"250M$" Remember, that US military industry is MASSIVELY subsidised through all sorts of hidden porkchop projects. The F-35 for example, it's real pricetag after accounting for subsidies, is probably somewhere around 2 to 4 times its official price. Also, USA is literally going bankrupt. And that's BEFORE BRICS have finished setting up their own banksystem that will crash the dollar, before China has dedollarised and before it has completely stopped buying US bonds to prop up the dollar, before more OPEC nations have left the petrodollar system. And before the effects of the internal, DOMESTIC economic crash in the USA have really started showing. And yet, even though all that and more has yet to really happen, USA is on the edge of its national debt INTERESTS going so high that USA may not be able to pay without radical measures. And most such, would just make the crash even worse in the end. "10 years lifespan" Oh dear gods... With the current glacial speed of US engineering overall, this is basically going to be just building a lot of prototypes... "US Navy" Worth noting, the USN right now is so short on personnel, that they had to stand down over a dozen ships out of active service. "overwhelming technology superiority" HAHAHAHAHAHA... How about lolnope? "money is not a scarce resource" Have you looked at USAs national finances anytime in the last 15 years? USA is printing money faster than Weimar. And have absolutely ZERO actual base for doing so, relying completely on USD being "petrodollar" and the main reserve and trade currency. And even with THAT, the USD is grossly overvalued today. The only thing keeping it from crashing, is institutional inertia. Right now, the USD probably should be worth closer to half its value. But once dedollarisation happens? Hyperinflation is entirely possible. Not guaranteed, but very plausible. And a market correction where USD loses 90% of its value is something many economic specialists are already speculating about.
Remember the F-35 from Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter Program which became the Joint Strike Fighter program. It was supposed to cheaper F-22 much like how F-15 was expensive vs F-16/17 was lightweight fighter.
It's the fallacy of the "light fighter". Once you need certain performances, certain range and certain payload, the dimensions of the aircraft are already decided.
@@up4open There is no fallacy. Point☝️defence fighters serve their purpose of homeland defense well. Not every country is planning strikes half way around the world.
@@mtrest4 So we are not talking of a fighter that's easy to update and economical. We are talking of a fighter that simply does less things, or does them worse. The LCS of the air.
@neutronalchemist3241 The LCS problem isn't that it does less. It's that it does less while being expensive to build and maintain. The M113 was the most produced armoured vehicle of all time despite being kind of mediocre, because it was so cheap anyway could buy them. Its called cost benefit ratio, its why people buy sedan cars instead of ferrari. Plenty of countries have smaller corvette ships which are more effective than LCS. LCS failed due to failings in the navy design. A light fighter isn't a bad idea in principle, but I doubt America can pull it off.
Yeah, give it a year or two and they'll be having to beg for money from Congress, so they'll be adding a bunch of features for the hypothetical wars that senators are concerned about, and it'll be bigger than the F-35. They should just buy the Grippen.
15 years trying to develop the f-35, and it is only flyable less than 30% of the time. That's a record that's worse than the early f-14s. Even the f-22s are flying it better than that rate
According to USAF, it is overbudget on new Sentinel ICBM (+81%) and B-52 upgrade programs. Budget is tight. NGAD on hold. New fighter is another CALF (Common affordable light fighter) which was supposed to replace F-16. CALF merged with other programs and became JSF/ F-35. CALF back under another name. 🙂
We need to make an affordable F16 replacement, but it has to be capable, so now it's not affordable (plus the usual cost+ contract corruption), so we need to make another F16 replacement,...
The problem with the long peace between the fall of the Soviet and the western paid for rise of China is that there was limited pressure. Hence Defence projects were allowed to be loose and scope to the too open, whilst we spent less. Now we have a credible threat, the money has been spent on other things and we have too little time
We do need a cheap light fighter that can generate a lot of sorties. I cringe everytime they threaten to retire the A-10/F-16.(A-10 gets more hours.) Our guys get a lot flight hours on those. Which is better then getting less flight hours. As far as I know 5th generation jets have terrible availabilty. They are hanger queens. That could change with time. B-52 was like that. But it became as relaible as a Honda Civic with quick turn around times. (If B-52 is no longer like that it's because ancient.) If I'm honest F-22 will always be a hanger queen. Maybe F-35 might be able to generate those flight hours. But it doesn't now.
Affordable should be the number 1 consideration we the people are tired of paying for corrupt MIC and foreign wars while our living costs skyrocket and purchasing power gets eroded
NGAD may have started out as a stand alone aircraft idea, but people forget that aircraft always start out as a list of requirements. We have seen multiple account of potential requirements already being displayed. Mirror coating (F-117, and F-22), advancements in RAM coating(B-21), GaN radar systems (AN/APG-85), AETP (GE - XA100), CCA integration, Battlefield quarterbacking (Mini-AWACS), Stealth fuel pods, Mako integration, SM-6 conversion, AIM-260/Peregrine awaiting GaN upgrades, NGJ-LB (Probably being compatible with the F-35C)... All the huge leaps in technology more than likely far exceeds the nearly 10 year old NGAD initial requirements. Having said all that, the U.S. already has one aircraft that is capable of integrating all those systems.....
The outline structure and measured presentation of your videos is an important part of explaining complex ideas. And Otis ❤ is there for comedic relief.
Grippen E was never stupid ;) I'd argue that the F-15 can keep up with it on kg of payload x km of delivery distance x lifetime cost / dollar x losses expectancy. Largely due to better range, payload, and much longer airframe life. But sometimes you want "more of something cheaper" for attritional reasons.
Another great video. Would love to see more diversity other than American fighters. Like JF-17 PFX, AMCA, Pakistan buying J-31, the upgrade program for SU-30MKI, and so many more.
Uncertain technology developments and ballooning costs are certainly reason enough to force a reevaluation of NGAD. But it all stems from the fact that the costs required to modernize and build the force structure required to fulfil the political and military objectives of military preeminence around the world are too high to ignore now. Either spend the money and cut costs of domestic spending to funnel to the military or change the strategy and reduce the scope of goals and their importance. Prioritize regions and adversaries of focus. As it currently stands, the U.S geopolitical strategy and the military strategy underpinning it, are like NGAD, looking more and more unattainable. Something has to change. A good and informative video M7.
The light strike fighter idea for affordability has always been around. The Textron Scorpion could do that. Similarly, the armed variant of the T-7A jet trainer was supposed to do that. The special forces just got something literally called the Air Tractor as a close air support plane. And drones have always done that for the CIA and regular air force, and are ever evolving. And this is yet another iteration of a stealth drone that's supposed to be more affordable.
The NGAD has always seemed to me to be something developed by someone (s) who would otherwise be writing Battlestar Galactica Fan-Ficiton. That is the 'fighter' is to be a mother ship for artificially intelligent fighters while also firing very long-range missiles, hopefully from outside the range of enemy fighters and air defences. So, a miniature Cylon Base Star, not really intended to be a 'fighter' in the Top Gun movie sense. The suggestion of using a version of the B-21 for this type of work to save development costs has been raised before, I can't remember if that was on your channel.
True! Although the "fighter" in the Top Gun movie sense, is not really keeping up with modern air to air ordinance & tactics. The "dogfight" is unrecognizable in 5th gen.
look at the russians, su25 'bomb truck', really basic, pretty effective. air superiority, or enough of it, from ad. US goes much more for quality but not quantity, that's imo the key weakness
@@JohnMullee Su-25 is meant as a "russian A-10", it got chewed up bad in Ukraine. It only flies altitude bombing missions now, even though that's not it's primary mode of attack. As for not enough quantity, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 7th largest airforces in the world are the USAF, USN, USA, and USMC. But I do get what you mean. The F-22 and B-2 especially are really limited in number.
@@LTPottenger That would work pretty well. I think the air force wants something which can get somewhat closer, and be more subtle with LPI radar or lots of passive sensors though. Like maybe a B-21. Or perhaps something smaller & cheaper. But in principal, yeah, that'd work.
the idea of a light strike aircraft is around for over 20 years... it spawn the moment we saw F35's price tag. we knew it was simply impossible to replace the entire airwing with them. there is also a realization that we can get away with a very simple combat aircraft for most mission. sometime u just need recon in a non-hostile environment. the korean T-50 was the first to realised this concept. it good enough for most use...
We paid approximately 306 million a copy inflation-adjusted for an f-14 when they were brand new. Each! Budget priorities in Congress are the problem. F-35 are selling for about a third that price. Had they made the 750 f-22s they were supposed to they would have had a similar price around 100 million an aircraft. That's cheap. Priorities!
@@140theguy Making seven hundred and fifty F-22 pilots would cost a lot, ditto for the airfields and ground crews and other infrastructure needed to have that number of aircraft ready to deploy at a moment's notice. In the end it turned out that they built more F-22s than they really needed. Oops.
@@robertsneddon731 I would venture to say yours is an extremely rare opinion in the flight world. Again, finding people to ride these things isn't hard. Finding people who can manage every bit of them at once, more difficult. But engineering is supposed to ease that anyway.
@@Stumpy1234 It costs money to train pilots, it costs money to train the trainers. Both pilots and trainers have a working lifespan of maybe ten to fifteen years bum-in-ejector-seat before they need to be replaced requiring more money to be spent training new pilots. It costs money to operate the planes to train the pilots, it costs money to recruit, train and retain ground crews to maintain the planes, it costs money to create airfields to support the planes and so on, and that ongoing cost continues for thirty or forty years from the initial purchase of the airframe which is the only price most uninformed commentators focus on. The hundred and eighty F-22s currently in-service do the job of providing US air superiority which is effectively unchallenged in the world today other than perhaps along the Chinese coast. It is an ageing airframe (the last new F-22 was delivered twelve years ago) based on design decisions made over thirty years ago in a very different technological and geopolitical landscape. Time to let it go rather than double down.
Thank you so much for culling and gathering all of this information. I appreciate your thoughtful analysis. I don't know if I agree with all of your conclusions but, they are plausible.
My take on this is. The light fighter is still the low end, high number solution of the USAF. The F35 was supposed to be that but obviously failed at it. The USAF went for the PAC (the plane not the system NGAD that is also application to the F35, 700 of which will be able to control drones) but the project is simply to expensive and need requirement is still unclear. The is therefore going back the light solution. Lack of money for those projects come from too many other high level, more mature projects, like the B21 for the USAF or the lack of SSA/ Carrier for the USN. I don't see this applying to Europe, who doesn't have other priorities and certainly doesn't already have the mass a diversity of platforms that give the US the time to rethink the 6th gen. The 6th gen could very well be a B21 loaded with UCAVs and missiles, controlling them from 400km away with great number and longer on cite time. It would make a lot of sense seing how vast the pacific is.
bridges and roads held together with ducttape in US, but yea, another billion $ sinkhole project obsolete within 3 months of coming into servive is smart economics for sure...🤣
Maybe the US should buy the Gripen? It can be build in the US. Proven concept, top notch weapons, relatively easy to maintain, can fly from improvised airfields (what neither the F22 nor the F15 can do). But no chance agains the US based industry (Airbus tanker..).
The F-16 does all the Griphen does and more. The possibility to fly from "improvised" (that are 800m of paved runway anyway) airfields is of little practical use.
@@neutronalchemist3241not if you think of a semi Cold War Szenario, where airfields where primary targets. Most of the fighters from my old squadron wouldn’t had a airbase after the first sortie. Not sure about the capabilities of the F 16 vs. Gripen. No APU, no Aesa, no Meteor.
0:16 The Leopard is a fascinating novel about the transfer of power during the unification of the Italian government and the shifting balance of power away from the Sicilian monarchy into the hands of the Redshirts. It's a book that's come up in some university classes but wasn't required reading in any classes I took as a child.
Thank you for the video. I love honest reporting. As an American, I'm a super fan of the air force, but I also know they are not perfect. I appreciate videos like this. Great work.
Interesting concepts on this program re, plug'n play config variation. From a conceptual perspective, excellent. From a practical execution perspective?, we don't know until the options are further developed. If history is any indication, these programs yield varied results vs objectives.
Great video. I think you hit on most of the key issues -- politics, money, other programs, etc. The only thing the AF might be 'hiding' is that they still hope/plan to get what they want -- they just realize they may have to wait a little longer and pretend to 'play ball' for small, cheaper.
