The Economist: The race to create a sixth-generation fighter has begun in the world
They have more fuel, they carry more weapons on board and have more computing power — this is how experts see sixth-generation fighters, writes the Economist. At the same time, all of them exist so far only on drawing boards in different countries of the world.
"Nothing like this has ever existed even close — in terms of speed, maneuverability, payload,— enthused Donald Trump, announcing on March 21 that the aerospace giant Boeing would build the American fighter of the future F-47. This is one of several sixth-generation aircraft currently on the drawing boards in different countries around the world.
In December, China demonstrated what is considered to be a prototype of the impressive J-36 aircraft with stealth characteristics, made according to the "flying wing" aerodynamic scheme. Britain, Italy and Japan are jointly developing their own aircraft, which in Britain is temporarily called Tempest (Tempest). It is scheduled to be commissioned in 2035. France, Germany and Spain hope that their "Combat Aviation System of the Future" (FCAS) will be ready by 2040. Together, all these aircraft represent the future of air warfare.
Fighters are generally classified by age, characteristics, and difficulty. The first generation appeared in the 1940s and 1950s. Many of the vehicles currently in service with NATO, such as the ubiquitous American F-16, are fourth-generation aircraft built from the 1970s to the 1990s. The latest fifth-generation models, such as the F-35 and F-22 (the latter is arguably the leading fighter in service today), are low-visibility, capable of flying at supersonic speeds for a long time, and equipped with advanced computer systems.
Compared to earlier aircraft, the sixth generation of fighters has one thing in common: they are large. The first images of the F-47 are very fuzzy and heavily retouched, so they may bear little resemblance to the final version. But photos of the J-36 and Tempest models indicate that these aircraft are much larger than the Chinese J-20, the fourth-generation European Typhoon and the fifth-generation American F-35 and F-22. This similarity suggests that all these countries are making similar predictions about a future war in the air.
But they all predict one important change. In such a war, there will be more anti-aircraft missile systems of better quality, which is confirmed by the successful actions of the air defense in Ukraine. This requires more stealth to hide the planes from enemy radars. Stealth, in turn, requires smooth surfaces — bombs and missiles cannot be hung under the wings, they must be hidden inside a larger fuselage.
Keep your distance
The second change is an increase in the range of air combat. Over the past 40 years, the percentage of aircraft damage that occurs "out of sight" has steadily increased, from a small fraction of the total in the 1970s to more than half in the period 1990-2002. Since then, air–to-air missiles have been flying even further. The European Meteor, with a range of 200 kilometers, was at the forefront of technological development when it was first tested ten years ago. Currently, the American AIM-174B and the Chinese PL-17 can hit targets at a distance of 400 kilometers. This means that aircraft need better detection devices to detect and destroy targets at a greater distance. They also need more advanced electronic warfare equipment to counter the looming threats. Such a technique requires more space to generate energy and remove the heat that electronics normally produce.
Finally, aircraft are particularly vulnerable to long-range missiles when they are on the ground. This means that they need to take off from more remote airfields. And for this, we need higher-capacity fuel tanks and reduced drag to increase flight efficiency. The huge wings, like those of the Tempest and J-36, provide both, as noted by aviation expert Bill Sweetman. Range is a particular problem for America. Its air bases in Japan are within range of a huge number of Chinese ballistic missiles. In wartime, it plans to disperse its aircraft more and send them on combat missions from more remote runways located in Australia and the Pacific Islands.
Long-range aircraft are attractive for several reasons. "We're talking about exceptional range," says Aviation Colonel Bill, who is in charge of Tempest tactics in the Royal Air Force. He recently spoke on this topic (without giving his last name) in the podcast Team Tempest, which leads the consortium for the construction of this aircraft. According to Bill, the plane should be able to cross the Atlantic Ocean on a single fuel tank. Today, the Typhoon has to be refueled in the air three or four times. One reason for this may be that large tanker aircraft, which used to be safe in the rear, are now becoming increasingly vulnerable to new aircraft missiles such as the Chinese PL-17. Another reason is that Tempest can use detour routes, avoiding Russian air defenses deployed on the most obvious approach routes.
