Peter Zion discusses the US Defense Department's recent announcement of the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter program, unofficially dubbed the F-47. He provides historical context, tracing US fighter development from the post-Soviet era's "skip a generation" strategy, which led to the F-22 air superiority fighter and the multi-role F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Zion explains how the War on Terror shifted focus to ground strike, leading to the F-35's mass production at the expense of next-generation research, only now culminating in the NGAD. He then analyzes four key challenges and considerations for the NGAD program: its projected high cost (over $300 million per airframe) compounded by weakening alliances that previously defrayed F-35 costs; the unknown but critical range capabilities; the continued need for a separate, long-range ground strike jet as F-35 limitations become more apparent with alliance withdrawals; and the profound disruption posed by rapidly evolving drone technology, which offers highly cost-effective alternatives to expensive manned fighters. Zion questions the long-term strategic viability of such a massive investment in manned aircraft given these technological and geopolitical shifts.
Summarizing the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Fighter Program
0:00 NGAD Fighter Program Launch: Peter Zion announces the new Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter program, unofficially dubbed the F-47, which is slated for manufacturing by Boeing in a few years.
0:40 Post-Soviet Era Strategy: In the 1990s and early 2000s, the US Defense Department identified a window of opportunity due to Russia's weakened military, allowing them to "skip a generation" in fighter development and focus on future technologies.
1:17 F-22 and F-35 Development: Donald Rumsfeld's strategy involved building minimum quantities of current best technology (F-15s, F-16s) while researching the next-gen. This led to:
F-22: An elite air superiority fighter with advanced stealth and supersonic capabilities, but limited production (under 200 units).
F-35: A "flying pig" joint strike fighter, compromised by its multi-role design (air-to-air and ground assault) leading to poor range, technical issues, and high costs ($100M+ per unit), but mass-produced due to ground strike needs and allied cost-sharing.
3:10 Impact of the War on Terror: The focus on ground wars during the War on Terror redirected resources, delaying the research and development of a true next-generation air superiority fighter, which the NGAD is now intended to be.
3:56 NGAD Complications - Cost: Internal Pentagon audits project NGAD costs could exceed $300 million per airframe. This is problematic as declining alliances under the Trump administration mean less international cost-sharing, making the program potentially unsustainable.
5:58 NGAD Complications - Unknown Range: The NGAD's range is currently classified, making it difficult to assess its strategic utility, particularly when compared to previous fighters like the F-16/F-22 (good range) versus the F-35 (limited range).
6:40 NGAD Complications - Need for Ground Strike Complement: As an air superiority fighter, the NGAD will still require a complementary ground strike jet. The F-35's limited 600-mile range and the loss of forward bases due to shifting alliance structures necessitate a new, long-range ground strike program, adding further costs.
7:09 NGAD Complications - Disruptive Technology (Drones): Recent breakthroughs in material science, digitization, and energy transfer are enabling new military technologies, especially drones. The effectiveness and low cost of drones (e.g., Ukrainian battlefield drones at $20,000, or rocket drones at $200,000 with F-35 equivalent range) raise fundamental questions about the massive investment in new manned fighter programs.
8:19 Strategic Uncertainty: Zion concludes by questioning whether investing hundreds of billions into a new manned fighter is the right call given the unknown maturation of drone technology and the United States' evolving alliance structure and basing strategy.