6th Generation Fighters: the Feature NOBODY Talks About.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 มี.ค. 2023
- Are the 6th generation aircraft going to be a revolution or an evolution. NGAD, Tempest, FCAS, B-21. All these are 6th generation: what do they bring to the table?
Join this channel to support it:
/ @millennium7historytech
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Mille...
Join the Discord server / discord
Buy an Aircraft Model at Air Models! airmodels.net/?aff=173
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the TH-cam Partner Program, Community guidelines & TH-cam terms of service.
![[FULL EP.01] LOL: Last One Laughing Thailand Thailand หัวเราะทีหลังปังกว่า | Prime Thailand](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/t4KunBRKn3s/mqdefault.jpg)
Let's all agree that the Block 4 upgrade on our man was much needed and his new 6th generation look and setup is absolutely stunning!
Its great for mass industrial scale murder, i love it!
agreed he looks a lot better and just has a bounce to him now
Who would have thought that the main aircraft flanked by two weapon-carrying unmanned sacrificial sidekicks was already predicted by arcade shoot-em ups from the 80s!
LOL thats a great point, thats pretty much exactly how it worked.
Galaga...dont shoot your partner
If they are showing Russia and china the radar signature of f22 the government already has it.
Ha! No joke.
Unfortunately the military would start to hang more and more bells and whistles on a unmanned wingman. Hers is an scenario:
1) Design dedicated wingman
2) Somebody suggests that it be able to do some scouting.
3) Somebody else suggests that it should be able to do comprehensive scouting.
4) Third person suggests that since it has already done the scouting and it's already there it should be able to shoot at the target too.
5) Since it is gotten to be an expensive platform it should be highly survivable since and would represent a significant taxpayer investment.
6) All of the survivability modifcations have significantly reduced the number of weapons that it can carry making it less combat effective for the price.
7) Somebody suggests that the 'dedicated wingman' be provided with a cheap dedicated wingman to carry the weapons.
8) Somebody suggests that it be able to do some scouting...
Watching this episode after a long hiatus of watching the channel, the production/background aesthetics are greatly improved! Also great to see you in top form and in good health!
Your presentations are masterpieces. Brilliantly thought out analysis and insight. It’s all publicly available information, but you arrange and condense it so succinctly. As a former military officer I would crave briefings this good. BZ
I am blushing...
Agreed. I think he hit all the high points. The 6G fighter won't be a "plane" but a system of systems, more like a gigafactory.
This could allow us to field a new fighter in a few months rather than a few years. It also means there's no need to commit to 6000 of them up front. You can get 50 of them for now, and get more later at a similar cost. The attritable wingman is a biggie too. A complete game changer.
One thing I'd like to hear more about is the ability to keep making new fighters even if the old manufacturer goes out of business. Just get another company to continue making them.
I like the new background. It's a good upgrade from the "here is a unused corner of my spare bedroom/study."
When did a Military company ever say a system would be cheaper than before and it did not turn out to be 300 percent more expensive?
SAAB did with the Gripen E.
Lots of chest pumping re a fighter that's still not operational and hasn't proved anything yet. Regardless, Saab won't tell anyone how much an E costs vs a C/D ( in today's $$), so I'm pretty sure you can't either. I'm thinking Gripen E is a decent fighter and has certain attributes re short/ austere field operations but it's kinematics and range are limiting factors and if it was truly a 5th gen equivalent and much cheaper (say $50M) it'd be selling .. It isn't. Sweden ought to work.out a.deal with the EU & US to fund 24 upgrased Gripen C/Ds to UKR to prove its worth. Until Gripen establishes some kind of combat and sales credibility in remains a niche expensive and failed PR exercise by Saab's marketing team.BTW, I agree with the RUSI report that Gripen seems made for use in UKR, but again that's an argument made on paper that needs to be proved in the field to achieve sales succes.
Virginia class
It is very rare because most of the time these companies do not submit realistic tenders. Too much political meddling is at stake.
I'd like you to look at these concepts with a bit more of a critical eye. During my engineering career I have heard many of these things before.
For example, the idea of releasing and supporting multiple iterations of a product over a long developmental period. The cost of setting up manufacture and support for each individual variant ends up being much more than releasing and supporting the end product, and budget shortfalls will pile up by the time the end of the development cycle is reached.
