The UK is pushing the boundaries of aerial combat technology with its “7th-generation” fighter project despite debates over the necessity and cost of such a high-tech venture.
This month, Breaking Defense reported that BAE Systems is discussing the development of a 7th-generation combat air platform, though the term may be outdated by the time the fighter is unveiled.
BAE Systems Combat Air Strategy Director Mike Baulkwill said that aircraft are constantly evolving and their generation-after-next aircraft will be “forever changing” through software updates and so-called spiral developments.
BAE Systems and UK partners Leonardo, MBDA and Rolls-Royce are currently developing a 6th-generation combat air capability through their Future Combat Air System (FCAS) effort, part of the Global Combat Air Program (GCAP) with Italy and Japan. It is expected to enter service in 2035.
Breaking Defense says BAE Systems presented its “Combat Air Continuum” concept, which outlines how the company sees the next 25 years of airpower and where it will invest in R&D.
In the near term, the company will call it the “second epoch,” which will see a mix of 5th– and 6th-generation platforms augmented by autonomous collaborative platforms (ACP), known as loyal wingman drones.
These systems will help extend the lifespan of older jets like the 4th-generation Eurofighter Typhoon. Breaking Defense also mentions that BAE Systems presented its latest thoughts on what its attritable ACP project might look like.
However, company officials suggested that a previously presented scale model may not reflect a final design. The ACP could be land or maritime variants, with internal payload bays and containerized storage for various payloads.
When it comes to the development of 7th-generation fighters, Peter Suciu notes in an article for The National Interest (TNI) this month that the type could feature even more advanced technologies, possibly leading to fully autonomous, unmanned combat platforms.
Suciu mentions that military hardware advances are mostly evolutionary, building on past successes. The B-21 Raider, currently in development, is based on the successful B-2 Spirit and features a flying wing design.
He says most 6th-generation fighter designs have focused on what worked with 5th-generation aircraft, such as the F-22 and F-35, and have gone much further.
He points out that bombers such as the B-52 Stratofortress and tanks such as the M1 Abrams have been steadily upgraded. In contrast, fighter jets have not, explaining the longevity of the former platforms.
The former platforms first entered service in the 1950s and 1980s, respectively, compared to the F-22, which is slated to be replaced by the upcoming 6th-generation Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) platform despite entering service only in 2005.
Suciu suggests that 7th-generation fighters could be developed as a response to the capabilities of 6th-generation fighters, incorporating both their best features and additional, currently undefined capabilities to surpass previous generations.
Suciu says that 7th-generation fighters with advanced autonomous technology may raise ethical, moral and legal concerns that society needs to address.
He says that producing 7th-generation fighters will be a Western multinational collaboration due to the costs involved, the need for standard requirements and economic necessity to maximize exports to defray costs.
Suciu points out that while technology is rapidly increasing, allowing materials to be printed and computer-aided design (CAD) can also speed up development – though cost will remain a factor.
However, in a TNI article this month, Brandon Weichert argues that 6th and 7th-generation fighters are a significant waste of resources, suggesting that the US military should prioritize simpler, more cost-effective unmanned systems and space-based weapons platforms, which are more aligned with future strategic needs.
Weichert emphasizes the economic wastefulness of investing in overly complex and expensive warplanes, which may hinder the US’ military competitiveness in crucial areas like space.
For example, he notes the US Air Force’s retirement of the more advanced F-22 Raptor in favor of the F-35, which is less suitable for air superiority missions.
He believes that instead of investing in redundant warplanes, the US should prioritize the development of space-based weapons and focus on creating less complex, easier-to-mass-produce systems that can outmaneuver, outrun and swarm enemy targets.
Considering an evolutionary approach to military hardware and the risks associated with technological leapfrogging, the US Air Force is prioritizing the development of newer, more combat-capable versions of the F-22 Raptor jets over the older Block 20 jets, as reported by Breaking Defense in March 2024.
US Air Force acquisition boss Andrew Hunter called the F-22 the “foundation” of airpower amidst intensifying competition with China and emphasized its vital role until the NGAD comes online.
Breaking Defense mentions that the US Air Force initially planned to retire 32 older F-22s but the US Congress blocked the move, leading to a discussion about reallocating funds for modernization. Hunter suggested using the funds to modernize other Raptors in the fleet.
Task and Purpose reported this month that the F-22 fleet is scheduled for a $22 billion upgrade over the next decade, potentially keeping the aircraft in service until the 2040s.