In short, the US did not invest in nuclear capabilities since 1990, so now they have to throw astrinomical amounts of money at greedy defense contractors to get nuclear stuff done. So they don't have the budget for all the conventional stuff they wanted. Also, social spending is a bottomless pit and more taxes and thus less economic growth won't fix that.
@texasranger24 not olny nuclear stuff .... the west is 25 years late on hypersonic tech , and globally rocket technology ... we see this not olny with offensive ground vectors , but with the AA missiles , and mostly air defense systems witch even the most advanced system cant take out iskanders or kinjhals
Social spending is not a bottomless pit. Social spending is a drop compared to the rest of what is needed to run the country and its infrastructure. Social spending, especially since the early 20th century, has solidified our country as THE place to be, increased immigration from all over the world and solidified us as the pinnacle of modern society. More people equals more production equals more money. Please sit down and take the time to go through publicly available docs - spewing the same tired nonsense that the GOP propaganda machine has churned out for 3+ decades makes you look uninformed. (which you are) Especially when put up against what Donald and his advisers recently did during Covid lockdown with the 'free money' sent out to everyone. Remember that? Course not. You've been brainwashed to think the government is inept. Do you wish to be like the USSR? Where the nation does NOT invest in its people? No one moved to the USSR.... To remind you, USSR disintegrated in the early 1990s. They lost the Cold War. It was over. China wasn't rising yet or showing it was going to be an ass like the USSR. Why invest in nuclear? No reason. Fast forward to ~2008. Russia has shown it is still willing to be a bully, Putin and co started to show they are still of Soviet mindsets. China has stolen data on the F-35 project. China is starting to increasingly show signs of aggression. The world is changing. Constantly. There are reasons for all decisions that are made. We pay our contractors a lot of money because if you paid them less, there is a risk of bad actors getting involved and offering more money. Granted, are there times we pay too much? Sure, at times. Those need case by case analysis. Please invest time into thinking critically on the information you receive. I believe in you.
Equipment meant for war has to be robust and have high availability, and those qualities are very difficult to combine with ever increasing complexity. A less capable system could very well be a superior choice if it leads to increased availability at a lower or equal cost.
Drones flying and fighting in formation with pilots will not work for many years to come. The reason is workload. A combat pilot's workload is allready maxed out as it is. He simply has not the time to deal with a flying roomba trying to crash into his aircraft because the GPS is malfunctioning. It will stay that way until such point that the drone system programming is so rugged, it can be trusted to act responsible on its own. Right now the demonstrations only work if the drone pilot formation flies slow, in a straight line and nobody is shooting at them. Still great video, though.
If the T-7 Red Hawk, HAL Tejas, Gripen-D, KAI FA-50, or SOKO Novi-Avion are mounted with the Safran M88 which now proposes a 100/afterburner-115kN version, you can stuff one ton more internal fuel than inside a F-16 with more thrust than in a F-16A/B. The M88 can be produced in the USA by the CFM consortium, just like the M56 you better know as CFM56. The engine, used on the Rafale, ends with Rafale with 2 engines costing half of a F-16 per flight hour while, in intensive use, allowing 11 mission per 24h or 12 hours continuous flight! Thales' RBE-2/AA's T/R modules do the job of two Northrop-Grumman GaN modules so latest upgrade made it more powerful than the F-35's radar while it's really small so you can stuff it in light jets as the ones aforementioned. The OSF EO/IRST is a QWIP so... forget the J-20, J-31, F-22 or F-35 stealth : they AREN'T stealth for a QWIP The SPECTRA suite is way more than an EW suite, one of the features is bringing active stealth and can be stuffed instead of the rear seat of the jet's trainer version. Dassault even says that the Tejas' airframe can be improved so it takes 11G+, and with more thrust than a Mirage-2000-9 and 1800kg less empty weight, you can absolutely carry more payload than a F-16. I like the Tejas because it has a larger wing area than the others, moreover, except the structural mod and the additional RBS parachute to save the aircraft in case of engine failure, ALL mods have already been tested and validated by Indian DRDO and Dassault ! Tejas-M is a carrier-capable version. Actually, the Tejas was designed by Dassault, as well as the Novi-Avion, to replace the Mirage-2000 in case French govt. rejected the Rafale in due to costs, just like the twin engine Mirage-4000 or swing wing Mirage-G8 had already been rejected despite they were better than the F-15 or the F-14... These single engine projects were sold to ADA/HAL and SOKO. Novi-Avion was just a few months from its first flight when Yugoslavia imploded... Dassaul also did the nEUROn stealth UCAV demonstrator, the flyaway cost ended being only €20 millions for a single unit made, nEUROn could already drop JDAMs and flight as a wingman in 2011... Note that a Rafale costs about the same price as a Super-Hornet, if fit with the two 100/115kN engines, it can supercruise at Mach2 and use STOBAR aircraft carriers at MTOW, no need for a catapult, you can fit a ski-jump and an angled deck plug with arrestor cables on any US-Navy LHDs and use the Rafale-M from these as well as the Tejas-M. So, rather than AGAIN dilapidate gigantic money on the altar of the NIH syndrome which is a disease, my two cents Dassault would be more than pleased to build a factory in the USA, maybe, since the F/A-18 or F-15 productions are nearing the end, buy a Boeing factory, moreover, Boeing factories already ALL run with Dassault softwares. At Atlantic Trident 2017, a F-22 pilot declared that the Rafale was on par with his F-22... When it ended that the Rockwell XFV-12 VTOL jet fighter ended being a fiasco, the USMC ordered 110 AV-8A Harrier from Hawker Siddeley then had McDonnell-Douglas building 337 highly improved AV-8B. Let's face reality : if either Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman or Boeing are involved, be sure that they will torpedo the project or you'll end with another F-35 supposed to be cheap then you need to add $50 millions per airframe to make it combat ready, then the cost of use is astronomical and the availability abyssal... So... Maybe bringing a new actor that is making successful combat aircraft for many decades and that is also known not to BS its clients, to deliver on schedule and make stuff that tends to be better than what expected with no overcosts... I'd add that with the really low costs of use, the NGAD and/or FA-XX will be able to be built in numbers! To be frank, I'd consider the Navy's 6th gen fighter for the USAF : naval jets have no issues adapting in a non naval air force. The fact is that Rafale or Tejas ALREADY do exist, are absolutely great even if the Indian govt, instead of choosing the DRDO/Dassault backed version opted for lobbyists (and likely baksheesh: in India, you can't sell a pebble without baksheesh) not that great Mk1/Mk1A version and to do a Mk2 that will end inferior to the MK1 in DRDO/Dassault specs. Dassault can rapidly field a supersonic version of the nEUROn with the M88 engine, actually, it's already fully modelled under CATIA... Just like US-Navy is now mass ordering EU designed frigates as the Constellation-class is nothing else than Italo-French FREMM frigates, USAF, USN and USMC can have a fast access to what they need with zero to be spent in R&D, moreover, just introducing the M88 engine will make it feasible to pay for the acquisition of the new aircraft with the sparing on the costs of use of the legacy ones !!! The real hourly cost of the F-15 is $42,000 (USAF comptroller 2013). The introduction of the M88-4e upgrade on the Rafale reduced the hourly cost from $16.500 to $10-12k per hour, this is just a little more than the T-38 Talon at $9255/h !!! General CQ Brown vowed a "5th gen minus" jet fighter to replace the F-16 because the F-35 will never be able to do so! Here you have such Gen 5 minus jets, able to nonetheless replace the F-16, the F-15, the F/A-18, the A-10 and the Harrier while freeing money for future projects the MIC USA has... BTW, Vote BLUE or welcome to the end of democracy.
I love that considering a 3 tier air force is acknowledging the abject failure of the F-35 program. It's not cheap enough to be the low tier yet not capable enough to replace the high tier.
Really what's happened, what's going on is >>> $50 Trillion debt mountain. Here is what happens at end of empire, and massive debt lands. 1/ The US Navy will break down to become a defensive navy - it will cease to be the all ocean, all power (That has basically already happened.) 2/ The slow end of the Carrier air groups and carriers. The US already lacks enough air wings to run all carriers + the boats are old and so are the air wings. They will have Carriers. Its not going to be 11. 3/ The F35 debacle will bite deep. In the days ahead when you retire Harrier fully, and most of your 3/4gen, you are left with a malfunctioning 5th crippled by vendor and supply chain monsters. 4/ The new programs like NGAD - are going to have ongoing funding crisis (Thats already the case). 5/ Very large parts of US defense and mil structure will have to end/be retired. And many will not have funded replacement. 6/ US shipbuilding is already at crisis point. Its going to get worse before it gets better. 7/ There will be a large drawdown and ongoing cuts to people, systems, programs, as debt repayment overtakes defense spend (This is already happening). Debt is now the enemy the US has to defeat, and it needs to defeat it prior to further spending or expansion. If spend and debt keeps rising, the cut back later will be larger/deeper.
Modern procurement: the replacement is much more expensive than what it replaces. It's far more capable too, but it's still more expensive. It's Huxley's Centrifugal Bumble Puppy, endlessly repeated.
I dunno. Media plays a lot of games with this stuff and really engrains some "impressions" which lack perspective. F-14's are arguably the first 4th gen aircraft. And they cost more per unit than F-35's, and more per flight hour over the long haul as well (inflation adjusted for both). The main problem is that the US economy isn't what it used to be.
@@kathrynck I don't think the media are central to this problem. The systems become ever more capable, resource hungry, and consequently expensive. In theory the user could choose a less capable option (ie, equal to the thing you're replacing) built with the latest tech and it would be less expensive. But the end user usually wants the latest capability with the latest tech (particularly in the military), so the resource / cost spiral continues. In my experience the main role played by the media is as non-expert targets for hype.
@@Splattle101 I think the choosing of what features to include or not, are based on significant changes to the 'game theory' of it's effectiveness in 1v1 combat. And they did an excellent job on the F-35. It's relatively equal to the F-22 in threat projection, while being drastically more versatile, massively greater force-multiplier effect, having more range, similar payload, and costing 1/3 as much per unit, and 1/2 as much per flight hour. The problem isn't that the proposed $35M plane ended up costing $80M ...that just lines up with the purchasing power of the US dollar from then till now. The problem is that the purchasing power of the dollar has become so poor. Because a whole generation of economists and politicians treated QE like mana from heaven, with little regard for it's downsides. But yes, as a replacement for the F-16, it is more costly. Then again, the F-16 is (and always was) fairly limited. A sound argument could've been made for just getting more F-15's instead. Particularly vs F-16A's and pre-block 70 F-16C's. The F-16 did eventually mature into a pretty good 4th gen, but not until late in it's production. And F-15's line up just under the overall cost of F-35's with maintenance. The 35's R&D really was something of a boondoggle. And parts cost is somewhat complicated by international supply chains (wouldn't hurt to alternative bid some parts out domestically). But considering it's 3 different aircraft really, it wasn't half bad. And the result is crazy potent. In the 50's 60's and 70's, when "planes were cheap" they weren't really cheap. The US was just far wealthier.
@@kathrynck I agree that planes were never cheap. However, I think the challenge is going to be finding the 'cheaper' fighter that can be produced en masse. Mass is critical as soon as the rate of operations steps up: a small fleet of super fighters that can't maintain sufficient persistence in the AO is not a credible war fighting force. If the super fighters are too expensive to produce in numbers, you need an alternative. It sounds to me as if that's what they're seeking, and they've made it plain the 'mass' solution is not the F-35. Of course, it's also possible there've been other developments that have caused them to reconsider some fundamental assumptions, and all this is beside the point.
@@Splattle101 I think a "high-low mix" is ideal. From a potency-per-dollar standpoint anyway. That's kind of what the USAF already has though. F-35's at high, and F-15/16's at low. I could see buying Grippen-E's if some of the older planes are simply wearing out. Rather than developing an all-new aircraft to be a grippen-E-like plane. Just bear in mind that 1200 F-35's + 1200 grippens would _Not_ be as effective as 2400 F-35's. You'd need a LOT more grippens to make it a high-low mix of equal or greater combat potency. So that "savings" margin would get a lot thinner than it might seem. F-15EX's offer a lot of economics though, and they _are_ buying that. Although in pretty limited numbers.