The vertically integrated rapid supply chain is also not a new idea, but it is not the idea that is valuable, it is the implementation.
Suggestions like these tend to come up early in a development cycle, as we currently are with 6th Gen fighters. Then the smart young guys who make these suggestions end up running into the same barriers that created the preexisting system in the first place. Sometimes a new set of eyes and brains can solve some of those problems and make real progress, which is great. But usually they realize that the current system actually is already optimized for its real world constraints.
Many of the items you presented here would be great if successfully implemented. But I think it's important to temper expectations and realize that if such problems were easy to solve, then they would already be solved.
LOLS VERY NICE POINT 👌😄😄
I thought you were going to say "and even better when the quantity is expendable drone." Heh.
I searched for Perun's latest video and it wasn't up yet. But the algorithm had my back and recommended this. I generally agree with your analysis on the economic and production advances. I hadn't known how much automation and AR was already impacting manufacturing though. Wow!
It is clear that we must achieve a qualitative/quantitative ratio of drones and fighters adequate to our needs and economic and industrial capacity (very interesting the part of mass production).
Interesting stuff sir - as always. You are still the only guy to be able to explain the F-35’s data fusion system in a way a old tail dragger fan like me can understand.
Bravo! 👍👍
The problem with 3D printing is that the cost doesn't decrease with subsequent replications of components, but in the iterative R&D process of selecting one. After the R&D rapid-iteration .... the biggest benefit would be that which reduces the cost of identical components to the tolerances that LO requires.
It can also print stuff that's near impossible to make with subtraction manufacturing - to my understanding anyway.
i would claim that addetive manufacturing actually scales batter than subtractive. Becasue in the second cases there is a lot more material to be recycled.
Addetive manufactures like ARCAM can nestle products inside of each other, increasing the print speed quite significantly and lower cost. Specially for metal powder manufacturing each batch have a fairly specific cost. Its not like FDM that don´t scale what so ever (or well, you can scale it a bit, but not very much). SLA scales a bit. But SLS scales actually quite good.
And if you want to print plastic parts you probobly would not use FDM regardless... really just for prototype and preproduction. .
And for this i consider DLP and SLA to be virtually the same, Same with SLS, EBM and DMLS is pretty much the same technology. Just implemented in different ways. The there is MJF and Polyjet as well. (MJF is pretty similar to SLS).
Can probobly categorize it as printing in air (Polyjet and FDM), printing in liquid (SLA, DLP) and printing in powered (SLS, EBM, DMLS and MJF).
So a engineer would probobly print on a FDM just to check fit and that its physically as it suppose to be. Then print on say a SLA/DLP for practical integration test, then finally when its production its SLS, EBM, DMLS or MJF really depeding on what material and geometry you need.
Printing in poweder is far superior in regards of capacity, cost per unit, quality and selection of materials (can print in titanium, aluminum, stainless steel, coal-steel and a number of polymers).
Turbin blades have been printed with EBM/DMLS for a number of years no for production. At least RR, all there current turbofans have some printed blades.
@@shraka Tho if you look at it like that, then 3D printing is just one production technique out of thousands. Its not really a gamechanger.
@@termitreter6545 It's not going to replace all manufacturing methods, but it is a game changer in that it lets you create components that were impossible before - lighter, stronger, and more reliable.
Brilliant. Watchable. Inspiring.
Every time.
No matter how much port I have been drinking.
None today, so far.
I can assure it is better with Port (drink with moderation)
A most succinct video explaining the problem of rising costs and the potential solutions. Going to be interesting to see how each nation goes about trying to tackle their programs and their expenses.
Fantastic work M7.
I am addicted to your videos. I always learn something and or find something to contemplate. Thanks for what you do.
Quantity has a quality of its own...
I'm hearing this reiterated a lot these days in reference to military equipment. It's wartime talk
Ironic because the context it was said in it was false. Most of the time quality is king.
Only if you have a sufficient # of better quality weaponry and weapons platforms. Russia is already running low on PGMs and high end platforms which is why they're using dumb bombs, low-cost drones and old tanks.
@@ravener96 only if the mustash man in German had the mouse tank they would have beat the soviets and USA.
Hope you’re feeling better sir! You look in good shape!