Task and Purpose says the F-22 will receive new aviation systems including advanced avionics such as helmet-mounted sights and cutting-edge data links. Further upgrades will include stealthy external fuel tanks, the top-secret AIM-260 air-to-air missile, infrared sensor pods and a new electronic warfare suite.
Establishing air superiority over the Taiwan Strait is critical for US defense of the self-governing island at a time China is deploying increasing numbers of its J-20 stealth fighters.
The stealthy fuel tanks would mitigate the F-22’s range disadvantage over the Taiwan Strait while the new infrared sensor pods aim to preserve the aircraft’s first-look, first-shot capability. The latest electronic warfare suite, meanwhile, would increase the F-22’s survivability against enemy missiles.
Task and Purpose notes that 142 F-22s will get these upgrades, with those kits addressing corrosion, reducing maintenance hours, increasing safety and providing urgent response requirements.
While 142 upgraded F-22s may not seem like much against China’s growing 5th-generation fighter fleet, the AIM-260 missile, which has active radar homing, an estimated Mach 5 speed and a 200-400 kilometer range, could be a decisive edge.
However, Task and Purpose points out that upgrading these F-22s will take considerable time and expend resources that could be used to develop a more capable fighter. It also notes concerns that the F-22 could be rendered obsolete for its mission by the time the upgrades are finished.
First of all:
There’s no way the F-22 will be replaced any time soon. Even if a next gen fighter becomes available the F-22 will remain. Unless or until it becomes too much to maintain. Why? Because the US sunk WAY TOO much into it. Same with the F-35/JSF. Unlike with other failed projects like the XM8 (which one could say eventually became the point of the SCAR), or the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. So if they can still use the F-22 with minimal modifications and upgrades and won’t be more costly than the NGADF…then they simply will. Soon there will be a point where it’s too much money to upgrade and make parts for planes that are 70+ years/old (B-52, C-130) or younger planes like the F-16, F-15, etc. for all intents and purposes the F-14 was a better plane than the Hornet is now. But she was costly to maintain, and internally her guts were prone to mechanical issues. Problems that cost a lot of money. But not nearly as much as her Phoenix Missiles; which were nearly 1/2 million dollars. EACH. And she carried … 6? 8?,can’t remember off the top of my head. Either way we’ll be at a pony we’re out aircraft is too old and too costly (because or despite it) to maintain. Eventually we’ll be left with less than a handful of aircraft. And at that time, our military power will decrease. Esp because of all the other setbacks like with the Navy and such things as the Zummwalt. Or even the Railgun (which countries like Japan, China, Turkey have even developed. China supposedly mounting one on a testbed ship). We’ll be right there with the UK or even worse. Seems like every time we get to taking about something to replace something it gets canceled or delayed indefinitely. I mean look at the M1: she’s 40 years old. (Older if you count the designs which were ‘75. And first build in ‘78). And the Bradley… well that was a joke since it’s inception.
Everyone thinks the hypersonic missile will be the answer to their prayers…
…
…for every branch.
Secondly:
The UK doesn’t posses the military infrastructure as the US, Russia, or China. The US has more military contractors and companies than there are McDonald’s in New York. The last REAL plane they made by themselves was the Harrier and Jaguar. The UK is better off in areas like Naval and even Surface Warfare (to a point). The Challenger Tank is one of the best tanks next to the Abrams and the Leopard. What I mm trying to say is: the last time they tried to make a plane, they outsourced a lot of it to other countries like Germany. And now, they hardly if at all use the Eurofighter Typhoon (I haven’t heard anything about it but really haven’t looked either). Most of their sought after aircraft comes from us, the US; with the F-35.
And that raises another point of mine. Soon I think, very few countries will be self sufficient when it comes to military arms R&D & Manufacturing. Even now ALOT of countries are outsourcing most of the components, projects or whole needs to another country. Buying their products instead of manufacturing in house. And while it’s cheaper you just rely on that country. Their parts, training, trading and hopes they don’t get drawn into a conflict.
TL;DR:
This Article Is PURE Sci-Fi. I’ve seen Sci-fi shows and movies, even Star Trek ones more realistic than this article.
this is just fantasy marketing, if you could not build a 5th fighter in the past 20 years, what make UK think it can build a 7th gen fighter in the 20 years.
This article is just science fiction.
UK, an alarmingly, rapidly declining has been power, does not have the brains and the resources to outsmart the US, China and Russia.
Please…