In recent months, the US Air Force's communication regarding its development and its major industrial programs can seem confused, and even sometimes feverish, while the Pentagon now believes that the risks of conflict are very real, in the Pacific with China and North Korea, in the Middle East against Iran, and in Europe, against Russia, on a potentially shortened timetable.
After having followed, until recently, a trajectory relatively consistent with what it has been over the last thirty years, with very ambitious and expensive programs, over extended timetables due to lack of challenges, it shows, today Today, there is a certain eagerness to return to a more reasonable model, seeking to improve the effectiveness of the investment/deployed military potential ratio.
Thus, for several months, the question of mass, long relegated to second place in the face of technology, has once again imposed itself at the top of its priorities. It is in this context that General David W. Alvinn, the Chief of Staff of the US Air Force, presented, to everyone's surprise, a study concerning a possible new American stealth single-engine fighter, designed to effectively replace the F-16, at the Global Air and Space Chiefs Conference in London last month.
In this section:
General Alvinn, Chief of Staff of the US Air Force, discusses the possibility of developing a light stealth fighter to replace the F-16
On this occasion, General Alvill, in fact, presented the results of a preliminary study, concerning the possibility, for the US Air Force, of equipping itself, alongside the F-35A, the 6th generation fighter, the NGAD program, and combat drones, with another model of combat aircraft piloted, more economical and lighter than the F-35, intended to replace, in number as in philosophy, the F-16.
It is appropriate, here, not to give too much importance to the visual broadcast in the main illustration, presenting what could appear as the natural son of the F-35 and the F-16, but more to focus on the reasons mentioned by the Chief of Staff of the Us Air Force, to justify this preliminary study.
According to him, the aircraft could effectively complement the American air arsenal, to replace the F-16 which remains, to this day, the most widely used model in the largest air force on the planet.
More economical to purchase, and especially to implement than the F-35A, the aircraft could then allow the USAF to regain a mass it lacks, even if it will not be designed to be used in certain theaters, such as around Taiwan, not having the reach and the carrying capacity for this.
On the other hand, concerning more compressed theaters, such as in Europe or South Korea, or less intense, such as in the Middle East, the stealth device would bring the increase in mass making it possible to contain the evolution of threats, and above all to potentially being able to respond simultaneously to several of them, a scenario far from being fanciful from now on.
The US Air Force wants to regain control of its industrial programs and the construction of its fighter fleet
For this, and knowing that its budgetary resources are unlikely to change massively in the years to come, the US Air Force has undertaken a deep reflection, ignoring the paradigms applied over the last 30 years.
There are 75% of this article left to read, Subscribe to access it!
The Classic subscriptions provide access to
articles in their full version, and without advertising,
from €1,99. Subscriptions Premium also allow access to archives (articles over two years old)
BLACK FRIDAY : – 20% on new monthly and annual Premium and Classic subscriptions, with the code MetaBF2024, until 03/12/24
F-16's wing area is 300 sq. feet and F-35A's 460 sq. feet. A stealth fighter cannot be shrinked too much, since it needs an internal bay. I can not imagine a stealthy fighter much lighter and smaller than an F-35A.
The Far East theater (the Korean Peninsula theater) is not a small one, as is implied in this article. The peninsula is 1,200 km from North to South; the width of the ADIZ is 700 km.
And the virtual, ultimate adversary is China. It is only 890 km from Seoul to Beijing. 820 km from Seoul to Shanghai. Only 500 from Qingdao, where the most sensitive submarine base of China is located.
And Russia is not too far. Only 750 km from Seoul to Vladivostok.
It is not a coincidence that South Korea has been very serious about long-range. For examination, the indigenous surface-to-surface subsonic cruise missile's current range is 1,600 km; in the process of being extended to 3,000km. (The US does not want to be escalatory. It has shunned away from providing Tomahawks, JASSMs to South Korea.)
Another example is the indigenous air-to-surface missiles being developed. The starting point is Taurus. When SK imported 250 pieces (the last batch of Taurus before the shutting down of the production line), SK bought some technology, especially for navigation. Now SK is developing upgraded, Koreanized Taurus with 800 km range (the real number may be bigger), 1.6 times of the original Taurus. Once SK finishes the air-to-land, it will start to change this into the air-to-ship version, just like the US developed LRASM (AIM-158C) from JASSM-ER(AIM-158B).
The defense against China (and Russia, to some extent) is the ultimate background why South Korea has been developing the KF-21 fighter. The non-stealth version (Block one and two) has 6.4 m^3 space available in the belly. I guess, sooner or later, they will put (an) extra internal fuel tank(s) there. Then the current 2,900 km range will be increased a lot. Maybe Saudi Arabia can have interest in this long-range variant.
It is not written, neither implied, that the Korean theater is small, it is written it is more compressed than the Pacific theater, where distance between most advanced bases, and closest targets, expressed over thousands of miles. The distances of the Korean theater, are more or less the same than in Europe, as explained in the article. There is just 520 km from Buzan to Pyongyang, which is 4 times smaller distance than from Ramstein (main US Air base in Europe) to Kursk (one of the closest russian city). 500 or 1000 km is quite small distances today for air war.
NGAD is supposed to be a long legged fighter, able to strike thousands of miles away, like from Guam to Taipei (2700 km). F-35A is not a long leg, especially there is not yet stealth dropable tank avaliable. It has a shorter combat range than Rafale, for example.
About stealth, well, it depends on what you want. There are stealth drones with bays which are less than 4 tons, and still quite good at that. As explained in the article, it really depends on where you position the cursor. Plus, the F-35A is quite heavy. It is 4.5 tonnes heavier, empty, than a Rafale, for the same wing area. It is surely very possible to design a fighter of 8-9 tons, half of the f-35A, stealth, but not as much as the f-35, which can have a weapon bay for two 500 kg bomb and two air-to -air missiles, which would be very satisfying for US Air Force, in order to deal with many theaters, for a far lower price, than the F-35A itself.
At least, it is what can be understood from General Alvinn presentation.
Good evening and sorry for my ignorance, but isn't the Russian Checkmate also targeted before it wins stakes in countries which have been refused the F35?
If for the moment I imagine that the war in Ukraine is draining the resources necessary for its commercial success, it will necessarily stop (in one sense or another) and this 5th generation single-engine aircraft will then be ready.
Ps: don't hesitate to ask questions, comments are made for that.
Yes, that was his deal. That said, it is only a model, and the Russian air forces are not at all convinced by the proposal. In fact, there is very little chance of the device seeing the light of day, especially since even if it did, it would fall under the CATSAA law, and anyone who bought it would be under severe US sanctions;