Sprightly, even :)
Best channel for breaking down airframes and capabilities. Thank you for your research and expertise.
Saab JAS Gripen was specifically designed to break that law and it did.
As for the 5 vs 20 years, the main reason why USAF and USN planes takes so long to develop is because they don't use stock items, ie, they don't use items that are already designed but instead want new things. This ironically makes the planes less modern when finished as the long development time due to having to wait for the development of some parts before the final design can be completed makes some parts and the over all design old when finished.
I don't think there are more modern fighters than the US jets in their respective generations.
"Less modern" in what sense?
@@drksideofthewal If it takes 20 years to develop a fighter then the basic design will be 20 years old when finished. Same with many of the parts. That means that the fighter is due to having most of the critical parts replaced right when it's finished.
If it instead takes 5 years then it will only have aged 5 years during the development.
@@znail4675 That's not how things work. When you develop technologies you design them for the future.
@@ulikemyname6744 This.
My read on modularity as a programmer is quite similar:
We're in an era where the performance overhead for developing very generic solution has become neglectable compared to the immense computing power available at any price point. Consumer electronics were entering this stage for most applications around 2010, but of course military procurement is slower and needs rigid standards for electric components, so it took a while longer.
But the possibility for modularity does not mean that you'll get it right on the first try. It takes some time to figure out good baseline standards for the new framework, and some elements of development will remain fiddly for a long time.
Now however the industry should have collected enough experience to truly start reaping the development benefits. There should be solid unified interfaces in place that can deal with a wide variety of new modules, and good base implementations that can be iterated on for a long time to be able to accomodate new types of modules without needing much change.
YOUR NEW STUDIO IDEA WITH THE WHITE BOX IN THE BOOKSHELF IS GREAT...YOUR DELIVERY IS MUCH IMPROVED...IF THE BACKDROP WAS GREEN INSTEAD OF WHITE YOU COULD PROJECT ONTO IT TOO WITH SOFTWARE...USE IT FOR GRAPHS AND DISPLAYING SOME STATS BESIDE YOUR HEAD...STILL, WELL DONE!!... LOOKING GOOD.🙂
Yes, what he said.
It will be temporary, I am afraid
Yep, he seems to be very much more energetic in his videos these days.
I like how I learn something every time I listen to your episodes,brill 👍🙂, would be interesting sometime in your busy schedule to get your take on the GCAP /FCAS programs, will it be 2 programs of the same thing or both reaching for different products and aims , thanking you keep up the good work
2/3/4. FCAS/SCAF is for now stand alone from GCAP which is a construct of F-X and TEMPEST.
Currently those programs seem to be not defined or public enough to really say much about them. Theres a lot of design studies and partially overlapping projects, and itll take a while till that stuff gets sorted out.
Great video! It will be interesting to see how program development evolves in the future.
Great research and presentation! I think that supply of components - not just electronics - is an existing issue and will only become more difficult with 6th generation aircraft.
Best aviation channel period. :)
More about Boramae please. It looks like it may be an ideal high firepower lower operational cost complement for stealth fighters. This might be the start of a trend.
no internal weapon bay!
It's coming. And the KF-21 can already carry 4 weapons semi-recessed under the fuselage so its already more stealthy than most gen 4.5 fighters
Korea is really coming into its own as a weapons manufacturer.
External weapons is a feature not a bug. More firepower. Low maintenance high availability limited low observable fighters are a good match for external weapons. Equivalent stealth to a stealth fighter operating in beast mode at a fraction of the cost and with less restrictive radar modes that increase effective sensor ranges.
the real benifit for that Tempest production idea, is it can be scaled and moved really easily. deep under ground factories. floating factories.
In 2100, every fighter is now a stealth fighter that vaguely looks like a flat pancake.
Great video. Fascinating analysis. Thank you.
Thank you so much! Much appreciated!
Glad your back. You look great!
If we're calling weapons 'effectors' now, then we should definitely start calling fighters ROUs (Rapid Offensive Units)...a la the late great Iain M. Banks' 'Culture' novels.
…pilots now called “democracy providers”
Very interesting video. As a Industrial Automation specialist, I find the developments fascinating.