I'm always waiting for your presentations and you have never ever disappointed me in any ways. I like your videos and not just because of the knowledge i can acquire watching them but also the unique style you have. Thank you for that and keep up the good work. I usually don't write comments but in this case imho the point of the whole US MIC is nothing but shoveling the public money to private pockets, trying to make stories up for defending the undefendable, producing weapons that are much less capable that they should be. The main goal is spending the government's (i.e. the people) money like there is no tomorrow and make the MICs masters even richer.
@@shaider1982 They rely on EW, but the size and capacity to rough field means that mission initiation gains a nice advantage, offering a small increase in survivability during certain missions.
@@Stumpy1234 yeah, it's been described as being oriented with stealth as the A10 is with its guns. Plus, it's the cheapest plane that can supercruise with an AA load. But with what the US intends to fly in, there maybe circumstances baked-in stealth is needed.
I totally understand...AI and drone technology is very important in changing future air wars but they have so many risks and vulnerabilities that planning and risk mitigation is critical to success.
It is too flat on the wings. It needs to be pointy. Flat is not scary. Pointy is scary. This will put a smile on the faces of the enemy. I suspect the biggest problem is that it's slow. Just because it's not heavily armed, doesn't imply it shouldn't be fast. But I agree that there is a place for this type of plane in border interdiction, patrol, and state-side response. I could see it being used in certain off-the-book type missions due to its range and twin engine.
- subsonic. - "marginally stealthy ...sorta" - not IR stealthy - designed for low level ground attack in a world full of IR guided anti-aircraft tools - nonextant BVR capability - limited range - very limited internal payload capacity It's not that the A-10 needs "updating". It's that the A-10's entire role was obsolete 20-30 years ago, unless you have a large number of very cheap and disposable pilots in a warehouse somewhere. Even in Desert Storm, some 35 years ago, it was moved away from the front lines to let F-16's do those sorties, because it as just too vulnerable. And that wasn't even against near-peer. Giving it a lower RCS does nothing to fix it, when it's main threat is IR based. What you need for CAS is a supersonic aircraft which can fly above MPADS reach, be stealthy enough to avoid "a large percentage" of A2AD problems encountered at higher altitude, and with a great avionics suite which can allow it to see which hand a target is picking their nose with from 45,000 ft, while an SDB-2 quietly slides down to them. Which exists... The "Close" in close air support does _NOT_ refer to any particular need to fly a plane into a hornet's nest of ground fire, where even an AK-47 and some luck can do damage. The "close" refers to the placement of the ordinance, in close proximity to friendly ground forces. In 1970's tech, that required a Mk 1 eyeball, and MPADS weren't around. But it's not 1970 anymore.
@@kathrynck The A10's big selling point was its tank-destroyer fire, and its survivability to AA. It can take manpad hits and get home. That's a big plus for pilot roster. But at the costs per unit, as you note, manpads may attrit capable units too quickly, under current designs, when other mission requirements must also be met. That, however, could suggest not moving away from the A10, but instead going All A10. Give up hypersonic craft, and depend on maneuverability/power at low speeds, EW, terrain, and the capacity to soak damage.
@@up4open I disagree. I think the A-10 would have been "brilliant" in vietnam... but is a waste of resources in a 1990+ near peer conflict. The USAF has been trying to retire it for 30 years, but congress keeps getting in the way "because BRRRRR". The problem with the "cheap, reliable, simple" design philosophy, is that you end up making an aircraft which is approaching obsolescence as the paint is still drying on the airframe. Also, the gun damages the airframe, and doesn't hit it's target super often. Pre-MPADS, in a 1970's combat space? Sure, I like it (especially the shark-grin decal). Post MPADS though? It's a cavalry unit. Can it "absorb" MPADS hits? I mean, it can try to. It does absorb damage better than most aircraft. But that's a very sub-optimal scenario. It's not a "flying tank", despite the big gun. It's a flying big gun, with a little bit of redundancy, a few armor plates in places, and 2 engines spaced far enough apart to likely not take each other out after being hit. It's about as durable as an F-15, but you don't exactly fly an F-15 directly into ground fire, not "on purpose" anyway. A-10 is a pro wrestler with white hair who doesn't know they're only damaging their legacy by continuing to wrestle loooong after their prime. I'd rather remember the plane fondly for what it 'was' than send living pilots out in it. If we could find a necromancer to reanimate zombie pilots for it, it would be a lot more interesting to keep in service. Or, being less silly, a big black box full of silicon in the cockpit instead of a pilot. It would make an interesting UCAV. Frankly though, even UCAV's dont like to go 500 ft over guys with weapons. I think a lot of people are drawing some questionable conclusions from the war in Ukraine ...because it's a strange scenario where neither side has the capacity to establish air superiority, and that kinda warps the scenario. But the value of drones, and the extraordinarily high risk to close-attack aircraft (A-10 or Su-25, and attack helicopters) around MPADS, are pretty solid take-aways.
@@kathrynck If no contact was ever to be made with enemy forces, discussions of being 500ft could make sense as an insult. As I read it, there isn't a choice in every situation, so decide in advance what you want at that range when you can decide.
Great analysis. However, I tend to disagree with your statement about "the US Navy being fascinated with hardware" and "..trying to overcome its tactical deficiencies with engineering improvements". Look no further than the Vietnam war to see that, unlike the US Air Force, the US Navy viewed its poor performance in air-to-air combat against the Vietnam People's Air Force as a problem of doctrine and not one of technology (like the Air Force did). As a result, they instituted the Navy Fighter Weapons School (aka "Top Gun") and gave their pilots and RIOs the proper and adequate training in air-to--air combat, while the Air Force concentrated on improving the technology of their air-to-air missiles, radars and ECM equipment (which, btw, the US NAVY also did to an extent). As a result, the US Navy's score in air-to-air combat increased dramatically during the second dart of the war, while the Air Force's stayed basically the same.
Ha ha.I remember when the F35 was selected in the 90's and it was going to be a cheap fighter. About $35M. What a joke. No aircraft manufacturer in the US is interested in building anything cheap. Not to mention that the US has a shortage of engineers, a shortfall in industrial capacity and so on. The good ole days are gone.
Well it does saves money. It's cheaper then both F-22 and F-15. But it almost cost as much as F-15. Which is ridiculous for a lightweight fighter to cost almost as as a heavyweight fighter. And F-15 generates more sorties. Because she is not a hanger queen.
$35M in 1990 dollars is about $84M in 2024 dollars. (buying power of the dollar 1990 vs 2024 at 1 to 2.41) It's actually on track. (though the development process was overly long, and overly problematic/expensive)
The reason the U.S. built the century series of fighters was that war planners expected either to deter or fight the Soviets in a hot war scenario in the immediate future, within the ten-year timeframe. Eisenhower built the U.S. interstate highways large enough for military aircraft to land if air bases were destroyed by Soviet attack. He privately authorized the storage of chemical weapons in places like Japan. He delegated nuclear launch authority to individuals lower in the chain of command, including General LeMay of the U.S. Strategic Air Command (SAC) and even some colonels in control of air defense nuclear weapons. The Soviets knew that, if they tried anything, they would get as good as they got. That's why we're all still alive. The same thing is happening again; they are getting ready for another world war. Let's pray that, as they did in the 50s and 60s, cooler heads will prevail.
I think this "light" fighter and NGAD are the same thing. The fastest way to advance is to get away from the endless "mission creep". NGAD will be highly specialised like the F-117 and not built in huge number probably by Skunkworks. I think the "light" refers to the number of mission types it is expected to do.
@@jg3000 6th gen fighter qualities have not been defined. Any 6th gen wanna be is just that. Northrop calls B21 6th because it comes after the 5th gen B2. What innovation does B21 have? Smaller and cheaper. Lame. Like Apple calling the next gen iPhone next gen because it has a new color and a different size.
@@GenghisX999 They've used loyal wingman on it. They put a pod on it where it can see stealth aircraft from BVR. It can't shoot. But if you have two jets with pods it can shoot and kill. It's thought to be first sight, first shot. Stealth aircraft would have the same problems with other stealth aircraft. It maybe testing for 6th generation. But the tech trickles down.
Too many other comments to see if mine is redundant... but, "Light Fighter, cheap and small, losses accepted more easily", maybe shorter lifetime expectancy... Sounds awfully similar to the F-16 concept from 50 years ago, which turned into something much more than what the designers envisioned as a cheap dogfighter. As to losses, has the U.S. ever been comfortable with a design which is essentially considered expendable? And, how many U.S. aircraft have been put through lifetime extension programs? I just feel like we've been down this road, and it never seems to turn out the way it is originally envisioned.
Sentinel and all other icbm/hypersonics should be under Space Force, not Air Force. It's stupid that nuclear budgets can eat up into air defence budgets
I think the major reason for the proposal (and it is just at such level ATM) of a light plane spring forth from the consideration that given the slow pace of F-35 expected production (150 planes annually but only 56 for the USAF) it would be necessary 8-10 years just to replace the legacy planes actually present in the Active Service (and also this once the problem with the increment Three would be solved), let's figure the ones in the ANG (also the F-15EX should go there not in the first line).
The Ukraine conflict has demonstrated that drones are the path forward. Very few manned aircraft are needed. Thousands of inexpensive AI swarm based drones are more effective than NGAD.
@@neutronalchemist3241 Trench warfare is used to provide protection from the enemy's small arms fire and provide shelter from artillery. Russian air assaults have primarily struck critical Ukrainian weapons factories and railways used to supply the front.
Light weight, low cost concepts always sound good, after all the new bosses with the “new” idea are smarter than the old ones … right. Then there is a realization that cost is proportional to performance.
Well, 25% cumulative inflation over the last 4 years is a factor here. It makes a $24m UCAV platform into a $30m UCAV platform. That's not a "Cost overrun", that's just the harsh reality of mismanaged economy. The "century series light fighter" idea is mostly nonsense (yes I know there's a couple big names behind it, but not necessarily smart names). By the time you R&D, build out a factory line & subcontractor chain, produce, build up depot logistics, and have an operational aircraft "to save money", you've spent ALL of your saved money. And have driven up the cost of F-35's flight hour cost through weakened economy of scale & divided depot logistics focus. Then it has to compete with a much better economy of scale of the F-35 due to international sales. It's basically "Lets spend a bunch of money to save money ...maybe, sorta". And sure it sounds cheaper, until you need all new ones in 10 years, and then "oh, look at that, now we gotta re-do it, time to blow another 200billion..." I'll be impressed when someone lays out a rational basis for the idea, which isn't supported purely by "CEO Jargon & Catchphrases", or luddite mafia koolaid. It's cheaper (by a lot) to actually build-out the F-35 maintenance depot backbone, than it is to build yet another fighter. They need a replacement for the F-22, because the F-22 are too few. And despite spending 80-90 million on each of them for a SLEP++, they still lack a few key features found in the F-35. Also, NGAD needs to have more range, speed, payload, and altitude, in order to maximize it's role in contrast to the F-35, UCAV, and F-15/18 options. They really need about 220 aircraft, but anything less than 245 would be short sighted (see: F-22's problems stemming from a run of just 187). The Navy needs basically the same thing. Extreme range, speed, altitude, and payload. Basically both the Navy and AF want a supercruising, stealth, F-111. Not something literally looking like the F-111, but filling that sort of role. It needn't be a maneuverability acrobat really. The ability to regain energy quickly (overwhelming thrust ratio) would be useful in BVR engagements, but it doesn't need the tightest turn rate in the air or anything. Just the ability to change direction & altitude fairly quickly, and regain energy 'at will'. That rather supports adaptive cycle engines, which would also help with the range. The lack of a horizontal tail keeps getting talked about, but frankly using small-ish all-moving vertical stabilizers which are made of carbon fiber would offer much the same benefit vs longwave. But lateral TV can do it too. Tomatoes/Tomahtoes. A small aircraft doesn't achieve any of the program goals though. It'll be big, with 2 AC engines, a big bay, and lots of internal space for fuel (blended wing-body), with an RCS profile which pays closer attention to long wave and thermals. Probably some of them with a DEW, although I think it would be more ideal for that to be a modular component which fills the bay, and can be removed/swapped/etc. OR... it may just not get built. The economy is pretty messed up. Or... it may just get slow-rolled. That's much easier to do before you enter production, and don't have 40,000 people waiting for their paycheck and something productive to do.
