The Navy needs a new fighter to replace the Super Hornet by the 2030s, and that means moving a whole lot faster than the F-35’s development.
The U.S. Navy joined the Air Force in garnering attention for their Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program recently, but just because they’re using the same acronym as the Air Force doesn’t mean they intend to field the same aircraft. In fact, it seems the Navy is open to looking broadly at potential replacements for its workhorse 4th generation fighter, as well as its electronic warfare counterpart, the EA-18G Growler.
This new fighter, which some have assumed will qualify for a “6th generation” moniker, will have its work cut out for it as the United States military pivots back toward deterring nation-level foes with increasing technological parity like China. In fact, it’s likely that whatever the Navy’s new fighter is, it’ll require support from at least one un-crewed aircraft in order to maximize its capabilities.
“As we look at it right now, the Next-Gen Air Dominance is a family of systems, which has as its centerpiece the F/A-XX – which may or may not be manned – platform. It’s the fixed-wing portion of the Next-Gen Air Dominance family of systems,” Rear Adm. Gregory Harris explained.
Admiral Harris’ suggestion that the Navy’s next fighter might not have a pilot may not be indicative of where the program currently sits developmentally, but rather, it likely suggests that the U.S. Navy is willing to consider a variety of potential solutions to the problems facing the nation’s fleet of flat-top fighters.
China, widely seen as America’s most militarily potent adversary, has already begun fielding hypersonic anti-ship missiles with operational ranges in excess of a thousand miles. Because of the incredible speed in which these weapons fly (greater than Mach 5), the U.S. currently does not have any reliable means of intercepting or defending against such an attack. As a result, America’s supercarriers would have to remain outside the thousand-plus mile reach of these weapons, creating what’s known as an “area denial bubble” extending from Chinese shores with these weapons in place.
Related: WHAT EXACTLY ARE HYPERSONIC MISSILES AND WHY DO THEY MATTER?
Currently, America’s Navy fighters have a combat radius reaching up to 750 or so miles, making them unable to cover the distance required to fly combat sorties over China without putting their carriers at risk of hypersonic missile strikes. You can read a more complete explanation of this area denial bubble and the Navy’s fighter fuel range woes in our in-depth discussion on it here.
But these new jets will need more than just range in order to dominate a 21st-century battlespace. The Navy’s Super Hornet replacements will need to leverage at least some degree of stealth in order to be survivable, and in fact, will likely need improved stealth capabilities over jets like the F-35 and F-22 in order to be seen as a truly 6th generation fighter. Improved avionics and data fusion capabilities are also all but certain–but the element that may make these new fighters really stand out from Lockheed Martin’s existing stealth jets is their use of drones for a variety of support roles.
“But we truly see NGAD as more than just a single aircraft. We believe that as manned-unmanned teaming comes online, we will integrate those aspects of manned and unmanned teaming into that,” Harris said.
“Whether that – we euphemistically refer to it as our little buddy – is an adjunct air-to-air platform, an adjunct [electronic warfare] platform, discussion of could it be an adjunct advanced early warning platform. We’ll have to replace the E-2D [Advanced Hawkeye] at some point in the future, so as we look to what replaces that.”
The U.S. Air Force drew headlines the world over last year when they announced that they had already built and tested a prototype for their NGAD fighter program, prompting many to wonder if a new jet is right around the corner. Of course, the truth is, that prototype was likely a demonstrator for some elements of new fighter technology, like operating while interlinked with a constellation of support drones. In other words, the Air Force’s tests might have been about proving something was possible, moreso than moving into production.
But the progress the Air Force has made in the NGAD realm will almost certainly benefit the Navy’s NGAD efforts, despite both branches being clear that they have no intention of repeating mistakes made during the F-35’s acquisition process. The Joint Strike Fighter program that berthed the F-35 required a single fighter platform that could fill the disparate needs of multiple military branches and allied forces. The result was an incredibly complex, expensive, and slow development process that hasn’t been fully completed to this day, even in its 14th year of flying.
