The U.S. Air Force is thinking about starting from scratch on a new, lightweight fighter that could ease the financial burden brought on by the troubled but capable F-35.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter may be the Air Force’s “quarterback in the sky,” but it’s also expensive to operate and, to date, still riddled with issues. Now, the Air Force is kicking off a month-long assessment of the branch’s tactical aviation requirements with the intention of potentially fielding an all-new fighter that boasts some of the capabilities found in the F-35 and F-22, but with a significantly smaller price tag. This new fighter would not replace the F-35, but would instead be used in place of 4th generation fighters like the F-16 Fighting Falcon.
“I want to moderate how much we’re using those aircraft,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. said of the F-35 last week.
“You don’t drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays. This is our ‘high end’ [fighter], we want to make sure we don’t use it all for the low-end fight… We don’t want to burn up capability now and wish we had it later.”
Despite the polite language, this subtle statement is a bit of a bombshell. For years now, the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin have touted the incredible capability of the F-35 despite its setbacks. The aircraft is expected to replace the F-16 as America’s workhorse fighter, with the U.S. planning to order more than two thousand of them before its production run is complete… But developmental problems and cost overruns have prompted a chorus of critics who say America’s fighter of the future is more about politics than capability.
The Air Force has already begun purchasing a slew of new old fighters in the 4th generation F-15EX, which will replace aging F-15 Eagles in the branch’s inventory. Some have suggested doing something similar with the F-16; purchasing updated iterations of the famed fighter to fill roles that don’t require a stealth aircraft. Brown, however, dismissed that idea–saying instead that a new fighter needs to be developed that leverages some 5th generation capabilities, but comes in a simpler, cheaper package.
What’s the problem with the F-35?
The F-22 Raptor was the world’s first operational stealth fighter, and introduced the world to what we’ve come to know as the 5th generation of fighter aircraft. Initially, the Air Force intended to purchase 750 Raptors to replace its fleet of F-15 Eagles as America’s premier air superiority fighters, but decades-long conflicts in the Middle East ultimately prompted the program’s cancelation. After delivering just 186 F-22s to the Air Force, Lockheed Martin would go on to cannibalize the supply chain and facilities once dedicated to the Raptor to their next high-profile stealth aircraft, the F-35.
However, 14 years after the F-35 first took to the sky, it has still not been authorized to move into full-rate production thanks to a litany of bugs and issues that have plagued the aircraft program since its inception. In fairness to Lockheed Martin, the defense contractor leading the F-35 program, the aircraft itself was truly without precedent when development started.
“If you were to go back to the year 2000 and somebody said, ‘I can build an airplane that is stealthy and has vertical takeoff and landing capabilities and can go supersonic,’ most people in the industry would have said that’s impossible,” Tom Burbage, Lockheed’s general manager for the program from 2000 to 2013 told The New York Times.
“The technology to bring all of that together into a single platform was beyond the reach of industry at that time.”
Like the F-22, stealth was an intrinsic part of the F-35’s design, but the aircraft surpasses its Raptor sibling in the realm of data fusion and pilot awareness. The F-35 can take data feeds from sensors all around it, including land-based assets, ships, or drones, and blend all of the information with its own suite of on-board sensors. The result is a single, streamlined view of the battlespace that pilots can access directly through their heads-up displays and augmented reality headsets. Pilots can even look directly through the bottom of their aircraft using the F-35’s pilot display and on-board cameras while flying at night. Some have gone so far as to describe the F-35’s “God’s eye view” as similar to using cheat codes on a video game when compared to its 4th generation predecessors.
While the result is a highly capable aircraft that can engage targets from over the horizon and even make older jets in its vicinity more deadly, the F-35 has been seen as a failure by critics who point to it as an example of government acquisition gone awry.
The Joint Strike Fighter program originally aimed to save money by fielding a single new fighter that could meet the needs of the Air Force, Navy, Marines, and foreign allies. Lockheed Martin’s X-35 ultimately won out over Boeing’s X-32 for the contract, and almost immediately thereafter, issues began to surface. The new F-35 would be split into three trims: The F-35A would be used with traditional runways for the Air Force and many foreign allies, the F-35B would offer short-take off and vertical landing capabilities for the Marine Corps, and the F-35C would come with broader, foldable wings, reinforced landing gear, and a tail hook for operating off of the Navy’s carriers.
However, after designing the F-35A, Lockheed Martin’s engineers realized that converting that design for the F-35B would end up making the fighter more than 3,000 pounds too heavy. Solving this quagmire delayed the program by 18 months and added a sizeable $6.2 billion to the program’s price tag. It would be the first of many problems to arise along the F-35’s path to combat operations.