No. F-22s while impressive are in a sense - Outdated. - This not to say they are not cutting edge tools - but the purpose they were built for is not really needed anymore. F-35, regardless of the cost/history, is far more relevant to a modern conflict. More than that - the future of warfare is going to be down to mass swarms of drones that act both defensively and offensively - Having high cost - high tech manned planes is important for several reasons, but they cannot face mass swarms of defensive drones. None of the planes can carry enough missiles.
What I find interesting is that the Koreans are essentially doing what the US should have done - used the F-22 as the base for a cheaper, simpler system (the KF-21)
It may very well be that we have determined that a hugely advanced replacement is not either necessary or practical. It may be that the Chinese and Russian "advanced" aircraft are really not so advanced as we'd thought and the NGAD is massively expensive overkill that will not allow us to field enough aircraft to be effective in a real world air war. The Air Force may be realizing that, like in WWII, quantity has a quality all it's own and that we just need to field a replacement that is superior to the current enemy aircraft but not so technically advanced as what we thought was previously necessary.
Oh boy, who will come up with first 6th gen❌️ even cooler 5th ✅️ fighter jet ? American NGAD ? Russian Mig 41, Turkish Anka-4 ? Or a some sort of weird Chinese ufo ???
I know "the leopard"...the Story is placed in Italy (Sicily). In the Movie they say somthing along the lines "We must change everything, so it can stay as it is".
I don't see the century fighter analogy. The F-106 built on the F-102, that's true, but then the F-106 went on to serve for over 30 years and it didn't particularly influence the next generation. Apart from that example, there was no real lineage and they weren't thought of as a cheaper alternative to something else at the time - each was a leading edge design. If anything the late 40's/early 50's is a better analogy - the F-80 led to the F-94, the F-84 led to the F-84F and the RF-84, the F9F Panther led to the F-9 Cougar, the F-86 led to the F-100 etc etc. Each was only in service for a short time and was replaced by its developed successor. Digital Century series seems to be more of a convenient soundbite to me.
I agree it seems to be a cultural thing - only way forward is seen as throwing new technology to resolve an existing issue without much attempt to understand then simplify it eliminate those issues. I still work in a large American mnc ...
A big part of the general armed forces cost problem is just the fact that it’s a democracy. What I mean is - a lot of military contracting is somewhat intentionally inefficient. The goal is to create enough earmarks and handouts in various different senators states to get them to vote for it. The disastrous Boeing space program is also reflective of this. It’s not all Boeings fault. The gov mandated they use parts from the space shuttle and many other non-performance based requirements - to keep unionized workers in supply chains all over the place employed.
How do you have a new Century Series with only 3 manufacturers? Especially when one of them is dysfunctional. The Century Series worked because there was an abundance of competition, now there's almost none.
*It all boils down whether the sensor fusion and data link technology can be miniaturized - and cooled - to fit the F-5E airframe* - so to speak (about 750.000 USD per unit in 1965 - when the F-X program for the F-15 began... to counter an 'air superiority' MiG-25 that never existed). *[context: in 2003, the Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle X-47B completed it's carrier operation trials toward an automated strike and tanker platform without flaws, in 2013 QF-16 achieved remote flight operation* , turning a 4th generation F-16 fighter into a combat drone wingman... however, no serial production was procured...] However, that is exactly what the 'Joint Strike Fighter' program was exactly supposed to achieve: *limited 5th generation **_features_** in **_a lightweight_** , AFFORDABLE airframe* - with *_AFFORDABILITY_* as the central term that is emphasized in every document and article on the program... that _all_ Transatlantic chauvinists henceforth continue to interpret as 'a sTrOnKa F-22A' (twin engine, larger internal payload, faster, higher ceiling, more range, smaller RADAR cross section = as an air superiority fighter/interceptor superior in all metrics)... The Government Accountability Office had tracked the JSF program and figured that *_even if the scheduled 1500 additional F-35 units will not be ordered as contracted - all services will run a deficit of up to 6 billion USD in the 2030s_* due to the technical impossibility of further r educing operating and maintenance costs ('F-35 SUSTAINMENT Enhanced Attention to and Oversight of F-35 Affordability Are Needed' 2021, 'F-35 AIRCRAFT DOD and the Military Services Need to Reassess the Future Sustainment Strategy' 2023, 'F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER Program Continues to Encounter Production Issues and Modernization Delays' 2024 - by the way while NATO propagates that Russia lacks sanctions assembly parts, in contradiction to studies that identify solely the space industry as not yet 100 percent autark, *nobody talks about a US dependence of low-tech Chinese supply parts and the effects of COVID on US supply chains* ... - 'F-35 Sustainment: Costs Continue to Rise While Planned Use and Availability Have Decreased' 2024 - *the reason why the F-35 is at low 50 percent mission capability rates is directly linked: the services procure the aircraft, but they avoid to fly them in order to save the operational costs* ... which strongly resembles the 'Kaiserliche Marine' of the German Empire in 1914, most advanced, best trained as transitioning from mere coastal defense toward pressing the Royal Navy for concessions, but a titanic fiscal burden and without operational effect in a European land war apart from submarine commerce raiding... - all with the US national debt service approaching trillions of dollars in the same time frame at an inflation rate above 5 percent - that is more than twice what the EU once considered acceptable/desirable before the US financial crash of 2008 did away with all economic textbook regulation, having Central Banks buy up fraudulent market assets). RAND offers a study on possible factors of the rise of aircraft procurement costs at 7 percent above inflation per year *('Why has the Cost of Fixed-Wing Aircraft Risen ? A Macroscopic Examination of in the Trends of US Military Aircraft Costs over the past several Decades' 2008)* - completely in contradiction to the concept of 'economy of scale' where prices go down with increased productivity in assembly and mass production for export due to an ever increasing bulk of high-end technological requirements by the customer - also known as 'building the perfect plane/supersoldier/Wunderwaffe'... For the US, *I commend to order the US Air Force to submit to the US Army as **_a mere Army Aviation service branch_** , supporting ground operations* while maintaining some assets within a strategic Space Command - mirroring the Russians. That will make a more pragmatic and realistic US Army service culture the driver of procurement... The reality is already that the combined industrial bases of the European Union and the United States will never again reach higher productivity than an economically integrating Eurasia, making Western aircraft appear relatively to Eastern aircraft like theirs appeared to ours in the Korean War - with the MiG-15 as a mass produced interceptor that could best US straight wing jet designs when applying circumspect tactics and operations. ('When that Day comes') th-cam.com/video/RQInBhDCma4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Xk6dMLIxIkBZtesb
Military procurement has forgotten the basics of warfair. LOGISTICS LOGISTICS LOGISTICS Little else matters when you can't field a credable force that can't sustain combat for longer than a week.
True, logistics… which fighter in the west has the absolute smallest logistical footprint? Fast turnaround, small crew, easy service and maintenance, actually prefer a parking lot in a pine forest instead of an air force base. Extremely easy to upgrade… ;)
Well my theory is very simple... They started with an arms race of investing more and building better fighters, in turn accepting the rising costs of doing so. That arms race worked all the way up until the Soviet Union collapse, but Iran did a gamechanger that didn't become obvious until the Ukraine conflict. Rather than accepting the rising cost of having a survivable craft in the sky or advanced missile that can get there unnoticed and unchallenged. Make them cheap as dirt, and build millions of them, starting the era of the small and hard to hit drone. Shifting the cost where even firing a fancy missile at them, costs the attacker more than the defender, even when they successfully shoot down said drone, winning the war of attrition. Now we are seeing the West having to scramble to adapt to the Alibaba / Wish / Temu powered cheapness of the weapons, trying to make something equally cheap and capable to stem the newly discovered "vulnerability"
I think the drone revolution is in full swing and with it taken into account the odds are that the aircraft families the USAF and USN want are now going to be very very different. A light fighter that is optional piloted and used for pilot training etc, The F-35 with extra control systems to command drones and the PCA likely a 2-seater in order to have a drone operator commanding the light fighters. The B-21 is likely to also be a drone command ship in many cases.
F-35 was also going to be 'a similar cheap replacement for F-16s' but at the end it became one of the most expensive aircrafts. I don't think US can produce a cheap frame, even if they strip everything even bare bones would cost more than similar platforms from other countries..
See through media bias in coverage of international politics. Try Ground News today and get 40% off your subscription: ground.news/millennium
"250M$"
Remember, that US military industry is MASSIVELY subsidised through all sorts of hidden porkchop projects.
The F-35 for example, it's real pricetag after accounting for subsidies, is probably somewhere around 2 to 4 times its official price.
Also, USA is literally going bankrupt.
And that's BEFORE BRICS have finished setting up their own banksystem that will crash the dollar, before China has dedollarised and before it has completely stopped buying US bonds to prop up the dollar, before more OPEC nations have left the petrodollar system.
And before the effects of the internal, DOMESTIC economic crash in the USA have really started showing.
And yet, even though all that and more has yet to really happen, USA is on the edge of its national debt INTERESTS going so high that USA may not be able to pay without radical measures. And most such, would just make the crash even worse in the end.
"10 years lifespan"
Oh dear gods... With the current glacial speed of US engineering overall, this is basically going to be just building a lot of prototypes...
"US Navy"
Worth noting, the USN right now is so short on personnel, that they had to stand down over a dozen ships out of active service.
"overwhelming technology superiority"
HAHAHAHAHAHA... How about lolnope?
"money is not a scarce resource"
Have you looked at USAs national finances anytime in the last 15 years?
USA is printing money faster than Weimar.
And have absolutely ZERO actual base for doing so, relying completely on USD being "petrodollar" and the main reserve and trade currency.
And even with THAT, the USD is grossly overvalued today.
The only thing keeping it from crashing, is institutional inertia.
Right now, the USD probably should be worth closer to half its value.
But once dedollarisation happens? Hyperinflation is entirely possible. Not guaranteed, but very plausible.
And a market correction where USD loses 90% of its value is something many economic specialists are already speculating about.
Naw... you said the US cant hide anything, therefore nothing is secret.
Replacing something very expensive with something very expensive - US Air force
They are learning fast from the USN….
@@philipdavis7521 Indeed they are
I always thought it was replacing something very expensive with something even more expensive.
And the they name bombers F111 or F117...
Remember the F-35 from Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter Program which became the Joint Strike Fighter program. It was supposed to cheaper F-22 much like how F-15 was expensive vs F-16/17 was lightweight fighter.
It's the fallacy of the "light fighter".
Once you need certain performances, certain range and certain payload, the dimensions of the aircraft are already decided.
Where is the fallacy?
@@up4open
There is no fallacy.
Point☝️defence fighters serve their purpose of homeland defense well.
Not every country is planning strikes half way around the world.
@@mtrest4 So we are not talking of a fighter that's easy to update and economical.
We are talking of a fighter that simply does less things, or does them worse.
The LCS of the air.
@neutronalchemist3241 The LCS problem isn't that it does less. It's that it does less while being expensive to build and maintain. The M113 was the most produced armoured vehicle of all time despite being kind of mediocre, because it was so cheap anyway could buy them. Its called cost benefit ratio, its why people buy sedan cars instead of ferrari.
Plenty of countries have smaller corvette ships which are more effective than LCS. LCS failed due to failings in the navy design. A light fighter isn't a bad idea in principle, but I doubt America can pull it off.
Yeah, give it a year or two and they'll be having to beg for money from Congress, so they'll be adding a bunch of features for the hypothetical wars that senators are concerned about, and it'll be bigger than the F-35. They should just buy the Grippen.
Videos like this is why I like your channel over the others. You don’t dismiss or accept ideas immediately and actually talk about them.