Related: WHAT CAPABILITIES MAKE A 6TH GENERATION FIGHTER?
With the Navy’s stable of Super Hornets and Growlers expected to age out of service within the next two decades, the F-35’s timetable just won’t cut it. The Navy needs a new, more capable, longer-range fighter–and it needs it sooner rather than later. That’s where some degree of cooperation between the branches can still be viable, even as the Navy and Air Force pursue different airframes with different specialties.
By using an open system architecture in designing these aircraft, the Navy and Air Force will be able to leverage new sensors and other digital technologies in both aircraft. Fielding the same modular systems would reduce costs, increase interoperability, and importantly, make it similarly inexpensive to replace those systems with newer ones as technology allows.
“So if you think about it, a contractor may have a particular sensor – let’s just use the radar as an example – and over time, perhaps the performance of that radar isn’t what you want, either from a sustainability standpoint or purely from a capability standpoint,” he said.
“With that open mission system architecture, you have an ability to more rapidly replace that without getting into vendor lock. And we’ve seen vendor lock create problems for us before. We firmly believe that competition will give us a better reliability, lower sustainment costs and lower the overall costs.”
The Navy is taking a two-step approach to replacing its 4th generation jets, first focusing on a replacement for the F/A-18 Super Hornet, and then for the EA-18 Growler, which is fundamentally the same or very similar, but is equipped with a suite of electronic warfare systems instead of kinetic munitions. The next-generation platforms in these roles may not be two similar jets. Instead, some roles will likely be filled by drones, as the Navy works toward fielding a larger uncrewed fleet.
The Navy is currently developing the MQ-25 Stingray as part of this very endeavor. Boeing’s prototype was originally intended to serve as a carrier-based UCAV (Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle), but the Navy pivoted toward a fuel carrier in order to begin picking away at China’s area denial bubble. The MQ-25 will be able to refuel manned aircraft in contested airspace, allowing for greater range. It stands to reason, however, that the MQ-25 could find other uses aboard the Navy’s flat tops, including the kinetic one it was originally designed for.
“Right now – notionally – looking at driving towards an air wing that has a 40-60 unmanned-manned split and overtime shift that to a 60-40 unmanned-manned split. So to try to drive an air wing that is at least 50 percent or more unmanned over time,” Harris explained.
“Again, a lot of that’s going to be dependent on the success we see with the MQ-25 Stingray, on our ability to truly learn how to operate around the aircraft carrier and safely execute that both on the flight deck and then airborne.”
Related: MQ-25 STINGRAY: A NEW DRONE THAT COULD BE A GAME CHANGER
Despite an increased focus on using artificial intelligence to aid in decision making aboard drones, it seems unlikely that the Navy’s next fighter will come without a cockpit. Dogfights between aircraft are considered to be among the most complex situations pilots could contend with, and the technology isn’t quite mature enough to hand those life or death decisions off to an AI system yet. Further, before we can field such platforms, America will have to contend with the idea of giving a machine the decision to choose a target and execute. Currently, human operators manage those decisions. However, using drone platforms as “arsenal ships” or “missile magazines” that support stealth aircraft may indeed be feasible.
“Having an unmanned platform out there as an adjunct missile carrier I see as not a step too far, too soon. I could have an unmanned friend. I typically say a flying Dorito chip when I’m thinking about it – doesn’t have to be that, right,” Harris continued.
“An unmanned system with missiles I can clearly in my mind envision a way to say, ‘fine defensive combat spread. Shoot on this target.’ And I will squeeze the trigger or I will just execute – enable that unmanned platform to shoot the designated target. That doesn’t stretch beyond my realm of imagination.”
It seems clear that the next fighters America fields will be just one piece of a larger “family of systems,” blending crewed and uncrewed aircraft, fusing data from air, ground, and sea-based sensors, and engaging targets with its own munitions as well as weapons carried by other assets. This networked interoperability will allow decision makers a broader set of options and pilots a great degree of awareness and capability.