The 2 seat super fast and long-range F15 EX that can also carry lots of missiles seems like the perfect platform to start utilizing loyal wingmen and teaming them with some JSFs and AEWC platforms as well.
I expect the f15 EX role will be taken over by drones eventually. It's pretty much just a missile truck after all, so it doesn't really need a pilot.
@@Jeff55369 Sweden was doing that already in the 70s, but with total combat integration where land based and sea based radar was sharing information with air based, Making it possible to lock on each others targets. Making the Viggen fighter getting the nick name of "flying SAM battery" where it was pretty much used as a sam battery controlled from the ground.
@@matsv201 theres a reason why we dont use that philosophy tho. Unmanned aircraft require data links. If that signal gets interrupted or broken you then have a runaway drone with no pilot to control it. Its happened with drones before and theyve had to be shot down by other fighters
@@Jeff55369 The F-15EX isnt just a missile truck, its a fully fledged and expensive multirole combat aircraft. Itll probably carry the same or similar systems as an F-35, and be able to do both roles of F-15C and F-15E. Sure the airframe is outdated, but its gonna be capable, if slightly vulnerable, and very expensive.
The whole "missile truck" thing seems more like it was a political narrative to justify the planes existence. To not openly say thats its a needed but disliked stopgap solution, because the F22 production got cancelled, and the 6th gen aircraft to replace F22/F15 is too far away.
@@matsv201 Btw what you say is "ground controlled intercept", its basically just ground control telling aircraft where exactly to go and what to do. Less freedom for the pilots to make their own choices.
I guess drones do kinda work like that, they are purely directed from a control center and dont make their own decisions.
Your back and better than ever 👍
We re soo thrilled by the way you move M7 ! Stay well!
Nice new setup!
The tie breaker in any war is made by higher amounts of effective, low budget, better performing solutions. This does not always mean making the best or better performing products, but making something that is easier supported, can be used in an effective exchange of loses, and projected in all areas of defense and offense.
When you think about it, that's exactly how WW2 went down. Germany was producing state of the art stuff that was far better and far beyond what anyone else had at the time, except they were more costly, time inefficient to manufacture, more difficult to manufacture, and costly to lose, and therefore couldn't field a lot of their best weaponry in volume. The brits, yanks and soviets on the other hand went as cheap, quick and easy to produce as possible, produced and fielded in large volumes and nobody cared if it was lost or not.
More like in the wars you probably know about. I can think of a bunch off the top of my head where not only is that adage not true, but the opposite of true. For example the Gulf War, where technological superiority won out over numerical superiority. Or the Yom Kippur War. Or many more.
@@RockSolitude I don’t want to sound like those people but actually the brits and the yanks had better weapons and systems, the germans did make some better weapons but that was pretty much at the end of the war
@@RockSolitude well, that's sort of a myth also. Not every tank made is a Tiger or a Panther as the most produced German tank is the PzIV which is outclassed by the Sherman in many respects. The most produced AFV by Germany is thw StugIII. In airplanes, they did have jets but they mostly have prop planes that aren't that much better than what the allies had.
@@Red-238 yup, the high tech weapons were mostly too few to had any effect and were unreliable in most cases.
Congrats! very good video. I have to say that it almost mirrors and illustrates Dr. Bill Roper´s conceptual approach in his seminal paper "Bending the Spoon". Dr. Roper is definitely ahead of his time. Cheers
F-18s cost around 65-70 million in 1999. 120 million dollars today. Seems like we generally are moving in the right direction.
A few of us Fighter Pilots we're told that if they brought back the F-23 Black Widow and upgraded the software to today's technology, it would
be a 6th generation fighter!
Wouldn't be surprised, look at the difference in just maneuverability of the f35 block 1 vs block 4. Goes from being a unladen f16 to being capable of doing moves prior were only really seen by the f22/SU family just from software/flight control updates.
It really wouldn’t, at least going off the standards of the USAF’s NGAD requirements.
@@jonathanpfeffer3716 you also don't know the speed of the F-23 is still classified to this day and I was told it was Mach 2.8 to Mach 3! And the Air Force is kicking themselves for not choosing the F-23, instead of the F-22 which they're retiring in 2030! You can see me on TH-cam being interviewed in my jet fighter talking about these issues!