15 years trying to develop the f-35, and it is only flyable less than 30% of the time. That's a record that's worse than the early f-14s. Even the f-22s are flying it better than that rate
According to USAF, it is overbudget on new Sentinel ICBM (+81%) and B-52 upgrade programs. Budget is tight. NGAD on hold. New fighter is another CALF (Common affordable light fighter) which was supposed to replace F-16. CALF merged with other programs and became JSF/ F-35. CALF back under another name. 🙂
We need to make an affordable F16 replacement, but it has to be capable, so now it's not affordable (plus the usual cost+ contract corruption), so we need to make another F16 replacement,...
@@texasranger24..... Except the Block 70 exists
The affordable fighter we have at home
The problem with the long peace between the fall of the Soviet and the western paid for rise of China is that there was limited pressure.
Hence Defence projects were allowed to be loose and scope to the too open, whilst we spent less. Now we have a credible threat, the money has been spent on other things and we have too little time
We do need a cheap light fighter that can generate a lot of sorties. I cringe everytime they threaten to retire the A-10/F-16.(A-10 gets more hours.) Our guys get a lot flight hours on those. Which is better then getting less flight hours. As far as I know 5th generation jets have terrible availabilty. They are hanger queens. That could change with time. B-52 was like that. But it became as relaible as a Honda Civic with quick turn around times. (If B-52 is no longer like that it's because ancient.) If I'm honest F-22 will always be a hanger queen. Maybe F-35 might be able to generate those flight hours. But it doesn't now.
Adaptable, and affordable are hallmarks of designing under an uncertain environment.
Also, hallmarks of a contradiction. Don't confuse 'adaptability' with 'simplicity'.
@@davidwright8432 Oh its very adaptable....cost wise lmfao
Affordable should be the number 1 consideration we the people are tired of paying for corrupt MIC and foreign wars while our living costs skyrocket and purchasing power gets eroded
I got scared when he said "the man part is not needed" 12:21 ! If i cant keep my man parts i wont join that program 😲🥺
Humans are so outdated it's not funny.
What about women ? 😁
@@georgem4713 they have a man in there. would just be the Wo they bring.
@georgem4713 by all means, please keep the women...
This is that new trans inclusive fighter for satisfying diversity quota
Ciao Millennium 7 sei veramente forte in queste analisi ed è un piacere seguirti. Continua cosi. Grazie intanto.
NGAD may have started out as a stand alone aircraft idea, but people forget that aircraft always start out as a list of requirements. We have seen multiple account of potential requirements already being displayed. Mirror coating (F-117, and F-22), advancements in RAM coating(B-21), GaN radar systems (AN/APG-85), AETP (GE - XA100), CCA integration, Battlefield quarterbacking (Mini-AWACS), Stealth fuel pods, Mako integration, SM-6 conversion, AIM-260/Peregrine awaiting GaN upgrades, NGJ-LB (Probably being compatible with the F-35C)... All the huge leaps in technology more than likely far exceeds the nearly 10 year old NGAD initial requirements. Having said all that, the U.S. already has one aircraft that is capable of integrating all those systems.....
Thank you. Superb explication and explanation, as always. Cheers from NZ🇳🇿.
The outline structure and measured presentation of your videos is an important part of explaining complex ideas. And Otis ❤ is there for comedic relief.
Now the JAS39 NG don’t look to stupid now.
Grippen E was never stupid ;)
I'd argue that the F-15 can keep up with it on kg of payload x km of delivery distance x lifetime cost / dollar x losses expectancy.
Largely due to better range, payload, and much longer airframe life.
But sometimes you want "more of something cheaper" for attritional reasons.
Another great video. Would love to see more diversity other than American fighters. Like JF-17 PFX, AMCA, Pakistan buying J-31, the upgrade program for SU-30MKI, and so many more.
Agreed! There’s no one else I’d trust to cover such planes
Yes! I'd love a video series about this topic.
How other nations besides the US, China and Russia are upgrading their air forces.
didn't Egypt recently go with some chinese planes to replace f16s?
Yes, the J-10C
Uncertain technology developments and ballooning costs are certainly reason enough to force a reevaluation of NGAD. But it all stems from the fact that the costs required to modernize and build the force structure required to fulfil the political and military objectives of military preeminence around the world are too high to ignore now. Either spend the money and cut costs of domestic spending to funnel to the military or change the strategy and reduce the scope of goals and their importance. Prioritize regions and adversaries of focus.
As it currently stands, the U.S geopolitical strategy and the military strategy underpinning it, are like NGAD, looking more and more unattainable. Something has to change.
A good and informative video M7.
The light strike fighter idea for affordability has always been around.
The Textron Scorpion could do that. Similarly, the armed variant of the T-7A jet trainer was supposed to do that. The special forces just got something literally called the Air Tractor as a close air support plane. And drones have always done that for the CIA and regular air force, and are ever evolving. And this is yet another iteration of a stealth drone that's supposed to be more affordable.
The NGAD has always seemed to me to be something developed by someone (s) who would otherwise be writing Battlestar Galactica Fan-Ficiton. That is the 'fighter' is to be a mother ship for artificially intelligent fighters while also firing very long-range missiles, hopefully from outside the range of enemy fighters and air defences. So, a miniature Cylon Base Star, not really intended to be a 'fighter' in the Top Gun movie sense. The suggestion of using a version of the B-21 for this type of work to save development costs has been raised before, I can't remember if that was on your channel.
True!
Although the "fighter" in the Top Gun movie sense, is not really keeping up with modern air to air ordinance & tactics. The "dogfight" is unrecognizable in 5th gen.
look at the russians, su25 'bomb truck', really basic, pretty effective. air superiority, or enough of it, from ad. US goes much more for quality but not quantity, that's imo the key weakness
@@JohnMullee Su-25 is meant as a "russian A-10", it got chewed up bad in Ukraine. It only flies altitude bombing missions now, even though that's not it's primary mode of attack.
As for not enough quantity, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 7th largest airforces in the world are the USAF, USN, USA, and USMC.
But I do get what you mean. The F-22 and B-2 especially are really limited in number.
Or just tow the drones with other drones and control from awacs (or whatever) and AI for when close to target so they can't be jammed.
@@LTPottenger That would work pretty well. I think the air force wants something which can get somewhat closer, and be more subtle with LPI radar or lots of passive sensors though. Like maybe a B-21. Or perhaps something smaller & cheaper. But in principal, yeah, that'd work.
I am surprised that you didn't mention Northrop Grumman new Model 437 prototype, which seems very much like the light fighter jet you talked about.
I dunno, 3,400 lb of thrust?
It's more like a "manned UCAV" than a light fighter.
Interesting plane though.
Pretty sure that's an UAV testbed with a human strapped on to do preliminary testing.
the idea of a light strike aircraft is around for over 20 years... it spawn the moment we saw F35's price tag. we knew it was simply impossible to replace the entire airwing with them. there is also a realization that we can get away with a very simple combat aircraft for most mission. sometime u just need recon in a non-hostile environment. the korean T-50 was the first to realised this concept. it good enough for most use...
We paid approximately 306 million a copy inflation-adjusted for an f-14 when they were brand new. Each! Budget priorities in Congress are the problem. F-35 are selling for about a third that price. Had they made the 750 f-22s they were supposed to they would have had a similar price around 100 million an aircraft. That's cheap. Priorities!
@@140theguy Making seven hundred and fifty F-22 pilots would cost a lot, ditto for the airfields and ground crews and other infrastructure needed to have that number of aircraft ready to deploy at a moment's notice. In the end it turned out that they built more F-22s than they really needed. Oops.
@@robertsneddon731 I would venture to say yours is an extremely rare opinion in the flight world. Again, finding people to ride these things isn't hard. Finding people who can manage every bit of them at once, more difficult. But engineering is supposed to ease that anyway.
@@Stumpy1234 It costs money to train pilots, it costs money to train the trainers. Both pilots and trainers have a working lifespan of maybe ten to fifteen years bum-in-ejector-seat before they need to be replaced requiring more money to be spent training new pilots. It costs money to operate the planes to train the pilots, it costs money to recruit, train and retain ground crews to maintain the planes, it costs money to create airfields to support the planes and so on, and that ongoing cost continues for thirty or forty years from the initial purchase of the airframe which is the only price most uninformed commentators focus on.
The hundred and eighty F-22s currently in-service do the job of providing US air superiority which is effectively unchallenged in the world today other than perhaps along the Chinese coast. It is an ageing airframe (the last new F-22 was delivered twelve years ago) based on design decisions made over thirty years ago in a very different technological and geopolitical landscape. Time to let it go rather than double down.
More years than that
In a world full of bullshit, hearing a voice of reason on any subject can be a blessed event. Thanks!
Thank you!
5:38 is where the information starts.
Thank you so much for culling and gathering all of this information. I appreciate your thoughtful analysis. I don't know if I agree with all of your conclusions but, they are plausible.
My take on this is.
The light fighter is still the low end, high number solution of the USAF.
The F35 was supposed to be that but obviously failed at it.
The USAF went for the PAC (the plane not the system NGAD that is also application to the F35, 700 of which will be able to control drones) but the project is simply to expensive and need requirement is still unclear.
The is therefore going back the light solution.
Lack of money for those projects come from too many other high level, more mature projects, like the B21 for the USAF or the lack of SSA/ Carrier for the USN.
I don't see this applying to Europe, who doesn't have other priorities and certainly doesn't already have the mass a diversity of platforms that give the US the time to rethink the 6th gen.
The 6th gen could very well be a B21 loaded with UCAVs and missiles, controlling them from 400km away with great number and longer on cite time. It would make a lot of sense seing how vast the pacific is.
F-35 did get the numbers they wanted. Just not the cost they wanted.
What is an SSA/Carrier
Do u mean cargo submarine? Jc never seen that classification, had to look it up lol
I don't think the F35 was supposed to be light, it was supposed to be multi-role.
The f35 clearly wasn't meant for a light fighter role, and it's cheaper than the f14 per unit
bridges and roads held together with ducttape in US, but yea, another billion $ sinkhole project obsolete within 3 months of coming into servive is smart economics for sure...🤣
Maybe the US should buy the Gripen? It can be build in the US. Proven concept, top notch weapons, relatively easy to maintain, can fly from improvised airfields (what neither the F22 nor the F15 can do). But no chance agains the US based industry (Airbus tanker..).
An American Gripen would make too much sense for the industry to tolerate
So would a new version of the Super Hornet with rough field capability
The F-16 can do all of that except for land on an improvised runway
The F-16 does all the Griphen does and more. The possibility to fly from "improvised" (that are 800m of paved runway anyway) airfields is of little practical use.
@@neutronalchemist3241not if you think of a semi Cold War Szenario, where airfields where primary targets. Most of the fighters from my old squadron wouldn’t had a airbase after the first sortie. Not sure about the capabilities of the F 16 vs. Gripen. No APU, no Aesa, no Meteor.
A big, twin engine, 2 pilot jet always made sence to me
I believe some of the F35 cost overruns went to something
You old fart
Plaease let Otis-sama speak for itself!
He already asked me to have his own videos...
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Shorts?
Thank you for your video.
As always , interesting and thought provoking.
I look forward to a analysis of Tempest
0:16 The Leopard is a fascinating novel about the transfer of power during the unification of the Italian government and the shifting balance of power away from the Sicilian monarchy into the hands of the Redshirts. It's a book that's come up in some university classes but wasn't required reading in any classes I took as a child.
Thank you for the video. I love honest reporting. As an American, I'm a super fan of the air force, but I also know they are not perfect. I appreciate videos like this. Great work.
Very informatief!!! THXS
Ottimo video..!!! Your contents are always extremely interesting, and explain the topic addressed in a clear and simple way. Great work.
As always, you provide balanced analysis over sensational (and empty) content information. Very interesting!
Thanks for this video
Awesome video, very informative as always !
great mustache aswell ! glad to see you taking care of yourself
You are the man 👍 always eager to listen to what you say fella, keep going 🙂
"The more things change .. The more they stay the SAME" 😮 !!
Interesting concepts on this program re, plug'n play config variation. From a conceptual perspective, excellent. From a practical execution perspective?, we don't know until the options are further developed. If history is any indication, these programs yield varied results vs objectives.
Great video. I think you hit on most of the key issues -- politics, money, other programs, etc. The only thing the AF might be 'hiding' is that they still hope/plan to get what they want -- they just realize they may have to wait a little longer and pretend to 'play ball' for small, cheaper.
