The United States Air Force (USAF) currently plans to buy about 100 B-21 next-generation bombers and nearly 185 F-47 sixth-generation jets to bolster its combat capability. However, those numbers may not be sufficient to fight China, according to a new report.
A report from the Air Force and Space Association’s (AFA’s) Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies states that the USAF must ramp up its purchase of B-21 and F-47 to deny “sanctuaries” to China from which it could unleash missile salvos during a hypothetical US-China conflict over Taiwan.
China considers self-ruled Taiwan as a rogue Chinese province and has vowed to unite it with the Chinese mainland, by force if necessary.
There is no indication whether the US would use its military to prevent China from invading Taiwan, particularly because Washington formally upholds a policy of “strategic ambiguity.”
Despite this, both the US and China have been preparing for a potential military showdown.
The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies report titled “Strategic Attack: Maintaining the Air Force’s Capacity to Deny Enemy Sanctuaries,” authored by Heather Penney and retired Col. Mark A. Gunzinger, explores this eventuality.
The report states that the B-21 bomber and the F-47 fighters could work in tandem to breach enemy airspace and fight “from the inside out,”—dealing devastating blows against military bases and other vital infrastructure deep in mainland China.
The report states that the US Air Force’s current plans to purchase “at least” 100 B-21s and 185 F-47s are commensurate with one-time operations into hostile airspace, such as Operation Midnight Hammer, which involved F-35 fighters and B-2 bombers attacking Iranian nuclear installations in June 2025.
However, they are insufficient to maintain pressure in a larger conflict because they are “a raid force, not a campaign force,” Penney told reporters in a news briefing.
The analysts suggested increasing the purchase of F-47 by almost two-thirds to 300 aircraft, and doubling the acquisition of B-21 to “at least” 200 bombers.
“F-47s operating with B-21s and other aircraft in the Air Force long-range strike family can be [the Pentagon’s] ‘sanctuary denial force,’” they emphasised in the report.
“Two hundred [B-21s] isn’t based off of a full-up World War III scenario, but it does look at what’s the number needed for ‘hold back’ and how do you be credible and effective in denying that sanctuary and hitting those key centers of gravity in China, and also having enough attrition reserve to be able to sustain a protracted conflict?” Penney said.
The report also discusses the attrition in the USAF and the decline in combat readiness across the fleet. It contends that the USAF must refrain from retiring any B-2 bombers and accelerate the purchase of the F-35 fifth-generation stealth fighters to strengthen its penetrating capabilities in the interim, since it could take tens of years to build out larger fleets than previously anticipated.
The F-47 is intended to replace the F-22 Raptors, of which only 185 remain in the USAF inventory. Nonetheless, it must be noted that the era in which the Raptor was commissioned into the USAF has changed significantly, and the US is no longer the world’s unchallenged military power. On the contrary, China has now essentially transformed itself into a near-peer rival/adversary, as several US officials have admitted.
The report backs its argument for expanding F-47 purchases, stating that the actual numbers available for long-range attack missions are much lower than they appear, since the Air Force has to keep some bombers in reserve for nuclear deterrence and some fighters in reserve for homeland defense or for defense in a different theatre.
While the F-47 is envisioned as a stealthy, long-range fighter that will also lead a small flotilla of collaborative combat aircraft (CCA), supplementing the manned sixth-generation jet with additional missiles, jammers, sensors, or decoys, enhancing its firepower, “each F-47 will have to do a lot: air superiority, long-range counter-air, escorting bombers and tankers, protecting ships, defending Guam and Japan, plus whatever surprise mission Washington dreams up on a bad day,” as previously noted by National Security Journal.
The F-47 is projected to cost approximately $300 million per unit, making it one of the most expensive combat aircraft ever built—roughly three times the cost of an F-35, based on prior Congressional Budget Office projections.
This means that the production cost alone for 185 jets would be approximately $55.5 billion, excluding development, testing, spares, training, and other program elements.
As previously reported by the EurAsian Times, the Pentagon was prioritising the development of F-47 over the US Navy’s F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter. Increasing the number of F-47s significantly could chip away at the cost of building the Navy’s jet or impact other programs, such as the F-35 acquisition and the planned F-22 upgrade.