Today, the F-35 is closer to what was originally envisioned than ever before, despite a notable list of issues that remain unaddressed. The aircraft truly is a force of military-aviation nature when in the fight according to pilots who participate in large-scale war games… but the high costs associated with the F-35 don’t stop at the factory.
Even with all of the F-35’s headaches addressed, one more looming problem remains–the price of operating the aircraft. Thanks to state-of-the-art stealth technology and radar-absorbent coating that needs frequent touch-ups, the F-35 costs around $44,000 per hour of flight. Compare that to the expected $20,000 per hour for the F-15EX, and you start to realize just how pricey the Joint Strike Fighter really is. With an operational lifespan of around 8,000 hours (compared to 20,000 in the F-15EX) and the figures climb ever higher–as it will take more aircraft to fly the same number of hours when using an F-35 instead of an advanced 4th-gen jet like the Eagle.
Put simply, the F-35 may be incredibly capable… but it’s also incredibly pricey. For many of the combat operations America conducts, the F-35’s advanced capabilities really aren’t all that necessary. As General Brown said, it’s like driving your Ferrari to work every day. You can do it… but it doesn’t make a ton of sense.
Could a new fighter solve these problems?
The billion-dollar question here is really whether or not developing another new fighter could result in an overall reduction in cost without creating a reduction in capability. It seems feasible that firms like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, who are both currently responsible for stealth aircraft in America’s stable, are better suited now for the challenge of developing an economical stealth fighter than at any time in the past. The F-22 Raptor began production in 1996 and the F-35 started ten years later in 2006. With more than a quarter-century of trial and error under their belts, building a new fighter wouldn’t be as uphill a climb as the previous efforts were.
The acquisition process could also be significantly improved. Many of the most prominent issues the F-35 faces come as a result of the Pentagon’s decision to begin procuring F-35s before testing was complete. That led to many aircraft being delivered that are not at all combat-ready, forcing the force to choose between allocating funds for new F-35s, or for fixing their old ones.
It seems all but certain that new fighter acquisition would not seek to mash the needs of multiple forces into a single fuselage, and further, that the firm developing and building the aircraft would be more accountable for how they spend. Boeing has already begun courting Pentagon contracts with the F-35’s debacle in mind, often offering fixed-rate contracts that would see the firm owning extra unforeseen costs, rather than the taxpayer.
And to be clear, even Lockheed Martin has advertised that they could build a better jet for less. In 2018, they proposed a new aircraft to the Japanese Self Defense Force that would couple the strengths of both the F-22 and F-35 for a smaller price tag than either.
It seems clear that the aviation industry could build a cheaper, if slightly less capable, stealth fighter. If that is indeed the case, General Brown may just be onto something.
What would a new stealth fighter mean for the Air Force?
Brown’s suggestion of a 5th generation “minus” fighter speaks to the common vernacular surrounding fighter jet generations. Aircraft like the F-15EX are sometimes called 4th-gen+ or ++ fighters because they offer some capability that’s more common among the 5th generation of fighters, so it stands to reason that a stealth fighter with a bit more 4th generation capability might be a 5th-gen– (or minus).
It seems likely that the new fighter would leverage a stealth design, but likely wouldn’t be quite as stealthy as the F-35 or F-22, both of which require near-constant maintenance of their radar-absorbent coating to stay as sneaky as possible. A new jet would likely be intended to go longer between coatings, while still offering a big increase in stealth over decidedly non-stealth jets like the F-16. As such, the new fighter would need to carry ordnance internally like the F-35 and F-22 while minimizing its radar cross-section, but would likely operate often with external pylons for additional munitions in uncontested airspace.
The new light weight fighter would fill multiple roles, from air-to-ground operations to air superiority ones–just like the F-16. In fact, despite the F-16’s reputation as a highly capable ground attack aircraft, it was invented specifically as a lightweight fighter tasked with dueling enemy jets–and a new lightweight fighter may be very much the same.
This new fighter would not replace the F-35, but would rather absorb many roles in less contested airspace that the F-35 may be able to handle, but are better suited for cheaper aircraft. That could mean minimizing the amount of hours, and in turn, upkeep, each F-35 logs per year. It would also increase the Air Force’s capability set, offering another strike option between older platforms like the F-15 and F-16 and high-dollar jets like the F-35 and F-22.
The F-35 itself, however, could find itself in a similar predicament to the F-22. America has just 186 Raptors, and as each one ages out of service, there won’t be new F-22s to replace them. If Lockheed Martin similarly stopped F-35 production, America may be left with the just 250 or so jets they’ve taken delivery on thus far. Of course, such a pivot would likely take months or even years to play out, so the total numbers would probably be higher.
Of course, that too seems unlikely thanks to the political insulation the F-35 program has garnered by spreading production out across most of America’s 50 states. Lawmakers voting for a reduction in F-35 orders would effectively be voting for job losses among their constituents, prompting some to call the F-35 program “too big to fail.” Whether we like it or not, all our eggs may be in the F-35’s basket.