@@MrDJAK777 The F-35 flies more or less like a hornet with like 10-20% better acceleration. The J-turns are not really new. It flies nothing like an unladen viper.
@@craig4867 There’s still a lot of capabilities the PCA component of the USAF NGAD program has (or will have) that the Black Widow didn’t and couldn’t have. For example, it’s generally believed that some form of self-defense DEW, probably a microwave weapon, will be integrally built into the PCA. You would have to make some big changes, more than software, to the YF-23s engines and general airframe to accommodate that, for example. There’s plenty of other really fundamental differences too. The Black Widow was a very promising concept and would no doubt be an incredibly effective fighter if the program was allowed to mature, but I wouldn’t say it’s 6th Gen.
Also, unless I am misremembering, didn’t the YF-23 never actually demonstrate higher speeds than the YF-22? It’s one thing to say you can hit Mach 3, but if you can’t actually do it..
Great vid. Otis on form also 😂
Well one interchangeable / upgrade issue for any aircraft is simple as, so say, to define and design your new technology to be able to literally empty the shell of the older aircraft and fit in the upgrade, or as is another possibility, or aswell,, extract that older technology to upgrade it to its newer use and application, such as another craft which could use the older parts to upgrade in newer modified application.
Fantastic stuffs
Agree with a lot here. Only thing is the defense industry needs a lot of people working in it to justify costs
The thought of weapons being like USB devices... Scary and beautiful.
Higher tech isn't an issue as much as effectiveness of the machine. If a vehicle is better made in the way of design, then the advantage is the shape of the machine, the power behind its attack, and the numbers of which it can be deployed and replaced.
Great video.
Bravo another thought provoking video, sometimes you might want to look at what could shift the paradigm. US air dominance doctrine originally could not see roles for pure fighters after achieving AD against enemy airpower thus the shift towards multimission multirole aircraft. If say the Battleship Yamato was an example of Augustine's law for Japan, only one Battleship sank another during WW2, (Washington v Kirishima.). The loss or countering of high value 6th Gen aircraft might have no significant impact on the battlefield if neither side can deny enemy operations. The paradigm will be what takes the role on the battlefield between tactical low level artillery and drones which provides what neither can do, artillery lacks persistence in overwatch and current drones lack warhead. capacity. The task will be to be able to spot, target, attack and suppress the other side without being as vulnerable (or valuable) as attack aircraft. This might be through a very smart network of diverse and complimentary systems that could coordinate, detect and provide solutions to eliminate threats. Oo and I was doing chores so not much time to think this through 😂
On the point!
Using augmented reality to aid manufacturing is really neat.
4:13 In the business, we call this "foreshadowing".
I like that you stand and apparently fighting against a stealth miniature drone inside your room. Maybe it is 7th generation time traveling from the future? PS nice video !
When the Tempest updates to the Pyramid version 11, will there be a option to roll back to Pyramid 10 if it has bugs?
Thanks
Back in days of yore, there was a requirement that aircraft software was required to perform redundant checks since lives were dependent on them. Is that requirement still in effect with the new, modular software model ? Especially since it’s so easy to plug and play random modules. Who’s to say that the software for Missile X acts the same when it’s installed in the Super Hornet and the Viggen?
Sneaky little ghost bat cameo 😁🇦🇺
Thanks!
Thank you to you!
Put a Star Wars droid inside a 5 gen jet and BANG! A 6 gen was born 😅
R2D2
How do you do it, the time spent from the research to production is not just in a day a very good video and the information crammed in this video will drive you crazy , if you want to read them on your own
Make some in depth analysis about Indian Su 30 mki and there future upgrade with local components sir
I mean with a GaN based AESA Radar its going to be just as good as F15EX
Ramadan Mubarak
Your videos are amazingbut is it possible to i crease thr volume of your voice on editing?
I presume that a similar modular digital backbone is part of the F-15 EX program.
I know it's out of your specialty, but I wonder if a lack of a modular digital backbone or limitations to it is one of the reasons why the US Navy did not upgrade Ticonderoga class cruisers.
And now the vulnerability of wartime assets is the construction hall where all of these systems have been concentrated.
What most not realize is that nearly all kills now are beyond visual / detection range so if You successfully is able to jam the radar You cant fire Radar guided missiles the pilot becomes defenseless . That's why some nations use other means of detection and uses radar as a supplement system. that's why some missile system use image systems to verify target if there are no Radar lock.