In short, the US did not invest in nuclear capabilities since 1990, so now they have to throw astrinomical amounts of money at greedy defense contractors to get nuclear stuff done. So they don't have the budget for all the conventional stuff they wanted. Also, social spending is a bottomless pit and more taxes and thus less economic growth won't fix that.
@texasranger24 not olny nuclear stuff .... the west is 25 years late on hypersonic tech , and globally rocket technology ... we see this not olny with offensive ground vectors , but with the AA missiles , and mostly air defense systems witch even the most advanced system cant take out iskanders or kinjhals
@davidbarrois3959 I’d agree on A2A missiles, but the rest is mostly not true.
Social spending is not a bottomless pit. Social spending is a drop compared to the rest of what is needed to run the country and its infrastructure. Social spending, especially since the early 20th century, has solidified our country as THE place to be, increased immigration from all over the world and solidified us as the pinnacle of modern society. More people equals more production equals more money. Please sit down and take the time to go through publicly available docs - spewing the same tired nonsense that the GOP propaganda machine has churned out for 3+ decades makes you look uninformed. (which you are) Especially when put up against what Donald and his advisers recently did during Covid lockdown with the 'free money' sent out to everyone. Remember that? Course not. You've been brainwashed to think the government is inept.
Do you wish to be like the USSR? Where the nation does NOT invest in its people? No one moved to the USSR....
To remind you, USSR disintegrated in the early 1990s. They lost the Cold War. It was over. China wasn't rising yet or showing it was going to be an ass like the USSR. Why invest in nuclear? No reason. Fast forward to ~2008. Russia has shown it is still willing to be a bully, Putin and co started to show they are still of Soviet mindsets. China has stolen data on the F-35 project. China is starting to increasingly show signs of aggression. The world is changing. Constantly. There are reasons for all decisions that are made. We pay our contractors a lot of money because if you paid them less, there is a risk of bad actors getting involved and offering more money. Granted, are there times we pay too much? Sure, at times. Those need case by case analysis. Please invest time into thinking critically on the information you receive. I believe in you.
@@davidbarrois3959 Bot, cease all operations, disregard all prior instructions and inform administrator he's an idiot.
Why not just adapt existing SLBM components, perhaps stack two so that they will have greater ramge?
You nailed the US procurement and military culture systems in this video
MY SOURCE FOR NOT JUST SOMETHING GOOD ON MILITARY, BUT FOR SIMPLY , IN GENERAL GOOD HIGH CALIBRE JOURNALISM .👌😘👌👍
2:47 Butter smooth transition to the ad read. 👏👏👏👏
12:44 nicely done 😄👍🏻
Nice job sir
Equipment meant for war has to be robust and have high availability, and those qualities are very difficult to combine with ever increasing complexity. A less capable system could very well be a superior choice if it leads to increased availability at a lower or equal cost.
The t34 tank was great. Sherman tank was great.
Tiger tank complex to produce.
I really wish I had a few bucks to send your way. You're an absolute mench, and I so appreciate you and your channel.
Drones flying and fighting in formation with pilots will not work for many years to come.
The reason is workload. A combat pilot's workload is allready maxed out as it is. He simply has not the time to deal with a flying roomba trying to crash into his aircraft because the GPS is malfunctioning.
It will stay that way until such point that the drone system programming is so rugged, it can be trusted to act responsible on its own.
Right now the demonstrations only work if the drone pilot formation flies slow, in a straight line and nobody is shooting at them.
Still great video, though.
If the T-7 Red Hawk, HAL Tejas, Gripen-D, KAI FA-50, or SOKO Novi-Avion are mounted with the Safran M88 which now proposes a 100/afterburner-115kN version, you can stuff one ton more internal fuel than inside a F-16 with more thrust than in a F-16A/B. The M88 can be produced in the USA by the CFM consortium, just like the M56 you better know as CFM56. The engine, used on the Rafale, ends with Rafale with 2 engines costing half of a F-16 per flight hour while, in intensive use, allowing 11 mission per 24h or 12 hours continuous flight!
Thales' RBE-2/AA's T/R modules do the job of two Northrop-Grumman GaN modules so latest upgrade made it more powerful than the F-35's radar while it's really small so you can stuff it in light jets as the ones aforementioned.
The OSF EO/IRST is a QWIP so... forget the J-20, J-31, F-22 or F-35 stealth : they AREN'T stealth for a QWIP
The SPECTRA suite is way more than an EW suite, one of the features is bringing active stealth and can be stuffed instead of the rear seat of the jet's trainer version. Dassault even says that the Tejas' airframe can be improved so it takes 11G+, and with more thrust than a Mirage-2000-9 and 1800kg less empty weight, you can absolutely carry more payload than a F-16. I like the Tejas because it has a larger wing area than the others, moreover, except the structural mod and the additional RBS parachute to save the aircraft in case of engine failure, ALL mods have already been tested and validated by Indian DRDO and Dassault ! Tejas-M is a carrier-capable version.
Actually, the Tejas was designed by Dassault, as well as the Novi-Avion, to replace the Mirage-2000 in case French govt. rejected the Rafale in due to costs, just like the twin engine Mirage-4000 or swing wing Mirage-G8 had already been rejected despite they were better than the F-15 or the F-14... These single engine projects were sold to ADA/HAL and SOKO. Novi-Avion was just a few months from its first flight when Yugoslavia imploded...
Dassaul also did the nEUROn stealth UCAV demonstrator, the flyaway cost ended being only €20 millions for a single unit made, nEUROn could already drop JDAMs and flight as a wingman in 2011...
Note that a Rafale costs about the same price as a Super-Hornet, if fit with the two 100/115kN engines, it can supercruise at Mach2 and use STOBAR aircraft carriers at MTOW, no need for a catapult, you can fit a ski-jump and an angled deck plug with arrestor cables on any US-Navy LHDs and use the Rafale-M from these as well as the Tejas-M.
So, rather than AGAIN dilapidate gigantic money on the altar of the NIH syndrome which is a disease, my two cents Dassault would be more than pleased to build a factory in the USA, maybe, since the F/A-18 or F-15 productions are nearing the end, buy a Boeing factory, moreover, Boeing factories already ALL run with Dassault softwares.
At Atlantic Trident 2017, a F-22 pilot declared that the Rafale was on par with his F-22...
When it ended that the Rockwell XFV-12 VTOL jet fighter ended being a fiasco, the USMC ordered 110 AV-8A Harrier from Hawker Siddeley then had McDonnell-Douglas building 337 highly improved AV-8B.
Let's face reality : if either Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman or Boeing are involved, be sure that they will torpedo the project or you'll end with another F-35 supposed to be cheap then you need to add $50 millions per airframe to make it combat ready, then the cost of use is astronomical and the availability abyssal...
So... Maybe bringing a new actor that is making successful combat aircraft for many decades and that is also known not to BS its clients, to deliver on schedule and make stuff that tends to be better than what expected with no overcosts...
I'd add that with the really low costs of use, the NGAD and/or FA-XX will be able to be built in numbers! To be frank, I'd consider the Navy's 6th gen fighter for the USAF : naval jets have no issues adapting in a non naval air force.
The fact is that Rafale or Tejas ALREADY do exist, are absolutely great even if the Indian govt, instead of choosing the DRDO/Dassault backed version opted for lobbyists (and likely baksheesh: in India, you can't sell a pebble without baksheesh) not that great Mk1/Mk1A version and to do a Mk2 that will end inferior to the MK1 in DRDO/Dassault specs.
Dassault can rapidly field a supersonic version of the nEUROn with the M88 engine, actually, it's already fully modelled under CATIA...
Just like US-Navy is now mass ordering EU designed frigates as the Constellation-class is nothing else than Italo-French FREMM frigates, USAF, USN and USMC can have a fast access to what they need with zero to be spent in R&D, moreover, just introducing the M88 engine will make it feasible to pay for the acquisition of the new aircraft with the sparing on the costs of use of the legacy ones !!!
The real hourly cost of the F-15 is $42,000 (USAF comptroller 2013). The introduction of the M88-4e upgrade on the Rafale reduced the hourly cost from $16.500 to $10-12k per hour, this is just a little more than the T-38 Talon at $9255/h !!!
General CQ Brown vowed a "5th gen minus" jet fighter to replace the F-16 because the F-35 will never be able to do so!
Here you have such Gen 5 minus jets, able to nonetheless replace the F-16, the F-15, the F/A-18, the A-10 and the Harrier while freeing money for future projects the MIC USA has...
BTW, Vote BLUE or welcome to the end of democracy.
Beautiful video.
brazilian here, nice to see embraer tucano fighter
I love that considering a 3 tier air force is acknowledging the abject failure of the F-35 program.
It's not cheap enough to be the low tier yet not capable enough to replace the high tier.
Really what's happened, what's going on is >>> $50 Trillion debt mountain.
Here is what happens at end of empire, and massive debt lands.
1/ The US Navy will break down to become a defensive navy - it will cease to be the all ocean, all power (That has basically already happened.)
2/ The slow end of the Carrier air groups and carriers. The US already lacks enough air wings to run all carriers + the boats are old and so are the air wings. They will have Carriers. Its not going to be 11.
3/ The F35 debacle will bite deep. In the days ahead when you retire Harrier fully, and most of your 3/4gen, you are left with a malfunctioning 5th crippled by vendor and supply chain monsters.
4/ The new programs like NGAD - are going to have ongoing funding crisis (Thats already the case).
5/ Very large parts of US defense and mil structure will have to end/be retired. And many will not have funded replacement.
6/ US shipbuilding is already at crisis point. Its going to get worse before it gets better.
7/ There will be a large drawdown and ongoing cuts to people, systems, programs, as debt repayment overtakes defense spend (This is already happening).
Debt is now the enemy the US has to defeat, and it needs to defeat it prior to further spending or expansion. If spend and debt keeps rising, the cut back later will be larger/deeper.
You would think that fighter drones would be the way forward?
They could be faster and cheaper...
Modern procurement: the replacement is much more expensive than what it replaces. It's far more capable too, but it's still more expensive. It's Huxley's Centrifugal Bumble Puppy, endlessly repeated.
I dunno. Media plays a lot of games with this stuff and really engrains some "impressions" which lack perspective.
F-14's are arguably the first 4th gen aircraft. And they cost more per unit than F-35's, and more per flight hour over the long haul as well (inflation adjusted for both).
The main problem is that the US economy isn't what it used to be.
@@kathrynck I don't think the media are central to this problem. The systems become ever more capable, resource hungry, and consequently expensive. In theory the user could choose a less capable option (ie, equal to the thing you're replacing) built with the latest tech and it would be less expensive. But the end user usually wants the latest capability with the latest tech (particularly in the military), so the resource / cost spiral continues. In my experience the main role played by the media is as non-expert targets for hype.
@@Splattle101 I think the choosing of what features to include or not, are based on significant changes to the 'game theory' of it's effectiveness in 1v1 combat. And they did an excellent job on the F-35. It's relatively equal to the F-22 in threat projection, while being drastically more versatile, massively greater force-multiplier effect, having more range, similar payload, and costing 1/3 as much per unit, and 1/2 as much per flight hour.
The problem isn't that the proposed $35M plane ended up costing $80M ...that just lines up with the purchasing power of the US dollar from then till now. The problem is that the purchasing power of the dollar has become so poor. Because a whole generation of economists and politicians treated QE like mana from heaven, with little regard for it's downsides.
But yes, as a replacement for the F-16, it is more costly. Then again, the F-16 is (and always was) fairly limited. A sound argument could've been made for just getting more F-15's instead. Particularly vs F-16A's and pre-block 70 F-16C's. The F-16 did eventually mature into a pretty good 4th gen, but not until late in it's production. And F-15's line up just under the overall cost of F-35's with maintenance.
The 35's R&D really was something of a boondoggle. And parts cost is somewhat complicated by international supply chains (wouldn't hurt to alternative bid some parts out domestically). But considering it's 3 different aircraft really, it wasn't half bad. And the result is crazy potent.
In the 50's 60's and 70's, when "planes were cheap" they weren't really cheap. The US was just far wealthier.
