Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program should maintain its advanced technological capabilities and manned design rather than opting for cost-cutting measures that compromise performance.

-While autonomous drones and AI enhance combat effectiveness, human cognition remains irreplaceable in complex warfare scenarios. Scaling back NGAD’s features risks diminishing its superiority against rising threats, such as China’s 6th-gen advancements.

-NGAD’s groundbreaking stealth, AI integration, and maneuverability are vital for future airpower.

Why Downgrading NGAD Could Be a Costly Mistake for U.S. Air Power

Downgrading NGAD to a marginally better version of upgraded F-35s or F-22s would squander resources and jeopardize U.S. aerial dominance in an increasingly contested global airspace.

Massively scaling back the technologies, performance parameters, sensors, and weapons systems on the United States Air Force Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) 6th-gen aircraft may reduce costs, yet this kind of strategy seems counterproductive and potentially detrimental to US Air Power modernization. 

Some might argue it is sensible to replace a manned 6th-gen with high-tech, highly-capable drones such as Combat Collaborative Aircraft engineered with growing levels of autonomy and mission scope while controlled by a manned B-21 bomber or F-35 operating at safe stand-off ranges. However, the consensus among senior US weapons developers is that, despite the rapid growth in AI-generated capability and autonomous operations, there should not be a full-scale replacement of human cognition and decision-making in combat, particularly regarding lethal force. There are too many variables unique to human consciousness that machines cannot replicate, such as emotion, morality, intuition, and other uniquely human attributes. The prevailing consensus is that an optimal approach to future warfighting is to simultaneously leverage both man and machine in coordination with one another.  

Generally referred to as “manned-unmanned” teaming or “human-machine” interface, this strategic approach seeks to blend human cognition and decision-making with the kinds of high-speed procedural functions best performed by machines.

In short, this means machines and AI-enabled data processing and analysis can lower what’s referred to as the “cognitive burden” placed upon human pilots, freeing up mental bandwidth to focus on the more pressing combat decisions and nuances requiring human analysis. 

“Manned-Unmanned Teaming” 

Given all of this, one might still argue that a “manned” or at least “optionally manned” 6th-generation fighter should be built, then it makes no sense to massively scale back its capabilities to save money for many apparent reasons. The B-21, for example, will be capable of unmanned missions but intended mainly for manned use to perform sensing, attacking, command and control, and operations controlling groups of drones from stand-off distances. AI-enabled fighter jets have, in some experiments, outperformed human pilots.

Yet, such findings are not decisive when viewed within the broader context of air combat and air supremacy. Long-range sensors and weapons may make dog-fighting less frequent or likely, yet there seems to be a compelling case for why future stealth fighter jets should have “manned” capability.  

The US Air Force seems to think this way to a large degree. Therefore, it has experimented with an AI-enabled co-pilot operating in close coordination with a manned pilot. The AI-capable unmanned co-pilot, Artu, was flown in a fighter in an Air Force experiment demonstration several times over the last few years, a scenario detailed in a Warrior Maven analysis in 2023. These experiments, which are likely still being analyzed, reflect the Pentagon’s belief that any optimal approach to future combat should involve integrated use of “both” human decision-making and AI-enabled computing.  

AI Not Perfect

The other problem with “over-relying” on AI is that it needs to become more reliable and resilient. Currently, AI-enabled systems are potentially vulnerable to being “spoofed.” They can struggle to quickly and correctly analyze or incorporate “new” information that is not in their existing database. While many efforts are underway to “harden” AI and improve reliability, called “Zero Trust,” much progress remains necessary as an AI-enabled system is at risk of generating false-positive or misinterpreting new, unrecognized data. This is changing quickly, given many industry and military efforts to achieve “real-time” or “close-to-real-time” analytics wherein incoming new data can be understood, adequately identified, and accurately integrated into a more extensive system. However, it appears much work is still required. 

Need for “Manned” 6th-Gen NGAD

Therefore, if one were to presume that a “manned” 6th-generation fighter should be built, then it would not make sense to scale it back. An interesting recent essay in Breaking Defense says findings from a recent Air Force review have determined that the service “should” build a sixth-generation aircraft and that it “should” be manned. 

Threat Equation

Why might a manned NGAD be necessary? 

Firstly, the threat scenario regarding 6th-generation aircraft is increasingly severe, given China’s disclosure of several 6th-generation stealth fighter designs. It may not be clear how far along the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) is with sensing, networking, and AI-enabled targeting, drawing upon “manned-unmanned” teaming. Chinese government-backed newspapers such as the Global Times have written extensively about efforts to cultivate manned-unmanned teaming, intelligentized networked warfare and “loyal wingman” types of manned-unmanned air-attack synergies.

This would suggest that it makes little to no sense to scale back the advanced technologies needed to engineer a new generation of stealth fighters. While details of the US Air Force’s NGAD are not likely and demonstrators that have flown for several years have not been seen, the 6th-generation effort is known to incorporate a massive range of paradigm-changing technologies. These include things like improved speed, bomber-like stealth capability, smart, AI-enabled sensors woven into the “skin” of an aircraft and a new generation of aerial maneuverability, weaponry and targeting. These technologies, and the extent to which they are mature, must be protected and developed to pursue US Air Force superiority in the sky. 

Don’t Make the Great NGAD Mistake

This is another reason why a “scaled-back” NGAD would be counterproductive and, arguably, a waste of money and resources. It would likely not be much different or even less capable than an upgraded F-35. Many breakthrough advances in warfighting technology are expected in software upgrades, sensing, computing, and AI-enabled high-speed data processing, analysis, and organization. 

This is why the Pentagon intends to continuously upgrade the F-35 to enable it to fly into the 2070s. The F-35 can be constantly upgraded with software enhancements that enable new weapons, improved sensing, longer ranges, and onboard computing.

There may also be advances in composite or radar-absorbent materials that can upgrade the F-35 without changing its overall design and technological composition. The F-35, now in operation in at least 18 countries, is here to stay. The F-22 is also undergoing massive upgrades to support service into the 2060s.

Engineering a “less” capable “manned” 6th-generation aircraft would, to be honest, be a ridiculous mistake. 

About the Author: Kris Osborn

Kris Osborn is the Military Technology Editor of 19FortyFive and President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a highly qualified expert in 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.