The B-21 bomber, on the other hand, is intended to perform missions such as deep-penetrating nuclear and conventional strikes over heavily defended airspace.
It is the most aspirational USAF program slated to replace the B-2 bomber. However, the B-21 per unit would cost over $700 million after inflation, and neither the manufacturer, Northrop, nor the Pentagon has indicated plans to increase production.
At the same time, though, China appears to be focusing on numbers. The PLA Air Force (PLAAF) has reportedly inducted about 400 J-20 stealth fighters and is currently working to expand production of the J-35A and its carrier-variant, J-35.
In addition, two sixth-generation fighter prototypes—the J-36 and the J-50—are being flight-tested and could potentially enter low-rate production by the end of this decade.
Critics argue that expanding the F-47 and B-21 fleets is vital, as Beijing would have a home advantage in a potential clash, supplemented by a massive fleet of fighter jets and a formidable Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) system.
Moreover, while China could concentrate most of its forces locally, the US would have to disperse its forces globally and surge assets across vast distances. Therefore, the experts believe that the US would need more aircraft to break in and hold the PLAAF while American jets take decisive action.
Wargames conducted by US-based think tanks in the past have shown that, even with a qualitative US edge, a Taiwan scenario could result in very high aircraft losses on both sides.
In 2022, a team of American defence experts conducted a war game simulating the US military response to an invasion of Taiwan. In 18 of the 22 rounds, the US lost around 500 aircraft.
While the US is leaning towards the concept of “affordable mass” by introducing attritable drones, some experts believe air superiority in combat is still achieved by manned fighters.
For now, the US currently retains an edge in areas like: stealth technology and sensor fusion; pilot training and combat experience; global alliances and basing; and integrated kill chains with its AWACS, tankers, and satellites.
However, experts argue that the need to expand the fighter fleet to counter China’s regional mass, proximity advantages, and production speed in a potential high-intensity Indo-Pacific war.
USAF Fleet Focused On Standoff Capability, Says Report
The report’s suggestions are based on the claim that the current Air Force fleet is “unbalanced” toward stand-off capabilities that can deliver strikes from greater distances.
The report states that some supporters contend that increasing the service’s investment in stand-off capabilities, such as hypersonic missiles and the sensors required to direct them to targets, collectively referred to as long-range kill chains, would reduce the number of aircraft lost during a fight. However, the report emphasises that stand-off strikes are insufficient on their own.
“The service’s current combat force mix is now weighted toward earlier-generation non-stealthy bombers and fighters,” Penney and Gunzinger wrote in the detailed assessment.
“If not modernized with the right quantities of next-generation stealthy aircraft, this legacy force would have to close thousands of long-range kill chains in hundreds of hours in a peer conflict, a feat that is beyond the Air Force’s current and projected capacity.”
The report admits it would cost a lot of money up front to acquire an additional B-21s and F-47s, probably over $100 billion.
However, Penney reckons that the stand-off forces are just as expensive, especially in a confrontation that would involve hitting hundreds or perhaps thousands of targets, adding that it would cost $1 billion to hit 25 targets with the US Army’s Dark Eagle Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW), which costs a whopping $40 million per shot.
The report states that long-range kill chains are technically complicated and provide a large “surface area” for adversaries to target and disrupt. In comparison, the bomber’s powerful weaponry and intercontinental range are intrinsically constrained, as are missiles’ range and firepower.
However, Penney asserted that stand-in forces enable leaders to fully utilise airpower, noting that long-range strikes crippled the war machines of America’s adversaries during World War II and Operation Desert Storm, accelerating the end of the wars.
Penney and Gunzinger also reportedly noted that in Korea, Vietnam, and even the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine, policy choices to avoid going deep into enemy territory have created safe havens where “adversaries [can] husband their resources, produce war materiel, train replacement warfighters, secure their military leadership, and protect lines of communication to their fielded forces.”
- Contact the author at sakshi.tiwari13 (at) outlook.com
- Follow EurAsian Times on Google News