@@kathrynck I agree that planes were never cheap. However, I think the challenge is going to be finding the 'cheaper' fighter that can be produced en masse. Mass is critical as soon as the rate of operations steps up: a small fleet of super fighters that can't maintain sufficient persistence in the AO is not a credible war fighting force. If the super fighters are too expensive to produce in numbers, you need an alternative. It sounds to me as if that's what they're seeking, and they've made it plain the 'mass' solution is not the F-35.
Of course, it's also possible there've been other developments that have caused them to reconsider some fundamental assumptions, and all this is beside the point.
@@Splattle101 I think a "high-low mix" is ideal. From a potency-per-dollar standpoint anyway.
That's kind of what the USAF already has though. F-35's at high, and F-15/16's at low. I could see buying Grippen-E's if some of the older planes are simply wearing out. Rather than developing an all-new aircraft to be a grippen-E-like plane.
Just bear in mind that 1200 F-35's + 1200 grippens would _Not_ be as effective as 2400 F-35's. You'd need a LOT more grippens to make it a high-low mix of equal or greater combat potency. So that "savings" margin would get a lot thinner than it might seem.
F-15EX's offer a lot of economics though, and they _are_ buying that. Although in pretty limited numbers.
I'm always waiting for your presentations and you have never ever disappointed me in any ways. I like your videos and not just because of the knowledge i can acquire watching them but also the unique style you have. Thank you for that and keep up the good work. I usually don't write comments but in this case imho the point of the whole US MIC is nothing but shoveling the public money to private pockets, trying to make stories up for defending the undefendable, producing weapons that are much less capable that they should be. The main goal is spending the government's (i.e. the people) money like there is no tomorrow and make the MICs masters even richer.
Thank you Gus❤ The US air force has always taken a “Triggers Broom” approach to the F-16 ( any other Del-boy fans out there?)
My friend. Doesn’t this requirement sound a lot more like the Grippen E?
Gripen E doesn't have stealth.
@@shaider1982Oh yeah? Look behind you
- The Gripen
@@shaider1982 They rely on EW, but the size and capacity to rough field means that mission initiation gains a nice advantage, offering a small increase in survivability during certain missions.
@@Stumpy1234 yeah, it's been described as being oriented with stealth as the A10 is with its guns. Plus, it's the cheapest plane that can supercruise with an AA load. But with what the US intends to fly in, there maybe circumstances baked-in stealth is needed.
@@honeybadgerbomb4469 Typhoon pilots supposedly found that out the hard way during excercises.
I totally understand...AI and drone technology is very important in changing future air wars but they have so many risks and vulnerabilities that planning and risk mitigation is critical to success.
The USAF is a total full not to pick up and take The Textron scorpion, as a light fighter. This plane is amazing.
It is too flat on the wings.
It needs to be pointy.
Flat is not scary.
Pointy is scary.
This will put a smile
on the faces of the enemy.
I suspect the biggest problem is that it's slow. Just because it's not heavily armed, doesn't imply it shouldn't be fast. But I agree that there is a place for this type of plane in border interdiction, patrol, and state-side response. I could see it being used in certain off-the-book type missions due to its range and twin engine.
- subsonic.
- "marginally stealthy ...sorta"
- not IR stealthy
- designed for low level ground attack in a world full of IR guided anti-aircraft tools
- nonextant BVR capability
- limited range
- very limited internal payload capacity
It's not that the A-10 needs "updating". It's that the A-10's entire role was obsolete 20-30 years ago, unless you have a large number of very cheap and disposable pilots in a warehouse somewhere.
Even in Desert Storm, some 35 years ago, it was moved away from the front lines to let F-16's do those sorties, because it as just too vulnerable. And that wasn't even against near-peer. Giving it a lower RCS does nothing to fix it, when it's main threat is IR based.
What you need for CAS is a supersonic aircraft which can fly above MPADS reach, be stealthy enough to avoid "a large percentage" of A2AD problems encountered at higher altitude, and with a great avionics suite which can allow it to see which hand a target is picking their nose with from 45,000 ft, while an SDB-2 quietly slides down to them. Which exists...
The "Close" in close air support does _NOT_ refer to any particular need to fly a plane into a hornet's nest of ground fire, where even an AK-47 and some luck can do damage. The "close" refers to the placement of the ordinance, in close proximity to friendly ground forces. In 1970's tech, that required a Mk 1 eyeball, and MPADS weren't around. But it's not 1970 anymore.
@@kathrynck The A10's big selling point was its tank-destroyer fire, and its survivability to AA. It can take manpad hits and get home. That's a big plus for pilot roster. But at the costs per unit, as you note, manpads may attrit capable units too quickly, under current designs, when other mission requirements must also be met. That, however, could suggest not moving away from the A10, but instead going All A10. Give up hypersonic craft, and depend on maneuverability/power at low speeds, EW, terrain, and the capacity to soak damage.
@@up4open I disagree. I think the A-10 would have been "brilliant" in vietnam... but is a waste of resources in a 1990+ near peer conflict. The USAF has been trying to retire it for 30 years, but congress keeps getting in the way "because BRRRRR".
The problem with the "cheap, reliable, simple" design philosophy, is that you end up making an aircraft which is approaching obsolescence as the paint is still drying on the airframe.
Also, the gun damages the airframe, and doesn't hit it's target super often.
Pre-MPADS, in a 1970's combat space? Sure, I like it (especially the shark-grin decal). Post MPADS though? It's a cavalry unit.
Can it "absorb" MPADS hits? I mean, it can try to. It does absorb damage better than most aircraft. But that's a very sub-optimal scenario. It's not a "flying tank", despite the big gun. It's a flying big gun, with a little bit of redundancy, a few armor plates in places, and 2 engines spaced far enough apart to likely not take each other out after being hit. It's about as durable as an F-15, but you don't exactly fly an F-15 directly into ground fire, not "on purpose" anyway.
A-10 is a pro wrestler with white hair who doesn't know they're only damaging their legacy by continuing to wrestle loooong after their prime. I'd rather remember the plane fondly for what it 'was' than send living pilots out in it.
If we could find a necromancer to reanimate zombie pilots for it, it would be a lot more interesting to keep in service. Or, being less silly, a big black box full of silicon in the cockpit instead of a pilot. It would make an interesting UCAV. Frankly though, even UCAV's dont like to go 500 ft over guys with weapons.
I think a lot of people are drawing some questionable conclusions from the war in Ukraine ...because it's a strange scenario where neither side has the capacity to establish air superiority, and that kinda warps the scenario. But the value of drones, and the extraordinarily high risk to close-attack aircraft (A-10 or Su-25, and attack helicopters) around MPADS, are pretty solid take-aways.
@@kathrynck If no contact was ever to be made with enemy forces, discussions of being 500ft could make sense as an insult. As I read it, there isn't a choice in every situation, so decide in advance what you want at that range when you can decide.
What Americans truly try to hide is 32 Trillion of deficit!🤣
We know where those $32 trillion is and they’ll pay us back. Trump will go after them.
All looks/ sounds prity logical.....🙂🍀
Great analysis. However, I tend to disagree with your statement about "the US Navy being fascinated with hardware" and "..trying to overcome its tactical deficiencies with engineering improvements". Look no further than the Vietnam war to see that, unlike the US Air Force, the US Navy viewed its poor performance in air-to-air combat against the Vietnam People's Air Force as a problem of doctrine and not one of technology (like the Air Force did). As a result, they instituted the Navy Fighter Weapons School (aka "Top Gun") and gave their pilots and RIOs the proper and adequate training in air-to--air combat, while the Air Force concentrated on improving the technology of their air-to-air missiles, radars and ECM equipment (which, btw, the US NAVY also did to an extent). As a result, the US Navy's score in air-to-air combat increased dramatically during the second dart of the war, while the Air Force's stayed basically the same.
It is not my statement, it comes from a book which is used at Annapolis.
Ha ha.I remember when the F35 was selected in the 90's and it was going to be a cheap fighter. About $35M. What a joke. No aircraft manufacturer in the US is interested in building anything cheap. Not to mention that the US has a shortage of engineers, a shortfall in industrial capacity and so on. The good ole days are gone.
Well it does saves money. It's cheaper then both F-22 and F-15. But it almost cost as much as F-15. Which is ridiculous for a lightweight fighter to cost almost as as a heavyweight fighter. And F-15 generates more sorties. Because she is not a hanger queen.
@@jg3000 Life of F15 is 20,000 hrs vs 7000 for F35. So even though the Aquisitions cost is similar, F35 much more expensive to operate.
And a surplus of " gbt+"
F35 now is not that expensive to built.
$35M in 1990 dollars is about $84M in 2024 dollars. (buying power of the dollar 1990 vs 2024 at 1 to 2.41)
It's actually on track. (though the development process was overly long, and overly problematic/expensive)
The reason the U.S. built the century series of fighters was that war planners expected either to deter or fight the Soviets in a hot war scenario in the immediate future, within the ten-year timeframe. Eisenhower built the U.S. interstate highways large enough for military aircraft to land if air bases were destroyed by Soviet attack. He privately authorized the storage of chemical weapons in places like Japan. He delegated nuclear launch authority to individuals lower in the chain of command, including General LeMay of the U.S. Strategic Air Command (SAC) and even some colonels in control of air defense nuclear weapons. The Soviets knew that, if they tried anything, they would get as good as they got. That's why we're all still alive.
The same thing is happening again; they are getting ready for another world war.
Let's pray that, as they did in the 50s and 60s, cooler heads will prevail.
I think this "light" fighter and NGAD are the same thing.
The fastest way to advance is to get away from the endless "mission creep". NGAD will be highly specialised like the F-117 and not built in huge number probably by Skunkworks. I think the "light" refers to the number of mission types it is expected to do.
I think they've already demonstrated 6th gen ability on F-18 EF.
F/A-18E/F cost US$66.0 million while F-35A cost US$83.0 million
@@jg3000 6th gen fighter qualities have not been defined. Any 6th gen wanna be is just that. Northrop calls B21 6th because it comes after the 5th gen B2. What innovation does B21 have? Smaller and cheaper. Lame. Like Apple calling the next gen iPhone next gen because it has a new color and a different size.
@@GenghisX999 They've used loyal wingman on it. They put a pod on it where it can see stealth aircraft from BVR. It can't shoot. But if you have two jets with pods it can shoot and kill. It's thought to be first sight, first shot. Stealth aircraft would have the same problems with other stealth aircraft. It maybe testing for 6th generation. But the tech trickles down.
Standard US practice. When they introduce something new, its successor is already in the works, and they have a concept for the successor's successor.
Too many other comments to see if mine is redundant... but, "Light Fighter, cheap and small, losses accepted more easily", maybe shorter lifetime expectancy... Sounds awfully similar to the F-16 concept from 50 years ago, which turned into something much more than what the designers envisioned as a cheap dogfighter. As to losses, has the U.S. ever been comfortable with a design which is essentially considered expendable? And, how many U.S. aircraft have been put through lifetime extension programs? I just feel like we've been down this road, and it never seems to turn out the way it is originally envisioned.
You have already seen the Northrop gruman vangard
Sentinel and all other icbm/hypersonics should be under Space Force, not Air Force. It's stupid that nuclear budgets can eat up into air defence budgets
I think the major reason for the proposal (and it is just at such level ATM) of a light plane spring forth from the consideration that given the slow pace of F-35 expected production (150 planes annually but only 56 for the USAF) it would be necessary 8-10 years just to replace the legacy planes actually present in the Active Service (and also this once the problem with the increment Three would be solved), let's figure the ones in the ANG (also the F-15EX should go there not in the first line).
The Ukraine conflict has demonstrated that drones are the path forward. Very few manned aircraft are needed. Thousands of inexpensive AI swarm based drones are more effective than NGAD.
They are fighting in trenches in Ukraine exactly because drones DON'T replace aircrafts.
@@neutronalchemist3241 Trench warfare is used to provide protection from the enemy's small arms fire and provide shelter from artillery. Russian air assaults have primarily struck critical Ukrainian weapons factories and railways used to supply the front.
Light weight, low cost concepts always sound good, after all the new bosses with the “new” idea are smarter than the old ones … right. Then there is a realization that cost is proportional to performance.