Radar will be a supplement system in my perception of the future to come.
Quantity has it's own quality. Which means if you throw enough items at it you will overwhelm it just you might loose a significant part of those but if enough gets thrown and achieve the objectives..
🎉 Ánimo y gracias
I find it fascinating that there will be more than double the numbers of B-21's than there will be NGAD's.
But the rafale also have is a modular system since the start (I. E. it allow to swap pesa and aesa at will on the plane) and the result is still an expansive plane that will last for long. In fact it's exactly his modularity that seems to allow incremental upgrades and operational modern efficency on the long term.
How much weight does pilot and life support systems add to an aircraft?
Using Agile project management for a new aircraft is one of my scariest thoughts. When it comes to estimating the time required for sprints, they just ask everyone in the room, regardless of qualifications how long they think it will take, including the completely unqualified team members. Talk about a formula for disaster (and delay).
This! The Gripen is architected, so that it can leverage the ability of software to make hardware seem like it's been upgraded. I remember back in the day when I upgraded my 3D printer to the Marlin controller, it immediately got faster and jittered less. This dynamic applies to systems like Radar and missiles. With so much emphasis on detection and signals intelligence, the ability to change software in wartime is going to deliver many temporary advantages. The ability for one side to change software more quickly and easily means that side is going to run the arms race faster.
So the Gripen fanboys keep saying When is Gripen going to ever establish its credibility. Send 24 to UKR. The coalition just paid Slovakia big bucks to send UKR old retired MiGs. Offer up Gripen C/Ds and increase production of new Es. But they won't do it. That's why no onembuysmthem. They're unproven PR planes at present until proven otherwise.
Development of new airframes like FCAS, Tempest, NGAD,.. will still take decades, shit is beginning to hit the fan NOW, so I think, modular Software, Smart Factories,.. will be all good and fine. To built new Tranche-4/5 Eurofighters, Rafales, F-16s,.. ASAP. Nobody can afford to give 40+ Gripen or 40+ Typoons to ukraine WITHOUT ordering new ones for replacement right away. But thats whats actually needed.
Otis is an American spy, keep and eye on him. LOL
Made in China, more like.
So the 6th gen aircrafts will be built with the aircraft equivalent of picatinny rails
With the advancements in AI, it makes one wonder if the attritable platform will be willing to attrit itself.
It will always have to assign some weight to it's own survival. It just needs to be hardcoded that that worth is always less than a piloted plane. No weight given to survival = no weighing mechanism for a course of action.
Could you imagine Otis flying a drone platform? God help us!
HAL loyal wingman: I won’t kill myself (flys away to safety) 😂😂
You presume self awareness…. Maybe 15th Generation will be.
AI's don't have "souls" the software itself does not die when a unit is destroyed. An AI would be perfectly fine with attrition (if it's a winning exchange), the real question would be how much "human" attrition.
I have long been convinced that the Gripen-E/F is the right plane for Canada. Every time I learn something new about it I just get more frustrated at how on Earth our DND chose the F-35 instead.
10% for the big guy!
@@garynew9637 Who is the big guy?
I think the f35 "modularity" is kind of an illusion... Biggest issue with building something with modularity for future upgradability is you don't really know what the future will be, and then when the future comes its realized that upgrading the platform with more updated tech is not as efficient as the technology could provide because the modularity system/layout that was chosen is also out of date... Upgrading that too makes cost the same as just building a new platform but worse n less efficient....
Saab joining GCAP would be amazing
7:37 "effector"? Like some of these robots have giant robot claws?
For an "autonomous drone" can be effective as a wingman is only true if the drone if they are truly autonomous and can take actions based on their own assessment. I hope the drones err on the side of protecting their wingman
Can you review T-FX program please?
