Summary and key points: Air power is critical to maintaining military superiority, and recent intelligence reports from the Five Eyes alliance underscore China’s efforts to recruit Western military personnel to bolster its own air capabilities.
-This underscores the urgent need for the US to invest in modern defense systems such as the Next Generation Air Sovereignty program and a sixth-generation fighter aircraft. Some policymakers propose alternatives such as modernizing the F-35 or focusing on the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program, but these alone are not enough.
-The combination of a sixth-generation fighter and a CCA would provide the necessary technological edge. Delaying investment in these systems due to budget concerns could jeopardize national security.
Why America needs to invest in a sixth-generation fighter jet: National security is at stake
In modern warfare, air power plays a crucial role in power projection, and maintaining air superiority has become one of the most important issues facing military planners today.
A recent report by the Five Eyes – an intelligence alliance of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK – has put the matter in sharp contrast. It highlights in particular how the People’s Republic of China is using private companies to recruit current and former Western military personnel, particularly former fighter pilots, “to train pilots in the People’s Liberation Army Air Force and Navy.” The report concludes that the “People’s Liberation Army seeks to use the skills and expertise of these individuals to make its own military air operations more capable while gaining insight into Western air tactics, techniques and procedures” and that the insights the People’s Liberation Army gains from Western military talent “threaten the safety of the targeted recruits, their fellow soldiers and the security of the US and its allies.”
Such damning evidence shows that it is hard to overstate the risks China poses to the United States and its closest allies. American policymakers are waking up to the threat, and polls show that domestic public opinion toward China recognizes that reality. At the same time, however, there are some here in the United States who are pushing to sharply limit investment in key defense systems like the next-generation air sovereignty program and the development of a sixth-generation fighter jet—ostensibly to combat the country’s rising deficits. This approach is false economy and would dramatically increase national security risks without delivering any significant fiscal benefits. It needs to be reconsidered.
History teaches us that a nation must employ a range of means and tactics to counter military threats and ensure victory. In the case of fighter jets, America needs a variety of systems in production, each suited to a specific task. Some policymakers within the U.S. Air Force, for example, have championed the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program, a multi-pronged initiative to test, develop, and deploy new concepts for autonomous and manned and unmanned aircraft teams that would complement America’s F-35 arsenal. This is a promising development, but some have gone a step further, worryingly suggesting that this could also be a potential replacement for the development and production of a sixth-generation fighter jet. This is not the case.
Others argue similarly that upgrading the F-35 alone might be enough. But that has its drawbacks. The upgrade alone could cost $20 billion, negating many savings, and could take more than a decade—and at a time when time is of the essence. It’s also important to remember that the F-35 first took off nearly 20 years ago, and American adversaries have had plenty of time to discover its deficiencies and develop weapons to defeat it. Moreover, this approach ties the Navy and Air Force to an existing fighter capability, even though it has become clear that America would have been better served by pushing the technological boundaries and offering the various branches of the service more variety of fighter aircraft.
But the fact is that both systems are needed, especially with looming conflict in the Pacific. A sixth-generation fighter gives America next-generation range, payload, survivability and upgradeability that it currently does not have. The CCA, meanwhile, is seen as a cost-effective and pragmatic solution to maintaining a significant air power capability in response to the increasing proliferation of enemy stealth fighters. Together, they would give the U.S. and its partners in the region an absolute advantage.
Pentagon leaders understand the strategic value of this combination, which is why Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall announced two years ago that the Air Force was ready to move into the development phase of engineering, manufacturing and designing a sixth-generation fighter. Unfortunately, budgetary constraints and existing operational challenges have delayed that timeline, and currently the earliest the sixth-generation fighter could be operational is early 2030. That’s nearly six years away, and there’s a risk that the United States will be unprepared for the next threat.
While there is widespread agreement that policymakers must find a way to bring our federal government’s spending under control, the clock is ticking on the development of next-generation fighter jets. Just as a budget-strapped household wouldn’t neglect to replace its front door if it collapsed or stopped working properly, America shouldn’t risk its national security while trying to get the country’s large budget deficits under control. If the Pentagon delays production until a new platform is urgently needed, it will already be too late, and Americans of all stripes will pay the price.
About the author:
Tanner Tharp is a senior fellow at Americans for Liberty and Security.
This article was first published by RealClearDefense.
All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.
From the safe
Russia has freaked out: Why the US Navy took the Iowa-class battleships out of service
Battleship vs Battlecruiser: Iowa-class vs Russian Kirov-class (Who Wins?)
