Prospects for a light Stealth Fighter

[Avimimus]

What is the breakdown between the following?:

Cost of sensors (and avionics)
Cost of pilot training
Costs of development
vs.
Cost of a second engine
Fuel costs from operating a larger airplane

If the costs of the former are more than half the costs of the latter, then a larger platform will make sense... in fact, this is even the case if we compare the costs of a medium fighter and a heavy fighter...

 

[Ainen]

All of those are quite different and depend on the objective and project goal. Like, IMHO, fighter price, if we stretch it, can go down to first millions USD (more or less to modern AFV level; yes, way below even reaper). Not with current US MIC logic, but it can.

IMHO, if the goal is a big war with potentially superior industrial power, fighter price should indeed go down massively. And flying all the way from Hawaii and back isn't a good way to do it.

Japanese tried this idea during ww2 (8 hr air superiority flights into hostile airspace without sustainable csar), it didn't work. If you want to fight - fight, get closer and fight. Otherwise, fighters will be based in safety, but missile marines will get another Wake.

Loyal wingmen were one approach of doing this. Problem is, it more and more seems CCA race against PRC isn't one that is likely to be a win for the US, and without them being better than Redfor's- old NGAD just can't create positive combat mass ratio.
US is still a superior aerospace power (with orders of magnitude larger pilot pool, by the way), but software/communications and drone mass production capability are either ties, or worse.

 

[NMaude]

Alex Hollings from Sandboxx has an interesting video about a 21st century light fighter concept and possible problems with it:

Some senior Air Force officials are now pointing toward a dramatic shift in America’s next stealth fighter program, with high-cost and high-capability platforms like the Next Generation Air Dominance fighter in development shelved in favor of smaller, lighter, and cheaper aircraft built to adapt to new challenges over time.

But can the Air Force change everything about fighter acquisitions in time to meet the looming threats on the horizon?

The possibilities for long term savings are good but if it isn't implemented properly could turn out to be very costly as the JSF programme has proven.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The possibilities for long term savings are good but if it isn't implemented properly could turn out to be very costly as the JSF programme has proven.

Or, you know, you only design a plane for a 20yr service life so as soon as NGAD enters service you start designing the successor plane.

Alternatively, you design the High end plane for a ~40yr life, and as soon as high end enters service you start work on the low end plane.

Either way, you constantly end up with one or two planes getting designed all the time. Keeps the engineers in practice and so any given senior engineer should have designed 2 or more aircraft over their career.