What if for a stealth drone or wingman concept they built a dedicated missile carrier for BVR combat that carried maybe 10+ missile internally. Obviously it wouldn’t be as manoeuvrable as a fighter but could assist the f-35 with air superiority because they only carry 4 missiles
Easier to just make longer range missiles so the truck never needs to get close enough for stealth to be a factor. And I'm pretty sure we could automate the landing/takeoff/loiter of an f15 or even put it under dirext control of the f35 pilot. Would be a easy and cheap for 1st gen missile truck loyal wingman drones
@@MrDJAK777 not easy to Bild longer ranged missles... They need to be bigger, are heavyer...needing a bigger carrier, easy er to spot on radar.. ... Time to target of such missles is longer.... All not ideal... Best case would be the missle truck is a few miles behind the Fighter it supports and can lend it's missles in real time (or verry close to it) ...... If shit Hits the Fan the truck could alsow act as decoy.
@@justacomment1657 Options :
1) Bigger missile.
2) Throttleable engine.
3) Ramjet
4) Booster added to existing missile.
@@justacomment1657 can literally just change the solid propellent on the coming and already long range aim-260 and get a big boost with no other change, would only require committing to spending on upping production of cl-20 and propellent boosted by it. +40-60 additional seconds of ISP is gonna give a significant range boost and the higher thrust helps with the speed/distance. But the whole point of using an f22s/f35s lpi AESA or the f35s DAS to queue standoff/BVR missiles on a separate airframe is that they can lock and launch on them without giving any warning they're even being looked at till the missiles own seeker goes live moments before the intercept just like they can with there own missiles.
Could you please comment the Izdelie 30 and the flat nozzles on SU 57
Otis is so clever
Making a new iteration every 5 years makes a lot more sense than expecting a plane to last 30 years.
@Millennium 7 * HistoryTech have you lost weight? Looking really good and hope you are doing just as well. Grats!!
1:22 which aircraft is this?
AI generated
You look good man! Your face is bright and you look thinner! Hope your ticker is doin good too.
As an programmer the open architecture is a great thing .... until you are down the road 15 years and you are constantly hitting backwards compatibility issues and old API code and on one point you are trying to bribe your boss to approve budget for restructuralization of the oldest components in the software landscape.
I find it interesting on this channel the Gripen is used as an example of what to do correctly but the F-35 is consistently a punching bag of what not to do. Yet in the real world 6 countries use the Gripen and 16+ use the F-35. In addition, three of the counties that operate the Gripen have not been offered an opportunity to purchase F-35s. I love the Gripen and I think the F-35 has been problematic to say the least, but I feel like this channel ignores reality and lacks insight the real capabilities of various platforms.
I explained this many times.
The F-35 is an outstanding aircraft, generated by a poorly managed program, albeit those issues are largely resolved now.
F-35 diffusion, though, has little to do with the performances and more with politics. It is a tool of promoting USA's political influence with the allies. It's adoption is going to hurt the users strategically since there is no key technology transfer and no promotion of national solutions.
The Gripen is an example of what can be done with very limited resources but, crucially, SAAB and Sweden are open to transferring all the technology they can. The aircraft is kinematically inferior to all modern aircraft and, since it uses a US engine and few other components, it requires US approval to be sold. This explains why it is not as common as it should be.
Waaooo … you look fantastic !
Well done for the weight lost … be strong to keep it that way since being handsome suits you so well 😎👍✨
As always I am enjoying your video. Additive technology is not new (Lockheed Martin uses it before 2000), but still there is no boom in numbers as you expected. Why?
I think legacy investments and the difficulty of making large or extremely tough parts.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Thx for the answer. Your video about US F-102/6 from my point of view is a masterpiece.
Biggest issue to overcome for drones I can see is mission coordination/autonomous operation/integration, no single word can describe what they must do. They cannot always have a distant controller that can be hacked or jammed and cannot be left on their own to react to changing situations. Ukraine has shown how useful they can be but it is already changing (war does that) for them, "dumb" drones are being downed regularly now. I see the Navy having the least trouble because they have experience coordinating fleet defenses.
Oh yes. No one mentions the cupholders, very important.
I thought this was the feature everyone was talking to most about?
What was the 1st generation fighter? The Sopwith Camel?
The Fokker D-7 ?
Hasn’t this cost/complexity cycle always existed? In all areas of the defense industry?
We just need a few Armored Core (6) 's :)) and we're good... with UNACs too :))
6th are supposed to be easier to implement and lower cost but will end up exactly the opposite just like they normally do
Effector aye? That some Orwellian neologism there. ;)
And B.S. marketing.
Millenium 7D-BL52