The Air Force has reportedly already built and tested a concept for a “6th generation” fighter, so it seems possible that a less-advanced prototype could manifest rather quickly. For now though, only time will tell.
It seems to me that aircraft that don’t need a runway to operate are far more survivable than aircraft that do. It doesn’t make much sense to me to build aircraft that can be taken out on the ground.
The greatest threat to military aircraft today is not the SAM environment, nor other fighters, it is the cost of maintenance. All the fancy capabilities that the F-35 boasts on paper are useless if it is stuck on the ground when it is needed. The U.S. approaches every weapon system like a Manhattan Project – expensive and vast, and maybe a game-changer, but impractical for actual combat. As we have seen so many times in modern warfare, the “perfect” plane or whatever always arrives at the very end, and the fight was won by planes that were “good enough”. The Saab-39 may be modest by U.S. standards, but it is a capable multi-role platform, and more importantly in a war, it will spend most of its time in the air, not in a hangar. If we have to buy another plane to fill the gap, we should consider buying one that already exists and has been tested like the Gripen or Eurofighter. Stealth only has about 10 more years at most before it is overcome by advances in sensors and computing. Why continue to sacrifice cost-effectiveness, capability, and readiness for it?
Agreed, with one caveat: Let’s buy American hardware, and not place our national security/defense establishment acquisitions in the hands of foreign countries. The F-35 is a monument to Eisenhower’s admonition to not allow the Military-Industrial Complex to dictate its own functions. Congress should have nipped that boondoggle in the bud when concurrency was initiated as a program element. NO military hardware should be slated for production until all the bugs and operational capabilities are ironed out and demonstrated during unbiased, realistic operational evaluations. The F-35 program should be canceled, and our military branches allowed to compile their own designs for combat aircraft and other resources.
Think outside of the box folks. Rather than develop a 5-minus or 6th generation to get around the high operating costs of the F-35, develop a pilotless jet or use the money to develop jet-powered drones that act to multiply the lethality of even 4th generation aircraft. An F-15 that’s accompanied by 4 inexpensive high-speed drones will be more lethal and less expensive than developing a new jet that’s destined for cost overruns. The money savings could be used to continue the build out at least some of the F-35 production run.
Can we stop apologizing to LM now?
They built a buggy unreliable fighter. Every new fighter we build is going to be the ‘the first of its kind’ The idea that we should give them some kind of a pass because establishment defense journos and politicians didn’t care enough to force them to get it right is ridicules.
Just say it like it is.
LM screwed up and the F35 is a disaster, the establishment at large has been trying to hide that fact as long as possible but there is no more room to kick the can. And American air supremacy is more that on the line now – we now need to claw our way back to the top.
Personally I think people who write about this should step up and call it like they see it without apologizing becasue we dont want another F35, which is exactly what we will get if we dont force them to do otherwise.
Israel is buying more. That’s a 5 Star review.
I hope that actually reflects a “we’re talking these because they’re the best among several other options” vs “USA won’t doesn’t really want to sell us anything else, and our neighbors are weak enough that it still works.”
“This new fighter would not replace the F-35, but would rather absorb many roles in less contested airspace…” is stupid and borderline treason.
If a clean sheet design U.S. air superiority/strike fighter is not designed to win in contested air space against a near peer competitor the military is simply purchasing the world most expensive coffins. We already have many hundreds of advance 4th gen airframes and the complementary EW aircraft that would accompany them to penetrate “less contested airspace”. If the new design can’t operated in the Russian, Iranian, and Chinese theatres it is wasted time and money.
How about a Boeing F/A-7 built on the T-7 Red Hawk? Budget, modernity, recency and numbers all addressed.