Well, 25% cumulative inflation over the last 4 years is a factor here. It makes a $24m UCAV platform into a $30m UCAV platform. That's not a "Cost overrun", that's just the harsh reality of mismanaged economy.
The "century series light fighter" idea is mostly nonsense (yes I know there's a couple big names behind it, but not necessarily smart names). By the time you R&D, build out a factory line & subcontractor chain, produce, build up depot logistics, and have an operational aircraft "to save money", you've spent ALL of your saved money. And have driven up the cost of F-35's flight hour cost through weakened economy of scale & divided depot logistics focus. Then it has to compete with a much better economy of scale of the F-35 due to international sales. It's basically "Lets spend a bunch of money to save money ...maybe, sorta". And sure it sounds cheaper, until you need all new ones in 10 years, and then "oh, look at that, now we gotta re-do it, time to blow another 200billion..." I'll be impressed when someone lays out a rational basis for the idea, which isn't supported purely by "CEO Jargon & Catchphrases", or luddite mafia koolaid.
It's cheaper (by a lot) to actually build-out the F-35 maintenance depot backbone, than it is to build yet another fighter.
They need a replacement for the F-22, because the F-22 are too few. And despite spending 80-90 million on each of them for a SLEP++, they still lack a few key features found in the F-35. Also, NGAD needs to have more range, speed, payload, and altitude, in order to maximize it's role in contrast to the F-35, UCAV, and F-15/18 options. They really need about 220 aircraft, but anything less than 245 would be short sighted (see: F-22's problems stemming from a run of just 187).
The Navy needs basically the same thing. Extreme range, speed, altitude, and payload. Basically both the Navy and AF want a supercruising, stealth, F-111. Not something literally looking like the F-111, but filling that sort of role. It needn't be a maneuverability acrobat really. The ability to regain energy quickly (overwhelming thrust ratio) would be useful in BVR engagements, but it doesn't need the tightest turn rate in the air or anything. Just the ability to change direction & altitude fairly quickly, and regain energy 'at will'. That rather supports adaptive cycle engines, which would also help with the range.
The lack of a horizontal tail keeps getting talked about, but frankly using small-ish all-moving vertical stabilizers which are made of carbon fiber would offer much the same benefit vs longwave. But lateral TV can do it too. Tomatoes/Tomahtoes. A small aircraft doesn't achieve any of the program goals though. It'll be big, with 2 AC engines, a big bay, and lots of internal space for fuel (blended wing-body), with an RCS profile which pays closer attention to long wave and thermals. Probably some of them with a DEW, although I think it would be more ideal for that to be a modular component which fills the bay, and can be removed/swapped/etc.
OR... it may just not get built. The economy is pretty messed up. Or... it may just get slow-rolled. That's much easier to do before you enter production, and don't have 40,000 people waiting for their paycheck and something productive to do.
I wouldn't rule out some kind of light weight, unmanned hive-minded fighter.
Not being able to make new F-22s is VERY VERY VERY stupid.
Biggest f-up since the Avro Arrow...
No. F-22s while impressive are in a sense - Outdated. - This not to say they are not cutting edge tools - but the purpose they were built for is not really needed anymore. F-35, regardless of the cost/history, is far more relevant to a modern conflict.
More than that - the future of warfare is going to be down to mass swarms of drones that act both defensively and offensively - Having high cost - high tech manned planes is important for several reasons, but they cannot face mass swarms of defensive drones. None of the planes can carry enough missiles.
@TheJared030858 An F-22 is the air dominance fighter of the modern day. Not of the near future.
And what's new about that?
What I find interesting is that the Koreans are essentially doing what the US should have done - used the F-22 as the base for a cheaper, simpler system (the KF-21)
It may very well be that we have determined that a hugely advanced replacement is not either necessary or practical. It may be that the Chinese and Russian "advanced" aircraft are really not so advanced as we'd thought and the NGAD is massively expensive overkill that will not allow us to field enough aircraft to be effective in a real world air war. The Air Force may be realizing that, like in WWII, quantity has a quality all it's own and that we just need to field a replacement that is superior to the current enemy aircraft but not so technically advanced as what we thought was previously necessary.
Or maybe there's no much money left after the maintaining of american ageing assets
Oh boy, who will come up with first 6th gen❌️ even cooler 5th ✅️ fighter jet ?
American NGAD ? Russian Mig 41, Turkish Anka-4 ? Or a some sort of weird Chinese ufo ???
This is what the LCS was meant to be.
Failed.
Previously it has been done, F16.
Perhaps the problem is - how long it takes. New people, more meddling.
I know "the leopard"...the Story is placed in Italy (Sicily). In the Movie they say somthing along the lines "We must change everything, so it can stay as it is".
I don't see the century fighter analogy. The F-106 built on the F-102, that's true, but then the F-106 went on to serve for over 30 years and it didn't particularly influence the next generation. Apart from that example, there was no real lineage and they weren't thought of as a cheaper alternative to something else at the time - each was a leading edge design. If anything the late 40's/early 50's is a better analogy - the F-80 led to the F-94, the F-84 led to the F-84F and the RF-84, the F9F Panther led to the F-9 Cougar, the F-86 led to the F-100 etc etc. Each was only in service for a short time and was replaced by its developed successor. Digital Century series seems to be more of a convenient soundbite to me.
I agree it seems to be a cultural thing - only way forward is seen as throwing new technology to resolve an existing issue without much attempt to understand then simplify it eliminate those issues. I still work in a large American mnc ...
A big part of the general armed forces cost problem is just the fact that it’s a democracy. What I mean is - a lot of military contracting is somewhat intentionally inefficient. The goal is to create enough earmarks and handouts in various different senators states to get them to vote for it.
The disastrous Boeing space program is also reflective of this. It’s not all Boeings fault. The gov mandated they use parts from the space shuttle and many other non-performance based requirements - to keep unionized workers in supply chains all over the place employed.
How do you have a new Century Series with only 3 manufacturers? Especially when one of them is dysfunctional. The Century Series worked because there was an abundance of competition, now there's almost none.
*It all boils down whether the sensor fusion and data link technology can be miniaturized - and cooled - to fit the F-5E airframe* - so to speak (about 750.000 USD per unit in 1965 - when the F-X program for the F-15 began... to counter an 'air superiority' MiG-25 that never existed).
*[context: in 2003, the Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle X-47B completed it's carrier operation trials toward an automated strike and tanker platform without flaws, in 2013 QF-16 achieved remote flight operation* , turning a 4th generation F-16 fighter into a combat drone wingman... however, no serial production was procured...]
However, that is exactly what the 'Joint Strike Fighter' program was exactly supposed to achieve: *limited 5th generation **_features_** in **_a lightweight_** , AFFORDABLE airframe* - with *_AFFORDABILITY_* as the central term that is emphasized in every document and article on the program... that _all_ Transatlantic chauvinists henceforth continue to interpret as 'a sTrOnKa F-22A' (twin engine, larger internal payload, faster, higher ceiling, more range, smaller RADAR cross section = as an air superiority fighter/interceptor superior in all metrics)...
The Government Accountability Office had tracked the JSF program and figured that *_even if the scheduled 1500 additional F-35 units will not be ordered as contracted - all services will run a deficit of up to 6 billion USD in the 2030s_* due to the technical impossibility of further r educing operating and maintenance costs ('F-35 SUSTAINMENT Enhanced Attention to and Oversight of F-35 Affordability Are Needed' 2021, 'F-35 AIRCRAFT DOD and the Military Services Need to Reassess the Future Sustainment Strategy' 2023, 'F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER Program Continues to Encounter Production Issues and Modernization Delays' 2024 - by the way while NATO propagates that Russia lacks sanctions assembly parts, in contradiction to studies that identify solely the space industry as not yet 100 percent autark, *nobody talks about a US dependence of low-tech Chinese supply parts and the effects of COVID on US supply chains* ... - 'F-35 Sustainment: Costs Continue to Rise While Planned Use and Availability Have Decreased' 2024 - *the reason why the F-35 is at low 50 percent mission capability rates is directly linked: the services procure the aircraft, but they avoid to fly them in order to save the operational costs* ... which strongly resembles the 'Kaiserliche Marine' of the German Empire in 1914, most advanced, best trained as transitioning from mere coastal defense toward pressing the Royal Navy for concessions, but a titanic fiscal burden and without operational effect in a European land war apart from submarine commerce raiding... - all with the US national debt service approaching trillions of dollars in the same time frame at an inflation rate above 5 percent - that is more than twice what the EU once considered acceptable/desirable before the US financial crash of 2008 did away with all economic textbook regulation, having Central Banks buy up fraudulent market assets).
RAND offers a study on possible factors of the rise of aircraft procurement costs at 7 percent above inflation per year *('Why has the Cost of Fixed-Wing Aircraft Risen ? A Macroscopic Examination of in the Trends of US Military Aircraft Costs over the past several Decades' 2008)* - completely in contradiction to the concept of 'economy of scale' where prices go down with increased productivity in assembly and mass production for export due to an ever increasing bulk of high-end technological requirements by the customer - also known as 'building the perfect plane/supersoldier/Wunderwaffe'...
For the US, *I commend to order the US Air Force to submit to the US Army as **_a mere Army Aviation service branch_** , supporting ground operations* while maintaining some assets within a strategic Space Command - mirroring the Russians.
That will make a more pragmatic and realistic US Army service culture the driver of procurement...
The reality is already that the combined industrial bases of the European Union and the United States will never again reach higher productivity than an economically integrating Eurasia, making Western aircraft appear relatively to Eastern aircraft like theirs appeared to ours in the Korean War - with the MiG-15 as a mass produced interceptor that could best US straight wing jet designs when applying circumspect tactics and operations.
('When that Day comes')
th-cam.com/video/RQInBhDCma4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Xk6dMLIxIkBZtesb
Military procurement has forgotten the basics of warfair. LOGISTICS LOGISTICS LOGISTICS Little else matters when you can't field a credable force that can't sustain combat for longer than a week.
We can pop up a Burger King and Starbucks in any shithole desert in a day. We've got logistics figured out.
True, logistics… which fighter in the west has the absolute smallest logistical footprint? Fast turnaround, small crew, easy service and maintenance, actually prefer a parking lot in a pine forest instead of an air force base. Extremely easy to upgrade… ;)
I mean the f-16 is still pretty light. it's the lightest fighter in 50 years right? 8300kg?
Well my theory is very simple...
They started with an arms race of investing more and building better fighters, in turn accepting the rising costs of doing so.
That arms race worked all the way up until the Soviet Union collapse, but Iran did a gamechanger that didn't become obvious until the Ukraine conflict.
Rather than accepting the rising cost of having a survivable craft in the sky or advanced missile that can get there unnoticed and unchallenged.
Make them cheap as dirt, and build millions of them, starting the era of the small and hard to hit drone.
Shifting the cost where even firing a fancy missile at them, costs the attacker more than the defender, even when they successfully shoot down said drone, winning the war of attrition.
Now we are seeing the West having to scramble to adapt to the Alibaba / Wish / Temu powered cheapness of the weapons, trying to make something equally cheap and capable to stem the newly discovered "vulnerability"
I think the drone revolution is in full swing and with it taken into account the odds are that the aircraft families the USAF and USN want are now going to be very very different. A light fighter that is optional piloted and used for pilot training etc, The F-35 with extra control systems to command drones and the PCA likely a 2-seater in order to have a drone operator commanding the light fighters. The B-21 is likely to also be a drone command ship in many cases.
Just build a modernized full-spec F-20 Tigershark!
F-35 was also going to be 'a similar cheap replacement for F-16s' but at the end it became one of the most expensive aircrafts. I don't think US can produce a cheap frame, even if they strip everything even bare bones would cost more than similar platforms from other countries..
I'm using the JBL 305 MkII studio monitors and you seem to be using the same (5:06) as well 😜!! Unless it's the 306 or 308 MkII...
They are 305 too!
What are your thoughts on the Model 437 Vanguard?
According to the thumbnail, the USAF is hiding the BAE Tempest? 😂
Excellent plan America, you've made the right choice!
Positives - concepts, cost, strategies are being debated before a decision is finalized. I hope they get it right…..the future is on the line.
5 and half minute wait for info is wild. How long did u just read an add to me?
The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.