The only question is, can they do it in time to beat the Super Hornet’s final flight off into the sunset?
As long as lessons learned from procurement of the F-35 are instituted, along with fab, and experience. The 6th gen could come along faster, and deliver as promised. In the meantime, at the rate they are “turning up the software” and ironing out capability on the F-35, we should be in good shape till we get a look at our first 6th gen fighter.
Legacy Driver says
“The F-35 is widely touted as the most capable fighter on the planet.”
Yeah. By morons.
Stephen R says
The MQ-25 looks a lot like the X-32. Why not make an unmanned carrier version of the X-32 and specialize it for the MQ-25 and naval combat role.
The Navy needs to act a lot faster than where they’re at now. Development & procurement are lengthy processes, not to mention the government’s reluctance to fund more $100+ million jets. They should buy more FA-18s or develop a Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) to get more hours out of the current fleet until new technologies can be proven and implemented on a new airframe.
I agree on your point about working allot faster. Not sure I agree with sinking more $$ in suer hornet with slep, like throwing money down the drain, they’re going to get shot to crap. I can’t get much from tailless rendering but it looks small and probably would rely on tankers, I think Nave has to get an an interim air superiority interim fighter in next 3-5 years latest. My thought was to dust off the F23 specs, build a carrier version, with all the latest avionics, IRST, AESA, etc. Pro’s less development time, would have great range, low radar sig(not as low as 6 gen, but now 10+ years out) and lowest IR sig. I think critical issue with all carriers is range of it’s fighters, tankers can and will be key targets in a shooting war, once their down, 2 alternatives, move carriers closer into harms way or back off.
Allan Desmond says
This will never happen, another major failure of US defense procurement , an everyone will at surprised an can’t figure out how it happen , while US Navy airmen die..
Most capable, nope. Outside of USAF rules that Gimp every other aircraft. It is anything but and lags behind. Navy should cancel the Turkey-C, buy more Super Hornets and use money to go all in with the NGAD. While ignoring what the USAF wants, as it’ll just be another Century Series/Turkey-35 debacle if their allowed input.
Matthew Schilling says
So, Republicans are “destorying” Ameria? They’re taking away our stories?!? Umm, no. It’s fascistic Leftists who are canceling stories, and books, and movies, and people, and decency, etc.
And, it’s “if they’re allowed input”. You put the wrong their there.
Allan Desmond says
Nopes its you lying right wing chimp-fags and monkey sluts. Those things were worthless or sub-human degenerates. It’s you monkeys who are parasitizing off the productive blue cities. So my title is correct. Sub humans don’t deserve input.
Robert Wilkins says
What do the real fighting men and women who put their lives on the lines so the Repbulicans become richer while the real good people have to die or are loosing limbs for these so call people. What else does onw call them?
Eric Weinkam says
What makes you think an F-35 lacks capability? Nearly every pilot from every Air Force that has flown it has found it to be incredibly capable, a complete game changer actually. It has performed very well in every red flag and other exercise that’s been in, and has even seen combat in Syrian airspace that was defended by the best AA systems the Russians have to offer.
Rigged testing conditions are not capability. Fly boys have low standards that they don’t like challenged. Game Changer is business jargon that means nothing. Red Flag test are not reality, and they have set the conditions to be favorable the Turkey-35. Near pear adversary
The latter is a blatant lie. The F-22 is the doing the Turkey-35s intended Wild Weasel job in Syria and the Turkey is only used on targets without any air defenses. Such as bombing pickup truck convoys.
Legacy Driver says
On what planet?
Guess you missed the leaked memo where USAF pilots were given official guidance on what to say about the Joint Strike Failure.
Physics can’t lie. This airplane is a boondoggle and is now too big to cancel until they stand up a replacement. It’s garbage. It’s the world’s most expensive “Fifth Generation” A-7. With apologies to the A-7 which was an awesome jet in its day.