As usual this is an incredibly stupid move unless they were really going to fix the F-22 gap, which is their biggest issue. Putting in a hybrid f-22/f35 would probably be a huge cost issue though, but IF they could do it (no offense to author but I’d not heard it was going to be a cheaper bird at all) then this is the smartest move by far, because the f-15x was dumb enough to begin with. The birds can’t go into the most protected space and dogfight it in a SAM umbrella today without large risk, F-15 that is, and adding more is an overkill for what amounts to a missile truck. Using the 100 or so in Amarg and extending the lives for 15 more years would hold the AF over just fine. You need something that fights the wars of tomorrow and for now, you need something to hold you until 2035 on the current fronts, which is adding f-35’s and using the much cheaper f-16’s as lower level. Plus, when you have per Amarg 100+ C/D sitting in inventory and 200+ A/B, you can put in the inventory base as you wipe out current C/D and use the A/B as drone flying missile carriers. Lockheed has already tested out the mission concept of a pilotless f-16- twice- and no reason they can’t do it again in today’s AI world. This is pennies on the dollar. Let’s face it, how many times has the new F-15X been called a missile truck? That’s an outrageous price for a new missile truck if 22 billion covers up to 220 birds at 100 a pop. F-35 may cost more to run but less to procure. And for most ground pound missions for low cost, the choice is easy. You have a load of A-10’s that can handle that for a fraction of any of the sexy fighters, and have a load of frames in Amarg to replace the worst off ones as you go. And of course the SOCOM crew with their prop jobs they will procure, those you can drop a couple of jdam’s at $3k an hour, new frames in bulk, even say 75-100, are alot less than anything else new if it’s simple dropping of jdam’s. Spend wisely, be smart, last thing they need is gold plated 4 gen+ when they have loads of inventory for more than just parts. One could go on about the S3 tanker derivative that the Navy could have again for pennies on the dollar sitting in AMART with 80+ frames that could potentially land on carriers with lockheed software and give them alot more fuel capacity than the mq-25 drones, or at least hold them over and either supplement or be replaced by the mq-25 over time. But that would make fiscal sense…
The Air Force should consider what the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) did when it realized > 10 years ago that the F-35 would be slow in coming. They interim replaced their F/A 18As ‘Classic’ Hornets with 4 1/2 Generation F/A 18F Super Hornet plus F/A 18G Growlers.
More robust, better range (combat radius 449 miles vs 339 miles = 75% greater area coverage). and electronics/radar than an F-16.
The USAF will miss the dogfighting thrill ride ability of the F-16 which was the Spitfire of it’s era, but that’s not a big factor any more. To win in the Indo-Pacific you need range on the aircraft and the long range missiles.
Crap! If the end production early, where am I ever gonna get spare parts for the one in my garage???
The Airforce has never developed an aircraft on time or on budget. Any new fighter will end up costing more than the F-35. The incremental cost of the F-35 is pretty cheap. Finish building all the planes.
What an article…completely tone deaf to the coming reality of steep cuts in Defense spending. It’s one thing to say….”Hey we need money to keep the Fleet sailing, the plans flying and the tanks rolling” and it’s a completely different thing to say “Hey, you remember that costly F-35 we said was going to replace a whole lot of other planes, so it’s worth the price ? Well we want to spend a whole bunch more money developing a completely new plane to supplement the F-35 that was suppose to replace a whole lot of other planes.”
Maybe a solution is to eliminate some of the F-35’s family problems, expand the capabilities of the various iterations and consolidate to one model, the F35D that has the capabilities of all three. Include the 25MM internal cannon of the A model, the SVTOL of the B model, and the increased fuel capacity of the C model. Develop a newer, more durable anti-rader coating and revised, more modular power and electronics package for reduced maintenance. What do we get for this? Increased deployment and basing options for land-based models, less need for the supercarriers to project the same level of force, lower cost by development and production of just one model, simpler logistics by a unified supply of parts, etc.
This may sound like a pipe dream but according to some of Lockheed-Martin’s public statements, it sounds do-able. This would salvage the investment that is already in the development of the F-35 family, prevent spending additional money on an airframe that everyone seems to agree is at or near the end of its functional viability. I believe that the last aircraft that even approached this was the F-4 Phantom Which also had a very troubled startup but over time became one of the most capable of its time. It seems like the major hurdle is the rivalry between the branches.
It would cheaper to cut the stovl F-35 and just use 1 or two models. The stovl variant should be a separate plane.
The USAF has hundreds more on order beyond those already in inventory, and both the Air Force and Congress are likely to continue purchases for a few more years even if a new aircraft is pursued. The most likely scenario is the USAF still ends up with about 50% of the original plan, which is a lot of aircraft. Continuing to purchase them at the current rate, instead of the original plan to ramp up purchases, and it still takes a decade to deliver those. The Marines will, of course, continue with the F-35B purchases (whatever final inventory adjustments they make) because they have no alternative. The Navy (and Marines) probably continue their F-35C purchases on plan, because again there is little alternative. They can’t adopt this new AF fighter without a lot of redesign effort or repeating the F-35 “joint” mistakes. And the Navy can’t afford to do another fighter alongside the 6th generation effort, it needs to focus on shipbuilding. So the industrial base concerns aren’t as dramatically in play as described in your article.
Actually there are alternatives to the Turkey-35C. The Super Hornet is cheaper and the Rafle M can take off from carriers.
The Turkey-35 was supposed to replace the F-15. USAF needs to give up and buy either Gripens of Super Hornets.
*or super hornets.
The Grippen is no F-35.
When will they admit cancelling the F-22 with an eye on using the F-35 for air superiority was a massively stupid decision?
When will they admit to massive stupidity? Never.