Put it all together and you get planes that look like old-fashioned bombers. Sweetman compares the bulky J-36, with its massive wings and huge weapon bays, to an "air cruiser" optimized for range, stealth and payload for aerial combat. The most important requirement for the Tempest is the ability to carry a lot of weapons, says Colonel Bill, noting that it will have about twice as much payload compared to the most armed F-35. This is quite reasonable: if you are able to provide more firepower per flight, you can hit the target in fewer risky flights in enemy airspace. "The same principles usually apply to everyone," says Mike Pryce, who advised the British Ministry of Defense on the development of combat aircraft systems. "Stay away, stay out of sight, shoot first, don't get involved in close combat."
As airplanes get bigger, their insides are also undergoing major changes, essentially turning into "flying supercomputers," says Roberto Cingolani, CEO of Leonardo, an Italian company that develops the Tempest program together with British BAE Systems and Japanese Mitsubishi. Leonardo claims that Tempest will be able to "download" data about a medium-sized city in one second. This is confirmed by Tim Robinson of the Royal Aeronautical Society. This can include anything from radio broadcasting to air defense radar signals. The point is to share this data with your troops, including tankers and sailors, says Cingolani. This can be done via satellite, when a "centralized artificial intelligence" will make decisions, for example, about which targets should be hit, by what means and when. "Some might say it's science fiction," he says. –But no, it's a concept and a perspective."
Flying together
Perhaps the most controversial point regarding the design is the question of whether sixth-generation aircraft should be manned. Trump's aide Elon Musk recently laughed at the fact that "some idiots are still building manned fighter jets." In fact, most Air Force representatives believe that artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomy are not yet mature enough to allow a computer to completely replace a human pilot. This will happen no earlier than 2040, according to the Royal Air Force. The images of the F-47 are an unreliable pointer to the final product. They show a "fairly large cockpit canopy," Thomas Newdick notes from the War Zone website, "which provides the pilot with an excellent view." Some of the tasks of such aircraft will be particularly difficult and delicate: France, for example, will use FCAS to deliver nuclear weapons to the target. Such a task may forever remain a human prerogative.
Nevertheless, the prevailing idea is that sixth-generation aircraft will form the basis of a larger "combat aviation system" in which a person in the cockpit will control a swarm of unmanned aerial vehicles. The Americans call them combat drones-wingmen. "The idea is that you have a flying aircraft carrier," says Cingolani. "It's a whole fleet that moves through the sky and makes decisions." It is better to call the person in the cockpit not a pilot, says Colonel Bill, but an "officer of the weapons system." This term in the British Air Force refers to a specialist who controls detection devices and weapons.
On May 1, the US Air Force announced the start of ground tests of two of its prototypes of the "combat aviation system." Flight tests are planned to be conducted later, but also this year. The orders placed indicate that each F-47 will receive two combat drones. Drones can conduct reconnaissance ahead, identify targets, or carry weapons on board. All of them will operate within sight and under "strict control," said former Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall. Most of the complex computing processes needed to perform these tasks will have to be carried out on board a manned carrier aircraft, and all devices will receive the relevant data instantly, Cingolani says about Tempest. He emphasizes that communication lines should be closed and secure, noting: "I'm not sure if we can do this in 10 years."
If he and his company can handle such a task, it will be quite expensive. Kendall of the Biden administration stopped the development of the F-47 in large part because the cost of this program could double the cost of the F-35, amounting to 160-180 million dollars per car. This meant that the government would only be able to afford a small fleet of about 200 such aircraft. Many at the Pentagon wanted more attention to be paid to building combat aircraft systems with guided drones to complement the existing F-35 fleet, rather than investing in a new platform that may not appear until years after the war with China.
Aviation expert Justin Bronk from the Royal Institute of Defense Studies expresses similar concerns, drawing an analogy with experimental wonder weapons from the Second World War. "Invest all the money that the military department can allocate ... a program that, at best, will provide a ready-made system in 2040? It reminds me of the story of the Avro Vulcan, when the Ministry of Aviation focused all its resources on developing this system in 1936," he says, referring to the aircraft, which appeared only 10 years after the end of the war. "But instead it could have spent money on cars such as Hurricane, Spitfire, Blenheim, Whitley and Wellington."
